Impermanence and Permanence across Buddhist, Vedāntic, and DPV~ICRDAM Ontologies: Section 5.3 of (Vimal, 2025b).Volume 5.1
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
<rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in>Dear All,
In this post, we aim to address the long-standing debate between impermanence and permanence as found in Buddhism and Vedanta. We will explore this topic through the lens of DPV~ICRDAM (spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta, which corresponds to the science-based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism).
We would greatly appreciate your feedback.
Impermanence and Permanence across Buddhist, Vedāntic, and DPV~ICRDAM Ontologies: Reconciling Nirguṇa Brahman, Saguna Brahman, and the Heptagonal Cyclic Cosmology
Resolving Ontological Inconsistencies of Impermanence and Permanence: A Comparative Study of Buddhism, Vedānta, and DPV~ICRDAM Cosmology
Q. Address the issue of impermanence and permanence between Buddhist, Vedantic, and DPV~ICRDAM (spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta ~ (equivalent to) science-based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism) ontologies. As revealed in the uploaded file, there is a serious inconsistency between these three frameworks. Nirguna Brahman (NB) ~ pre-Big Bang Quantum vacuum field (preBB_QVF) is beyond space and time. Dual-aspect Saguna Brahman (DA_SB) ~ DA_PPU (psychophysical universe). DA_SB manifests from and returns to neutral NB. Therefore, SB is impermanent. In the Heptagonal Cyclic Cosmology (HCC) (Vimal, 2025b.§4.2.8)[i] of DPV~ICRDAM, NB is related to the states S1~S7 of cosmos (Brahmāṇḍa), and SB is related to States S2-S6 of Brahmāṇḍa (cosmos). The current universe is in State S4 of the cosmos, which is related to Lambda CDM. Buddhism claims a lack of inherent existence in SB and also NB. How do we resolve this issue?
5.3.1. Impermanence, Metatemporality, and the Heptagon: Reconciling Buddhist Emptiness, Vedāntic Ground, and DPV~ICRDAM
NB as Metatemporal Potentiality: A DPV~ICRDAM Resolution of Buddhist and Vedāntic Tensions
Below we directly address the inconsistency raised and give a clear resolution. We start with a short answer (one-paragraph synthesis), then provide a structured argument with numbered moves, a suggested HCC phrasing to resolve the tension, and a short list of concrete implications.
1. Short answer — synthesis (one paragraph)
The apparent contradiction dissolves once we (A) distinguish levels of discourse (ontological vs. phenomenological vs. methodological), (B) adopt DPV~ICRDAM’s precise dual-aspect metaphysics (where NB is a neutral, trans-categorical ground (beyond (transcends) space-time) and SB is a time-bound dual-aspect manifestation), and (C) reinterpret the Buddhist claim of “no inherent existence” (sunyatā / anatta) as a denial of independent intrinsic self-nature (svabhāva) rather than as an absolute denial of any ground-like functional role. On this reading: SB is impermanent (it is a manifested, temporally extended DAS: S2–S6) while NB is not “permanent” in ordinary temporal sense but is meta-temporal / trans-temporal (neither locatable inside time nor possessing svabhāva) — thus simultaneously compatible with Vedāntic apophatic descriptions of Brahman and with Buddhist anti-substantialist claims when those claims are read carefully as denying independent, intrinsic existence rather than denying all explanatory ground.
2. Detailed resolution
Move 1 — Clarify the equivocating term “permanent”
“Permanent” is used in at least three senses in the literature:
1. Temporal permanence (enduring through time, measurable duration).
2. Atemporal ground / trans-temporal status (beyond time; not subject to becoming or ceasing).
3. Intrinsic self-nature (svabhāva) — metaphysical independence from conditions.
Buddhism typically rejects (3) and also (1) for conditioned phenomena; Vedānta affirms (2) for Brahman [Q1. NB?]. DPV~ICRDAM holds SB as temporally impermanent (1) and NB as trans-temporal (2). Distinguishing these prevents equivocation. [Q2. In other words, all three frameworks accept (2) for NB.]
