text:
Sakkāya-Ditthi and Self-View
It's mentioned in many references that when someone becomes Sotāpanna (= stream-entrant = Person-who-has-seen-Dharma) then the first three fetters (saŋyojana) are dropped.
My question is, if the first fetter which is self-View (sakkāya-ditthi) is dropped, then who is going to be Sakurdagami = Once Return, Anagami = non-returning and Arahant, or how can he focus on the path as his self-view is already dropped by that time.
And also when Anagami person is to become Arahant, he is supposed to drop the last three fetters which are conceit (māna), restlessness (uddhacca),ignorance (avijjā). And if someone has already dropped the self-view then how he can drop the conceit (mana) (the eighth fetter) as it's a subset of the self-view.
The answers like: "It's partially dropped, etc" are not correct as that's not how it's defined (if not it's mistaken).
And there are many places in Tripitaka, that Buddha mentioned as I to refer him self, so does the Buddha still has self-view?
And in Khemaka Sutta this is clearly explained that even Anagami person has I am feeling and desire, which is a subset of self-view.

"Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower
  fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a
  lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am'
  obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of
  arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates:

Do you still believe that Sakkaya Ditti means Self-View ? or is it a mistake?

See also How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

@ChrisW, Thanks for the references, And the accepted answer is confusing if I quote a line in that, and one may likewise feel conceit ("I am better", etc.) without actually believing in a self. How without believing a self, he used the word I am. These are not wise statement, it doesn't has a base does it? Please note I don't wanna offense anyone, with Metta

See the chain smoker analogy discussed here: https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=17821&start=20#p252314

In my understanding, there is no controversy here at all. The explanation can be very simple:
Before stream-entry, someone can think: "I am this body" or "I am inside this body" or "I am the perceiver of all my experience" or "I am the decision maker of all my actions" or "I am my memories" or "I am the thinker of thoughts".
With stream-entry these mistaken views are abandoned. Body is just body. Experience is just experience. Actions are just actions. Memories are just memories. Thoughts are just thoughts. They are not "I", there is no "I" in them, nor is "I" doing them.
At the same time, after stream-entry there are still remaining hangups to be abandoned. Particularly, there are still some habits of getting drawn to pleasant experiences and avoiding unpleasant experiences, once those are abandoned there remains anxiety about not being perfect enough (udacca-kukucca), once that is abandoned there is pride of being perfect (mana). Having these issues does not require identifying anything as "I". Even without thinking "I am this" or "I am that" there are states of attraction, aversion, anxiety, or pride.
You are asking, how is it possible that someone could keep working on these issues without thinking "I am body", or "I am inside body" or "I am the thinker of thoughts" or "I am the doer of actions" etc.?
From my experience, working on them does not require thinking in terms of "I". Instead, what's required is to see "body as body", "feelings as feelings", "thoughts as thoughts" etc. - as explained in Satipatthana. When there is such seeing, there is observation: "here is a thought conducive to dukkha" and "this thought conducive to dukkha should be abandoned" and "this thought conducive to dukkha has been abandoned" - as you can see this can happen without any I-making.
At the same time, even after abandoning explicit I-making (thinking in terms of I) there is still deep-lying residual habit or intuition of assuming that "I" is the decision-maker of actions and the experiencer of experiences. As explained in the suttas, this will linger for a long time and requires very intensive and deep meditation practice to be abandoned.

Linguistically, 'sakkāya' ('sat-kaya') means 'true' or 'real body' rather than 'own body'. If it meant 'own body' ('sa-kaya'), this would make our study of theory much easier.
The word 'kaya' means 'group' or 'collection' rather than merely 'physical body'.
In defining 'sakkaya', MN 44 says:

Visākha, the Buddha said that these five grasping aggregates are identity.
Pañca kho ime, āvuso visākha, upādānakkhandhā sakkāyo vutto bhagavatā,

'Sakkāya-ditthi' is also defined in MN 44, as follows:

But ma’am, how does identity view come about?”
Kathaṃ panāyye, sakkāyadiṭṭhi hotī ti?
It’s when an uneducated ordinary person has not seen the noble ones,
  and is neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the noble ones.
  They’ve not seen good persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in
  the teaching of the good persons. They regard form as self, self as
  having form, form in self, or self in form. They regard feeling …
  perception … choices … consciousness as self, self as having
  consciousness, consciousness in self, or self in consciousness.
viññāṇaṃ attato samanupassati, viññāṇavantaṃ vā attānaṃ,
  attani vā viññāṇaṃ, viññāṇasmiṃ vā attānaṃ.

