Impermanence gives rise to suffering? If this is true, the reverse logic must also be true: Permanence gives rise to happiness. Take a moment to evaluate the credibility of these 2 statements. Recall back the times when you were down with prolonged illness or some other ordeal which seemed like eternity. Relatively speaking, the duration of our suffering back then appeared to be very long. So much so that we felt as if we were suffering ‘permanently’. Now look back at the statement ‘permanence gives rise to happiness’. How can something that is tormenting us ‘permanently’ give us happiness? Aren’t we hope for a brief moment of ‘impermanence’ to our rescue? So how can impermanence always gives rise to suffering? In this case, impermanence did in fact give rise to happiness when our problems are resolved. Imagine those hell beings and pretas who are suffering for millions of years. The duration of our perceived suffering is NOTHING compared to theirs.
Let us contemplate deeper into the issue of wrong translation of Anicca. When our Buddha was still a Bodhisattva, He spent 6 years undergoing very tough austerity practices which did not bring him any enlightenment. Eventually, the Buddha attained enlightenment under the Bodhi tree. Which implies that everything should be ‘permanent and happy’ the day Buddha attained enlightenment, right?! But wait. Look around us, what do you observe? Traffic is moving, people are ageing and suffering, children are growing up, flora and fauna are arising and perishing…cosmic activities are happening out there in outer space…our own anti-bodies are fighting against harmful bacteria in our bodies to keep us healthy…changes are everywhere. What are all these? Impermanence at work! No one moment is the same. If Anicca implies impermanence, then it does not make sense for the Bodhisattva to have attained enlightenment and became a Buddha. Because no one, absolutely no one including a Buddha, can alter the comic law of impermanence. If a Buddha could do that, the day He attained enlightenment would mean impermanence has to cease. Why? Because He would have control over impermanence to end suffering. What would be a result of this? It would imply that you and me and everyone else in this universe would have become enlightened just like the Buddha! But we all know this is not true. So, what actually went wrong? The only logical and sensible explanation is that Anicca has been wrongly translated to mean impermanence. The Buddha had not, and would not be able to control impermanence, just like any other being.