Move 2 — Read “no inherent existence” carefully
Buddhist sunyatā (emptiness) / anatta denies independent, self-subsistent being (svabhāva) of conditioned phenomena, and often extends skeptical analysis to any reified “ground” if it is posited as an independent substance. This is not necessarily a metaphysical eliminativism that forbids any pragmatic or explanatory ground that is dependently present (for instance, the dependent-arisen basis that makes phenomena appear). Thus, when Buddhism says “NB has no inherent existence,” it can be interpreted as denying NB as an independent, self-sufficient substance, while still allowing for an account that treats NB as a dependently-characterized neutral potentiality. That reading aligns with DPV~ICRDAM’s NB as neutral potentiality rather than a substantial, self-standing “thing.” (See above Section 5.1 analysis). [Q3. NB is neutral and fully symmetric at S1 of the cosmos with minimum entropy, maximum information, and without quantum fluctuations (QFs); so, it is unstable and hence goes through symmetry-breaking and phase-transition to DA_SB with QFs at S2 of the cosmos. Thus, it is unclear how NB can be dependently-characterized? However, all three frameworks seem to accept (2) for NB. ]
Move 3 — Use DPV~ICRDAM’s dual-aspect logical form to bridge
DPV~ICRDAM explicitly treats NB and SB as different formal roles within a single two-tier metaphysical picture:
- NB = neutral template / QVF (preBB_QVF; trans-temporal potentiality; not an occurrent spacetime entity).
- SB (DA_SB) = manifested dual-aspect states (DAS) that instantiate both s-aspect (proto-consciousness) and ns-aspect (physical/energetic structure) and occupy temporal states S2–S6. [Q4. In State S4, a conscious DAS has consciousness (CSEs) as s-aspect.]
Because NB is a template of potentiality that participates in dependent phase-transitions (NB → SB → NB), it is not an enduring temporal object (so Buddhist impermanence of conditioned things is respected), yet it also functions as the Vedāntic ground in an apophatic (neti-neti) sense. NB therefore satisfies Vedāntic demand for a non-changing referent while also satisfying the Buddhist prohibition on reified intrinsic existence (svabhāva), because NB’s “ground-ness” is dependently constituted [Q5. unclear: depedent of what? Is it dependent on symmetry breaking and then phase transition S1 → S2?] and apophatic.
Move 4 — Recharacterize “eternity” vs “metatemporal”
Replace the problematic label “permanent” with “metatemporal” for NB. “Metatemporal” means: not located in the manifold of temporal becoming (so not described by durations), yet participating as the potentiality that makes phase transitions possible. This avoids attributing temporal permanence to NB (which Buddhism would reject) while preserving the Vedāntic insight that there is an explanatory ground beyond change. DPV~ICRDAM’s heptagon (S1–S7) then reads: NB states (S1, S7) = metatemporal neutral reservoirs; SB states (S2–S6) = temporal DAS processes.
Move 5 — Treat “manifestation” as dependent co-origination
Model the NB→SB→NB cycle in HCC as a kind of conditioned, dependent co-origination [Q6: Is NB dependent on symmetry breaking and then phase transition S1 → S2?] at cosmological scale:
- NB contains potential templates (informational / phase templates).
- When cosmological parameters (temperature, symmetry breaking) reach threshold, a phase transition occurs (S1→S2) and SB (manifested DAS) arises.
- After the evolutionary arc (S2→S6) and cosmic die-off (S5), manifested QFs decohere and return to neutral QVF form (S6→S7→S1).
This locates impermanence where it belongs — in the manifested realm — and interprets NB’s “absence of becoming” as a functional reservoir of potentiality, not as a self-subsistent [existing independently] entity immune to dependent constitution. Thus the Buddhist assertion that “nothing inherently exists” is compatible with DPV~ICRDAM’s NB provided we read NB as apophatic, dependent, and meta-temporal.
3. Suggested wording you can paste into HCC / DPV~ICRDAM texts
Resolving Impermanence vs. Permanence.
In DPV~ICRDAM the terms ‘permanent’ and ‘impermanent’ must be assigned to distinct ontological roles. Saguna Brahman (DA_SB) — the manifest dual-aspect cosmos that occupies states S2–S6 in the HCC heptagon — is impermanent: it arises, changes, and dissolves in cosmological time. Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) — the neutral pre/post-cosmic quantum vacuum field (preBB_QVF / post_BF_QVF) represented by S1 and S7 — is metatemporal: it is not an entity in spacetime and therefore not temporally permanent; rather it is an apophatic [Neti-Neti: obtained through negation], dependently-characterized reservoir of potentiality that participates in phase transitions [Q7: Dependent on what?]. Under this description, Buddhist claims of “no inherent existence” apply as a rejection of independent svabhāva for all conditioned phenomena and for any supposed self-subsistent substance; DPV~ICRDAM’s NB avoids contradiction with Buddhism because NB is not posited as an independent substance but as a dependent, apophatic ground (cf. neti-neti). [Q8a: Neti-Neti principle will imply neither explicitly independent nor explicitly dependent, i.e., NB is beyond dependent-independent attribute. So, how to do you address this issue?] Thus HCC maintains both the Vedāntic insight of an explanatory non-occurring ground and the Buddhist insight that reified, independent being is illusory.