It follows 'sakkāya-ditthi' appears to be the belief that the individual life (not yet discerned as five discrete aggregates) is a "real true self" or "atta" (even though the term 'sakkāya' may not translate directly as such).
There are suttas, such as SN 35.166 & SN 35.167, that distinguish the terms "sakkāyadiṭṭhi" (translated as "identity-view") and "attānudiṭṭhi" (translated as "self-view").
Of note & merely guessing: SN 35.166 says realising the 'unsatisfactoriness' ('dukkha') of sense phenomena leads to abandoning 'sakkāyadiṭṭhi' and SN 35.167 says realising the 'not-self' ('anatta') of sense phenomena leads to abandoning "attānudiṭṭhi". Thus, SN 35.166 appears to pertain to the practise for stream-entry & once-returner, which includes realising 'unsatisfactoriness' so the hindrances to concentration, such as sensual desire, are abandoned. Where as SN 35.167 appears to pertain to the practise for Arahantship.
In short, 'sakkāya-ditthi' (fixed true identity view) is obviously the view of the ordinary worldly person (called puthujjana) that believes their life is a real solid intrinsic self.
Where as it appears "attānudiṭṭhi" ('self-view') can, on certain occasions, merely refer to fleeting views of "self" that arise when a non-Arahant Noble One has a lapse in mindfulness & wisdom, as described in the Khemaka Sutta.
Thus "conceit" or "mana" for a non-Arahant Noble One appears to be an example of "attānudiṭṭhi" ("self-view") but would not be an example of 'sakkāya-ditthi' (view of fixed true identity).

As for personal pronouns found in the suttas, Noble Ones merely use these as mere linguistic "conventions". Refer particularly to SN 1.25 & also SN 5.10.

My question is, if the first fetter which is self-View (sakkāya-ditthi) is dropped, then who is going to be Sakurdagami
I think that's a potentially misleading question.

"If God didn't create the universe, then who did?"
"If you didn't cause the thunder, then who did?"

If you look at MN 72 it suggests that "does not apply" might be a right reply to a question like that.
how can he focus on the path as his self-view is already dropped by that time
SN 5.10 suggests that the bhikkhuni Vajira is aware of the arising and cessation of dukkha.
I think that (i.e. knowledge of the arising and cessation of dukkha) is what the four noble truths describe -- not any "self-view" or "self-theory".
And if someone has already dropped the self-view then how he can drop the conceit (mana) (the eighth fetter) as it's a subset of the self-view
See How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?
I think a "view" is more permanent.
For example,

"I believe I should be rude to you" -- that implies I'll try to be rude, and always be rude.
"I believe I shouldn't be rude" -- but sometimes I'm still rude by mistake, accidentally or out of carelessness -- that's something different, and not really "a subset".

And there are many places in Tripitaka, that Buddha mentioned as I to refer him self, so does the Buddha still has self-view?
I've read that theory before, e.g. here.
I think it's a mistranslation or misunderstanding -- a person might use the first person singular in conventional speech without intending that to be understood as a statement about "true self" or "permanent body" or even "soul" or "union with Brahma" or anything like that.
Do you still believe that Sakkaya Ditti means Self-View ? or is it a mistake?
Also I think the word Sakkāya is implying something about "true body" -- it's not just about a (fixed or temporary) sense of "self" -- it's a view about the "body" or the "aggregates", i.e. as described in SN 22.59.

I'm not understand this answer, may be what I want to ask is not clear in the question. Anyway how can this be a misleading question it's simply like, You are supposed to run 100m now, and fist step to win the race is cut your two legs, now how can you run the race ( you can crawl but it's not running)

Upasaka, those interested,
Sakka = honour/fall for - kāya = group , this giving into, falling for, uphold, starts very outwardly, such as group-identifications, nationality, gender, family, kind, buddhist...we, my, my land, my skill... goes further and deeper to ones body, deeper to the five aggregates. Penetrating here, able to "disconnect" nama-rupa, the stream beginns. Yet, to penetrate the subtile areas, merely in spheres of nama, fine-material-identification, a-rupa-identifications, will need another three turns of the path-wheel.
One can also divide as Sakka -aya, aya meaning 'income', relaying on a group, trade, so "still after amassing" and not on the way of abounding, letting go, letting go of what is not really ones own.
One having entered the stream is said to have become independent (for further walk along).
Again here: First Things First, leaving home/stand, purify one silas. Useless to work on refined polishing a chair, cratching on the bark, if the tree stands firm in the forest. From outwardly letting off, rupa... to the fine, all based on Sila, those shares.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchanges, stacks or entertainment, but as a means to escape this wheel)

