Is "impermanence" a bad translation of "anicca"?

I read the following quote:

A Buddha is not needed to show that "impermanence" is an inherent characteristic of our universe. Scientists are well aware of that, but they have not attained Nibbāna. Anicca is a deep concept that can be described in many different ways, and they are all related. Here are three ways to look at it:

“Anicca – Inability to Keep What We Like”

“Anicca – Repeated Arising/Destruction“.

“Anicca – Worthlessness of Worldly Things“.

The above quote is obviously wrong for the following reasons:

1. Ordinary people are always acting & thinking under the assumption of "permanence", which is why they often suffer over & cannot accept loss & change. For example, it can take a person many years to recover from grief over the death of a loved one or it can take a person many years to accept their ex-spouse had the right to divorce them.

2. The Buddha asked three questions to the five monks in his 2nd Sermon in SN 22.59, namely:

   i. Are the five aggregates "anicca"?

   ii. Are the anicca five aggregates "dukkha"?

   iii. Should the anicca & dukkha five aggregates be regarded as "self"?

The two notions of the "Inability to Keep What We Like” and the "Worthlessness of Worldly Things" is contained in the 2nd question of the Buddha about "dukkha". Given this is so, if these two notions were "Anicca", it would not have been necessary for the Buddha to ask the 2nd question.

In reality, many ordinary people understand things are impermanent yet they keep seeking happiness in impermanent things. They do not understand impermanent things are dukkha.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of Buddhists do not understand what "dukkha" means in terms of the 2nd question (2nd Characteristic) above. Most Buddhists confuse "dukkha" as the 2nd Characteristic with the "dukkha" as a Noble Truth.

The "dukkha" of the 2nd question or the 2nd Characteristic does not mean "suffering". It means the inability of impermanent things to bring happiness. This is made clear in MN 115:

“Here, Ānanda, a bhikkhu understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat any formation as permanent ― there is no such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that an ordinary person might treat some formation as permanent ― there is such a possibility.’ He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat any formation as pleasurable ― there is no such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that an ordinary person might treat some formation as pleasurable ― there is such a possibility.’ He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as self ― there is no such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that an ordinary person might treat something as self ― there is such a possibility.’

MN 115

"Anicca" does mean "Repeated Arising/Destruction" but it does not mean the other two notions. For example:

"If anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the eye are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self.' So the eye is not-self.

MN 148

Or for example:

And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is perception, such its origination, such its passing away. Such are fabrications, such their origination, such their passing away. Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents.

AN 4.41

I recommend to not trouble others with questions from the "Pure Dhamma" website.

Returning to what was discussed above about Buddhists not understanding the 2nd Characteristic of the Three Characteristics, the following idea from the question is wrong:

And when the boy understand that she is not capable of making his expectations a reality, the image / model / picture in his mind get clashed with reality and that drives to sorrow, dukkha.

The 2nd Characteristic called "dukkha" is not related to "sorrow". For example, a Buddha understands a girl is not capable of meeting any expectations for happiness. For a Buddha, a girl is "dukkha". But this does not cause a Buddha to "sorrow". It is the girl that is dukkha. It is not the Buddha's mind that is dukkha, as described as follows:

277. "All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

278. "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory (dukkha)" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering (dukkha). This is the path to purification.

279. "All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

Dhammapada

AN 3.136 (note the link translation is wrong) says conditioned things are "dukkha" even if there is no Buddha or no person aware of this.

In summary, the Buddha taught Three Characteristics, namely, anicca, dukkha & anatta. The 2nd Characteristic called "dukkha" is unrelated to the "dukkha" explained in the Four Noble Truths. The "dukkha" of the 2nd Characteristic is the inherent incapacity of any conditioned thing, such as a tree or rock or girl, to bring lasting true happiness. It does not mean "sorrow". It means "unsatisfactory". It is the thing, such as a rock or tree or girl, that is "unsatisfactory". The more the mind experiences "dukkha as the 2nd characteristic", the more the mind is free from the "dukkha of sorrow". A Buddha is always experiencing the "2nd characteristic of dukkha" but a Buddha never experiences the "noble truth of dukkha".

Upasaka, interested,

There is nothing generally wrong with Upasaka Lal's approaches at large and they may give food for those caught in certain views to get release from them, might be helpful since people tend to give perceptions reality, holding them for nicca (real, lasting). How ever, once one takes on a stand which might help others to loosen their, people often tend to make it like wise. Actually he already maintains a firm household around his approaches which make them no more to something genuine and subject to be suspected being after honor and gain often missing to pay credits toward the Gems as well.

No refuge, not real, not lasting, nothing one can hold on... all that is anicca. In this perspective the wise lets his concentration grow right there and sees that sannas, perceptions, remembering, are not lasting as well. Taken on a stand, the stand is already gone, what ever concept is just that, anicca. But there are concepts which lead to nicca. Till one really faces anicca, anicca, as the other two "lakanas" are just perceptions and not as often told "qualities". To reach a level of seeing things as they are, again, the focus on the Noble Truth is very important, starting with the 1st. Householder naturally love those perceptions but seldom use them in conductive ways and since the tradition s becoming more and more just a stand-holder tradition, wrong approaches, serving stands, are beloved, yet as well subject to decay, but in a lost area without refuge and path.

Again, as most modern, westernized, have strong problem with ever meeting the first:

First Things First, by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Whether in practice or in popularity approaches by emptiness, impermanence, and not-self are always the leading head lines but the author explains why the Sublime Buddha kept the dominance and concern of the Four Noble Truth more important, and why putting the first thing first supports conductive for success.