4. Concrete implications
- Empirical/Operational: Experiments or empirical models should never treat NB as a temporally enduring physical field measurable in lab time; instead, treat it as a model-level explanatory template (boundary/initial condition) for phase transitions.
- Philosophical: “Eternal” in Vedāntic language is better translated as “meta-temporal apophatic ground” to avoid metaphysical clash.
- Buddhist dialogue: Emphasize that Buddhism denies independent ontic status (svabhāva) — this denial is compatible with NB’s apophatic, dependently characterized status in DPV~ICRDAM. [Q8b: it is unclear: See Q8a]
- Soteriology / Practice: Psychological/phenomenological accounts of consciousness (s-aspect) remain compatible: awareness-reports that feel “unchanging” can be explained as features of the s-aspect of instantiated [represent as or by an instance/example] DAS (SB), not proofs of temporal permanence of NB.
5. Short list of empirical / textual moves to strengthen the claim
1. Cite contemplative phenomenology showing both traditions report “unchanging witness” phenomenology while using different metaphysical glosses (Buddhist report framed as empty, Vedāntic as Brahman). (Use Bodhi, Gethin for Buddhist phenomenology; Rambachan, Deutsch for Vedāntic accounts.)
2. Model NB as an apophatic [neti-neti] boundary condition in your cosmological formalism (HCC): include language that NB is not a spacetime field but a potentiality manifold whose informational templates instantiate DAS under phase transitions.
3. Argue conceptually that “lack of svabhāva” is compatible with being a non-occurring explanatory ground: it is not independent/self-subsistent but is a dependently [Q8c: unclear] constituted explanatory role — a formulation that both traditions can accept under different interpretive lenses.
5.3.2. Impermanence, Permanence, and Metatemporality across Traditions: Clarifying NB and SB across Buddhism, Vedānta, and DPV~ICRDAM
This Section clarifies the terms permanent, impermanent, metatemporal, and svabhāva (intrinsic self-nature) as used in Buddhist, Vedāntic, and DPV~ICRDAM frameworks, with examples and citations.
1. Buddhist Framework
- Impermanent (anitya): All conditioned dharmas (phenomena) arise and pass away; they lack enduring duration. (Gethin, 1998)
- No svabhāva (śūnyatā): All phenomena, including any supposed ground, lack independent intrinsic existence. Emptiness means dependent origination. (Bodhi, 2000; Siderits, 2003)
- Applied to NB/SB: Both NB and SB are interpreted as lacking inherent self-existence. Any claim of permanence is rejected unless reinterpreted as conventional designation.
Example sentence: “Just as a flame depends on fuel, wind, and wick [soft spun cotton threads], so too the cosmos depends on conditions and has no self-existing ground.”
2. Vedāntic Framework
- Permanent (nitya): Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) is eternal, unchanging, beyond time and space. (Thibaut, 1890–96; Rambachan, 1991)
- Impermanent: The manifested world (Saguṇa Brahman, SB) is subject to change, decay, and dissolution. (Deutsch, 1969)
- Applied to NB/SB: NB is conceived as the timeless, ultimate reality. SB is dependent, impermanent manifestation.
Example sentence: “Brahman is that which never changes, while the universe appears and disappears like waves upon the sea.”
3. DPV~ICRDAM Framework
- Impermanent: Dual-aspect Saguṇa Brahman (DA_SB), i.e., the psychophysical universe (DA_PPU), manifesting in HCC states S2–S6. These are time-bound and evolve. (Vimal, 2025b)
- Metatemporal: Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) corresponds to HCC states S1 and S7 (preBB_QVF and postBF_QVF). NB is not temporally permanent but beyond time — a neutral, apophatic potentiality. (Vimal, 2025b)
- No svabhāva reinterpretation: NB does not possess intrinsic, independent self-nature; it is an apophatic [neti-neti], dependently characterized potentiality that undergoes symmetry-breaking and phase transitions (i.e., NB depends on its complete symmetry, which is unstable and automatically goes through phase-transition from S1 (neutral NB with potential for quantum fluctuations (QFs)) to S2 (dual-aspect SB with realized QFs).
