“This existence of ours is as transient as autumn clouds.
To watch the birth and death of beings is like looking at the movements of a dance.
A lifetime is like a flash of lightning in the sky, rushing by, like a torrent down a steep mountain.” --Buddha

IMPERMANENCE The Buddha saw life as a running stream. A trickle running inexorably downhill whose path is comprised of a series of unpredictable twists and turns which join together to create an illusion of steady flow when in reality every pebble causes a ripple. Ultimately the stream will constantly change and alter its course. The stream we see today is most assuredly different then it appeared yesterday and far different than it may appear tomorrow. Such is life; moving from cause to effect, from one state to another constantly changing and evolving from one moment to the next – impermanent.

Buddhism teaches that there are three main truths which must be mastered in order to exist in this world; Impermanence (anicca), Suffering (dukkha), and Insubstantiality (anattaa). It is said that our existence can only be understood if these three basic facts are comprehended not only logically, but in confrontation with one’s own experience (Thera 2006). How might one’s individual experiences allow us to understand the Way of Buddhism? As part of his journey to becoming a Buddhist monk, Kamo-no-Chomei, believed minimization through impermanence was the correct path to finding the Way. His rationale being; to live simply, devoid of material trappings in the middle of nowhere was the ideal method to practice impermanence. Despite his extreme efforts, ultimately ending his life in a tiny ten by ten hut, he realized that even the megerist comforts create attachment. His stark realization was clearly exemplified when he stated, “The way I love this hut is itself attachment… to be attached to the quiet and serene must likewise be a burden” (Chomei pg.76). The insight that Chomei shows begs the question; can attachment be avoided in our attempt to achieve a state impermanence?
Though he may have believed that downsizing and living off of the necessities was the right decision, towards the end even Chomei himself questions whether or not impermanence is possible without attachment. Impermanence means change and that nothing is meant to exist in a stagnant state. “There is no greater mistake than to be afraid of change, and yet many intelligent people dread it and cling on to what is customary” (Emmet Fox; Life Is Change). Impermanence is a law of growth, and growing is similarly a law of life. Though impermanence is important to our growth, one must ask if drastic deviations from societal norms create the ideal that we are looking for in our growth of becoming closer to the Way? In modern times, as many live similar to Chomei with just the barest of necessities, can happiness be achieved while living in the same place and manner for long periods without in some way becoming attached?
The Buddha understood the complexities of the coexistence of sorrow and happiness. He stressed the impermanence of both these states of existence and warned that even in our happiest moments we should always be aware of the fact that it is not permanent. Everything is subject to change and this is the unstable nature of all things we experience and the definition of dukkha or suffering. Therefore, until we find the truth and we grasp what is necessary to achieve lasting happiness, our internal feelings of dissatisfaction will never subside. “Buddha taught we must not be attached” (Chomei pg. 76). Contrarily, in present day society many people live well beyond their means. They tend to purchase and consume in abundance in a futile pursuit to achieve some manner of happiness for themselves through the acquisition of material possessions. Unfortunately, this reckless pursuit of consumerism doesn’t directly correlate to the notion that one will achieve happiness. In fact, observation has consistently proven that one tends to become less happy when they are faced with the reality that their superfluous purchases did not magically create the happiness they had hoped to find. Chomei further queried, “For whom do they fret themselves? What can be so pleasing to the eye?” when he sees those he knows purchasing “transitory” homes (Chomei pg. 33). We are trapped in the idea that more and better possessions create happiness, when in reality we become slaves to our desires and the maintenance that is needed to fulfill them. Through this never ending cycle we have lost the ability to recognize that it is not the possessions themselves, but rather the act of pursuit and acquisition of material goods to which we have truly become attached.

Starting in the early 1990’s GDP, (Gross Domestic Product), in America increased continually for nearly ten consecutive years. Consumerism reached its pinnacle and the euphemism or embellishment, (either could be correct), of “The American Dream” was roaring with reckless abandon. However, following the 2000 dot-com bubble burst society was forced to re-access its values. It’s no coincidence that a movie like “Fight Club” was released in 1999, giving us an alternative path. As Tyler Durden says; “You’re not your job. You’re not how much money you have in the bank. You’re not the car you drive. You’re not the contents of your wallet.”(CITE). All we have to do is look at the average American’s accumulated debt to realize this incertitude needs correction. Wealth is becoming less correlated with happiness and even the wealthy have taken on architecture and design coined “minimalism.” You could say Chomei’s book is the “in thing” right now. Unfortunately, and with great disdain, this homogenously implies people have to figure out who they really are. Surges in self-help books and gravitation towards religion and philosophy have been the result; unearthing a plethora of fallacies. The human condition isn’t wired to be rich and happy or poor and sad. This is what’s known in the philosophical world as “false dilemma.” Equating two alternative statements being the only possible options when in reality there’s a unique option for everybody. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is commonly the most common argument against minimalism. This is a fault ridden cause and effect argument that’s basis is “x” happened then “y” happened, so “x” caused “y.” Many people use this while looking at affluent individuals that seem to have a high rate of happiness. What they fail to comprehend is the deep introspection and determination it takes to achieve their perceived success. There is an old saying: “the road to happiness is the journey not the destination.” Maybe these affluent individuals aren’t happy because of the insatiable monetary rewards but rather the undeniable, intangible, and most importantly invisible spiritual rewards of their individual journey. Both concepts of false dilemma and Post hoc ergo propter hoc are unraveling as authors like Chomei unscramble the human condition and define seeking material goods as a void in our character. Many alternative brands and financial options continue to consume our lives in light of Tyler Durden’s classic quote: “The things you own end up owning you” (CITE).

In conclusion, the concepts taught by the Buddha in regard to impermanence are paramount to the core beliefs of Buddhism. Only by becoming self-aware and gaining an understanding through careful observation and action may one discover true happiness and liberation from the sorrow that shadows our human existence.