joe..it stands to reason that ALL change...otherwise no evolution... of course when we die we go to another "life"...what ever that maybe... no use fearing this...as it will happen anyway. regardless and rightly so. part of the process of change....
and may i add nothing is as it seems... merle Iain, I think the buck stops at one change. I don't think that the nature of change, or the tendency to change, is open to change. Change, as we see it, is a process, not a thing. Does it have a second derivative? Maybe. But I dunno with respect to what variable. ;-) Do processes change? Not fundamental ones, no. I make bold to say. I think change is merely a constant, one of the dependable features of the physical universe as humans perceive it. So, it may be a feature of human experience, and/or the way humans experience. And it does not change. We have no right to say how it may appear to non-Human observers, because we have no non-Human experience. Seen from another perspective -- say, that of a Buddha, or other awakened (human) person -- it may look the same, or perhaps different. Only the awakened person can say. But, we have the TEACHING of the Buddha, purportedly, which runs that one of the marks of existence is Impermanence. But note that the Buddha's teaching is not knowledge and is not philosophy: it is meant to affect our behavior and our practice, so that we will wake up. The Buddhadharma is not "Information": it is a Goad. A medical Prescription. It must be taken and ingested, *not* cogitated about. Impermanence is a little more comprehensive a topic than "change", I think. For example, a tree may CHANGE during all the years of its LIFE and growth; but, it is also impermanent: it can wind up as fuel in my wood stove this Winter, and NO tree-like trace of "it" will remain, not even tooth-picks, ...unless I make some. ;-) Humans change; and, we are also impermanent. Evidently! Even if there is an after-life, "we" would not subsist as Humans, but would have some other form. I won't speculate further, there. As he drank the hemlock, Socrates thought that "he" was going on to another life, and that is why he reasoned that he could face death without distress. The dialogue of Socrates' discussion with his disciples about this is in Plato's PHAEDO. ;-) To reach for a different metaphor, even if we don't fear "fear itself", we may still fear. --Joe > "iain" wrote: > > So the nature to change must itself be subject to the nature to change or > else we could not conjour up permanence from impermanence and vice versa?