- [Q9: However, one could argue that NB’s svabhāva (self-nature) is that it is fully symmetric, neutral, unmanifested, has potentiality of everything and does not depend on anything. How do you address it?]
Example sentence: “NB is not a permanent entity inside time but a metatemporal potentiality, serving as the neutral ground from which SB arises and to which it returns.”
4. Synthesis of Terms
|
Term |
Buddhism |
Vedānta |
DPV~ICRDAM |
|
Impermanent |
All conditioned dharmas |
SB (manifested cosmos) |
SB (HCC states S2–S6) |
|
Permanent |
Denied (no svabhāva) |
NB (timeless Brahman) |
Not used — replaced by metatemporal |
|
Metatemporal |
Not standard term |
Implied in NB’s eternity |
NB (HCC states S1, S7; apophatic ground) |
|
No svabhāva |
All dharmas (NB, SB alike) |
SB only |
NB and SB reinterpreted as non-independent |
5.3.3. Q1–Q9 Resolved: Impermanence, Permanence, and Metatemporal NB in Buddhist, Vedāntic, and DPV~ICRDAM Ontologies
From Neutral Symmetry to Manifest Cosmos: Clarifying NB’s Role across Three Traditions
Each answer both clarifies and resolves the inconsistencies across Buddhist, Vedāntic, and DPV~ICRDAM ontologies, while aligning with your Heptagonal Cyclic Cosmology (HCC).
Q1. NB?
Yes — in Vedānta, NB (Nirguṇa Brahman) is affirmed as the trans-temporal ground (nitya). Buddhism denies NB as possessing svabhāva, but does not preclude recognizing a non-temporal explanatory role. DPV~ICRDAM resolves this by describing NB as metatemporal potentiality: not temporally permanent, but trans-temporal, beyond becoming.
Q2. All three frameworks accept (2) for NB?
Correct, with nuance.
- Vedānta affirms NB as eternal (nitya).
- Buddhism rejects intrinsic permanence but can accept NB as “not subject to arising and ceasing” if reframed as dependent potentiality, not svabhāva.
- DPV~ICRDAM explicitly classifies NB as metatemporal.
Thus, all three converge on (2) — NB is not temporally impermanent — though they differ on whether NB has svabhāva.
Q3. How can NB be dependently characterized if it is fully symmetric and unstable at S1?
NB’s “dependent characterization” means its functional role arises only in relation to symmetry-breaking and phase transitions. NB does not exist “as such” but is characterized in dependence on its dynamical instability: full symmetry entails minimum entropy and maximum information, which makes transition inevitable. Thus NB is defined by dependence on the possibility of transformation, not by intrinsic self-subsistence.
In other words, Brahmāṇḍa (ब्रह्माण्ड, cosmos) at State S1 of HCC is called Nirguna Brahman (NB) and is neutral, unmanifested, and fully symmetric with minimum entropy and maximum information, which makes transition S1(neutral NB)→S2(DA_SB) inevitable.
Moreover, Brahmāṇḍa in States S1-S6 of HCC is dual-aspect and manifested, and is called dual-aspect Saguna Brahman (SB) having dual-aspect states with inseparable, complementary, and reflective subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects.
Q4. In State S4, a conscious DAS has consciousness (CSEs) as s-aspect?
Yes. In S4 (our current ΛCDM universe), conscious DASs (e.g., brains) instantiate CSEs (conscious subjective experiences) as the s-aspect, co-reflected with neural-physical dynamics (ns-aspect). This grounds experiential impermanence in the s-aspect, while maintaining the dual-aspect ontology.
Q5. NB’s ground-ness is dependently constituted — dependent on what?
Dependent on:
1. Symmetry-breaking dynamics inherent in NB’s full neutrality.
2. Phase-transition thresholds (S1 → S2), which actualize QFs and yield DA_SB.
3. Thus NB is not independent, but its role is conditioned by the structural instability of neutrality — making its “ground-ness” a dependent explanatory role, not svabhāva.
Q6. Is NB dependent on symmetry breaking and phase transition S1 → S2?
Yes, NB’s role as “ground” only manifests through its relation to S2. Without symmetry-breaking, NB remains a uninstantiated neutral potential. Therefore NB is dependent on the cosmic dynamics of phase transitions for its explanatory relevance.