Btw. "not real" is a great transation and really troubles pada-parama type people, callanges them and possible helps them for short release.

(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment but as a means toward escape from this wheel here)

I think the terms (e.g. anicca and dukkha) are related.

And phrases like "Inability to Keep What We Like" seem to be quotes from scripture, so I don't want to say that the phrase is "wrong".

But the phrase seems to come from the second noble truth ...

Furthermore, bhikkhus, this is the dukkha ariya·sacca: jāti is dukkha, jarā is dukkha (sickness is dukkha) maraṇa is dukkha, association with what is disliked is dukkha, dissociation from what is liked is dukkha, not to get what one wants is dukkha; in short, the five upādāna'k'khandhas are dukkha.

... which is canonically part of the description of what's dukkha, isn't it.

If you start from the premise that "everything dukkha is anicca" and "everything anicca is dukkha" then perhaps -- because "dissociation from what is liked is dukkha" -- therefore, logically, "dissociation from what is liked is anicca" and "anicca is dissociation from what is liked". But then I wouldn't see the point of having a separate word for it.

The topic you were talking about -- i.e. things being created in the mind -- the word which describes that might be sankhara -- see e.g. Can anyone explain Sanskara / Sankara indepth? -- sankharas are described as being anicca and dukkha.

There are perhaps other kinds of sankhara too (i.e. other meanings of the word), and other words (e.g. "attachment") which could describe what you were referring to.

So words have more than one meaning, and there's more than one word which might describe an aspect of something. I don't think I'd want to say it's a "wrong translation" though.

Anicca is impermanence. Impermanence always ends in Dukka regardless of whether it is pleasant, unpleasant or neutral.

FEELINGS

Now, ayya, how many kinds of feelings are there?‖

Avuso Visākha, there are these 3 kinds of feelings:

1. pleasant feeling, sukhā vedanā

2. painful feeling, dukkhā vedanā

3. neither pleasant nor painful [neutral] feeling. adukkham-asukhā vedanā

What now, ayya, are pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling?

Whatever, avuso Visākha, is felt bodily or mentally as pleasant or agreeable—this is pleasant feeling.

Whatever, avuso Visākha, is felt bodily or mentally as painful or disagreeable—this is painful feeling.

Whatever, avuso Visākha, is felt bodily or mentally as being neither disagreeable nor agreeable—this is neither-pleasurable-nor-painful [neutral] [303] feeling.

“Now, ayya,

regarding pleasant feeling, what is pleasant, what is painful,?

regarding painful feeling, what is painful, what is pleasant?

regarding neutral feeling, what is pleasant, what is painful,

Avuso Visākha,

pleasant feeling is pleasant when it persists, painful when it changes;

painful feeling is painful when it persists, pleasant when it changes;

neutral feeling is pleasant when there is

knowledge of it, painful when there is no knowledge of it.

LATENT TENDENCIES (ANUSAYA)

Now, ayya,

what latent tendency lies in a pleasant feeling?

what latent tendency lies in a painful feeling?

what latent tendency lies in a neutral feeling?

Avuso Visākha,

The latent tendency of lust rāgânusaya lies in a pleasant feeling.

The latent tendency of aversion paṭighânusaya lies in a painful feeling.

The latent tendency of ignorance avijjā’nusaya lies in a neutral feeling.

...

Cūla Vedalla Sutta

Inability to Keep What We Like is not-self nature, i.e., one does not have control over one's experiences and the corporeal body.

What you describe about attachment to mental image creating dukkha is correct. But this is not what's called Anicca. This is closer to what we in Mahayana call Sunyata, emptiness (of all phenomena or mental images).

Anicca refers to constant change, like the clouds drifting continuously. Because everything is drifting, you can't build happiness on top of it. This is why it's dukkha (wrong, faulty).

Anicca is not an+icca, rather it is a+nicca.

The Sanskrit equivalent is anitya, which is a+nitya.

Nicca according to wisdomlib means:

nicca : (adj.) constant; continuous; permanent.
(Source): BuddhaSasana: Concise Pali-English Dictionary

Anicca according to wisdomlib means:

anicca : (adj.) not stable; impermanent.
(Source): BuddhaSasana: Concise Pali-English Dictionary

From the AccessToInsight Glossary for A:

anicca: Inconstant; unsteady; impermanent.

This is elaborated by the Buddha in DN 17 (translated by Bhikkhu Sujato) so clearly, that you cannot mistaken it for something else:

See, Ānanda! All those conditioned phenomena have passed, ceased, and perished.
Passānanda,sabbete saṅkhārā atītā niruddhā vipariṇatā.

So impermanent are conditions,
Evaṃ aniccā kho, ānanda, saṅkhārā;

so unstable are conditions,
evaṃ addhuvā kho, ānanda, saṅkhārā;

so unreliable are conditions.
evaṃ anassāsikā kho, ānanda, saṅkhārā.

This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.
Yāvañcidaṃ, ānanda, alameva sabbasaṅkhāresu nibbindituṃ, alaṃ virajjituṃ, alaṃ vimuccituṃ.

You may be happy and confident today, based on your close-knit family, dependable friends, good looks, fantastic health, abundant wealth, productive career or business etc. But all these will not last forever. They are impermanent (aniccā), unstable (addhuvā) and unreliable (anassāsikā). To peg your happiness or sense of self to these things will bring suffering. That's the relationship of impermanence to suffering. Also see SN 22.93.