Impermanence (無常, Mujo) vs. Immanence
At first glance, impermanence and immanence may seem similar because both deal with the nature of existence, but they refer to very different metaphysical concepts.
1. Impermanence - The Fleeting Nature of All Things
Definition:
Impermanence refers to the idea that all things are transient, fleeting, and in a constant state of change. This is a central theme in Buddhism, existential philosophy, and Japanese aesthetics (mono no aware).
Key Ideas:
Nothing is permanent Everything arises, exists for a time, and eventually fades or transforms.
Suffering (dukkha) arises from attachment In Buddhism, clinging to things that are impermanent leads to suffering.
The beauty of the ephemeral In aesthetics, mono no aware finds profound beauty in impermanence, such as cherry blossoms falling.
Example from Nature:
Cherry blossoms bloom brilliantly but fall quickly. Their very impermanence is what makes them beautiful.
Example in Philosophy & Poetry:
The footstep that will never be heard again,
the dust in the road that once was a man
Jorge Luis Borges (Ariosto and the Arabs)
This reflects the fleeting nature of human life, much like Basho’s haiku:
A cicada shell;
it sang itself
utterly away.
Basho
Core Meaning:
Impermanence is about the passage of time, decay, and transformation - a recognition that nothing stays the same.
2. Immanence The Presence of the Divine or the Absolute Within the World
Definition:
Immanence refers to the idea that the divine, reality, or the fundamental essence of existence is inherent within the world itself. It is the opposite of transcendence, which holds that the divine exists beyond or outside the world.
Key Ideas:
The divine is within everything Instead of a God or ultimate reality being “out there” (transcendent), it is already embedded in all things.
No separation between the sacred and the mundane In pantheistic and Spinozist thought, the universe itself is divine.
Interconnected reality Many Eastern traditions (Advaita Vedanta, Daoism, Spinoza’s monism) see all things as aspects of a single immanent reality.
Example from Nature:
A wave in the ocean: The wave is not separate from the ocean - it is an expression of the ocean itself.
Example in Philosophy & Mysticism:
Spinoza’s Deus sive Natura (God or Nature) God is not separate from the universe but identical with it.
Advaita Vedanta (Non-duality) Brahman (ultimate reality) is not outside the world but immanently present in all beings.
Tat Tvam Asi - Thou art that.
Upanishads (Meaning: The divine is within you, not beyond you.)
Core Meaning:
Immanence is about the presence of ultimate reality, divine essence, or interconnectedness within the world itself - not outside or beyond it.
3. The Difference in a Sentence:
Impermanence says: Everything is always changing, nothing remains.
Immanence says: Everything contains the essence of ultimate reality, nothing is separate.
Basho’s Haiku Impermanence or Immanence?
Let’s reconsider one of Basho’s haiku:
Tabi ni yande / yume wa kareno o / kake meguru
(Falling ill on a journey, / my dreams wander / through withered fields.)
This expresses impermanence - the fading of life, the inevitable decline of the body. However, if one takes a non-dualist or Spinozist view, even the withered fields are part of the eternal flow of existence (immanence).
4. Can These Concepts Be Reconciled?
Yes, if we take an Advaita Vedanta, Daoist, or Spinozist perspective, impermanence is simply the form of immanence. Everything changes, but the underlying reality remains:
Impermanence describes the surface movement of things (waves, seasons, human lives).
Immanence describes the unchanging reality within those movements (the ocean beneath the waves, Dao in Daoism, Brahman in Vedanta).
Forms arise and pass away, but the essence remains.
Would you say your metaphysics of van life aligns more with impermanence, immanence, or both?