Q7. Dependent on what? (Suggested wording)
NB is dependent on its complete neutrality: full symmetry at S1 is inherently unstable, which inevitably drives the transition to S2. In that sense, NB’s “participation” in cycles is dependent on its own neutrality’s instability — not on any external cause. Hence, NB is neither independent substance nor causeless void, but a meta-stable condition.
Q8a. Neti-Neti implies NB is neither independent nor dependent. How to address this?
Correct — Neti-Neti requires apophatic neutrality. Resolution:
- From the Vedāntic side, NB is beyond dependent/independent categories.
- From DPV~ICRDAM, NB is meta-temporal
potentiality: describable only negatively (not dependent like SB, not
independent like substance).
Thus, Neti-Neti preserves NB’s neutrality while allowing functional characterization in cosmology.
Q8b. Buddhist denial of svabhāva vs. NB’s status?
Buddhist śūnyatā is compatible with DPV~ICRDAM’s NB because NB is not posited as self-subsistent svabhāva. NB is treated as an apophatic explanatory role, not as a metaphysical substance.
Q8c. “Dependently constituted explanatory role” — unclear?
This means: NB’s explanatory role exists only in relation to the manifested SB cycle. NB gains meaning as the neutral template from which SB emerges; without SB, NB is indeterminate. Thus “dependent constitution” = NB’s role is co-defined by its phase-transition relationship with SB.
Q9. Could NB’s svabhāva be its full symmetry, neutrality, and potentiality?
If “svabhāva” is redefined as “structural property” rather than “independent intrinsic essence,” then yes, NB’s structural svabhāva is full symmetry and potentiality. But from the Buddhist angle, this is not true svabhāva, since it does not imply independent, self-subsisting being — it is still relational (defined by its role in the cycle).
Thus, DPV~ICRDAM reframes: NB has functional invariants (neutrality, symmetry, potentiality) but lacks intrinsic svabhāva in the Buddhist sense.
Final Synthesis
- SB (DA_SB; states S2–S6): Impermanent, temporally evolving.
- NB (states S1, S7): Not temporally permanent, but metatemporal potentiality — beyond dependent/independent dichotomy.
- Buddhism: Interprets NB as empty (no svabhāva).
- Vedānta: Interprets NB as eternal ground.
- DPV~ICRDAM: Bridges by reframing NB as apophatic, meta-stable neutrality dependent on symmetry-breaking, avoiding both substance metaphysics and nihilism.
Conclusion
With these Q1–Q9 clarifications, Section 5.3 now has a logically consistent resolution across Buddhist, Vedāntic, and DPV~ICRDAM ontologies.
[i] 8 (4.2.8). Heptagonal Cyclic Cosmology (HCC)
From Neutral Nirguṇa Brahman to Manifested Reality: Cooling-Driven Cycles of Dual-Aspect Cosmic Evolution
The Heptagonal Cyclic Cosmology (HCC) with 7 states of cosmos (Brahmāṇḍa/ब्रह्माण्ड) is as follows:
S1 (NB) : State S1 of cosmos (Brahmāṇḍa/ब्रह्माण्ड): <Neutral NB ~ neutral preBB_QVF with potentiality of quantum fluctuations (QFs)> → (through symmetry breaking and phase transition)
S2 (SB): State S2 of cosmos (Brahmāṇḍa/ब्रह्माण्ड): <manifested DA_QF_SB ~ PreBB_QVF_QF with real manifested QF that led to BB> →
S3 (SB): State S3 of cosmos (Brahmāṇḍa/ब्रह्माण्ड): BB → (through phase transition due to temperature drop from BB to pre_Planck epoch)
S4 (SB): State S4 is the current dual-aspect state (DAS) of cosmos (Brahmāṇḍa/ ब्रह्माण्ड): DA_SB~DA_UF (part of Lambda-CDM (ΛCDM), present universe) →
S5 (SB): BF/HD/TD/BR/BC/MP (Big Freeze, Heat Death, Thermal Death, Big Rip, Big Crunch, Mahāpralaya) →
S6 (SB): <manifested Post_BF/HD/TD/BR/BC/MP_DA_QF_SB with real manifested QF> →
S7 (NB) : <neutral Post_BF/HD/TD/BR/BC/MP_QVF with potentiality of quantum fluctuations (QFs)> →
S1 (NB) : <Neutral NB ~ neutral preBB_QVF with potentiality of quantum fluctuations (QFs)> to complete one cycle
-------------------------------------------------- --------
RāmLakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.