Imagine you're someone who is afraid of swimming and has never swum before.
You are afraid that you would drown. You have the view that swimming will cause drowning, because someone you knew, drowned in a swimming pool.
Due to holding this view that swimming will cause drowning, you avoid going anywhere near a swimming pool, let alone trying to even dip your toes in it.
But imagine that the government suddenly required that every person must learn to swim.
When you speak to a swimming instructor, she convinces you that the human body can easily float without much effort, and demonstrates this. She also shows you how an infant can easily float without much effort.
With this, you abandon your false view that swimming will cause drowning, and you decide to learn how to swim.
Although you have abandoned your false view that swimming will cause drowning, still you are afraid to let go, and let yourself float. You remain holding on to the edge of the pool or to a flotation device (like a "pool noodle"). Even if you try to let go, you quickly grasp the edge of the pool again. The edge of the pool is your safe haven.
You KNOW that the center of the pool is safe, but you don't FEEL that it's safe.
Although you have abandoned your view and you are convinced that it is not a problem to float, yet you cannot let go of the edge of the pool. This is not due to a false view, but rather due to deep-seated habits and tendencies to avoid the danger of drowning.
Similarly, discarding the self-view may be far easier than uprooting the self-habit or self-conceit or self-obsession. The self-habit is in fact a far deeper habit and tendency than the fear of drowning.
You KNOW that "I am the body" or "the body belongs to me" are false views, yet you still FEEL that "I am the body" or "the body belongs to me". That's the difference between self-view and self-habit.
This is the message of the Khemaka Sutta:

"Friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am
  something other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling...
  perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am
  something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five
  clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't
  assume that 'I am this.'

The Buddha is like the swimming instructor with skillful means. The swimming instructor can stand next to the pool. The swimming instructor can hold on to the edge of the pool. The swimming instructor can rest on a flotation device like the "pool noodle". The swimming instructor can also swim effortlessly. Similarly, the Buddha can use pronouns like "I" or "they" without having the self-habit or self-view. He does so, because it's impossible to communicate using natural language without the use of pronouns.
This is the message of SN 1.25:

“Someone who has given up conceit has no ties,
  the ties of conceit are all cleared away.
  Though that clever person has transcended identity,
  they’d still say, ‘I speak’,
and also ‘they speak to me’.
  Skillful, understanding the world’s conventions,
  they’d use these terms as no more than expressions.”

The term sakkāya-diṭṭhi is the first of ten fetters that is eradicated when someone recognized the first stage of lokuttara citta. The three fetters below:

sakkāya-diṭṭhi
vicikicchā
sīlabbata-parāmāsa

is required to be comprehended as 3 simultaneous fetters that occurs simultaneously or as a causal relation of the previous fetters (i.e fetter 2 is the cause of fetter 1, and fetter 3 is the cause of fetter 2).
sakkāya-diṭṭhi can be described using analogy of a dog chasing its own tail.
Ordinary person (puthujjana) will see that the dog and its tail is different The dog seeing of its tail as different from itself is the sakkāya-diṭṭhi.
When someone tries to tell him/her that actually the dog and the tail is the same, they will reject it as impossible, hence the vicikicchā is arouse in them. Then he/she, believe that in order to end the dukkha, some actions is required (i.e 'chasing the tail'), and hence sīlabbata-parāmāsa is aroused.
Ordinary person since the unknown beginning of samsara is still operate like the above analogy, which is indispensable for the survival. But in the context to end the dukkha, the proverbial dog is required to stop chasing its own tail. When that is happening (i.e. the dog stops), the three fetters will be discarded simultaneously.
But what is happening in the current world today, many still believe that some actions is required to end the dukkha, which is sīlabbata-parāmāsa, and hence, they will never 'achieve' its 'goal' which is the end of dukkha (nibbāna).
So, in the context of higher stages of enlightenment, again using the above analogy, it is the 'speed' of chasing the tail. It is slower on each stages, and stops completely on an Arahant.

“Bhikkhus, do you remember the five lower fetters as taught by me?”
When this was said, the venerable Mālunkyāputta replied: “Venerable
sir, I remember the five lower fetters as taught by the Blessed One.”
“But, Mālunkyāputta, in what way do you remember the five lower
fetters as taught by me?”
“Venerable sir, I remember identity view as a lower fetter taught by
the Blessed One. I remember doubt as a lower fetter taught by the
Blessed One. I remember adherence to rules and observances as a lower
fetter taught by the Blessed One. I remember sensual desire as a lower
fetter taught by the Blessed One. I remember ill will as a lower
fetter taught by the Blessed One. It is in this way, venerable sir,
that I remember the five lower fetters as taught by the Blessed One.”
“Mālunkyāputta, to whom do you remember my having taught these five
lower fetters in that way? Would not the wanderers of other sects
confute you with the simile of the infant? For a young tender infant
lying prone does not even have the notion ‘identity,’ so how could
identity view arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to identity
view lies within him. A young tender infant lying prone does not even
have the notion ‘teachings,’ so how could doubt about the teachings
arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to doubt lies within him. A
young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘rules,’
so how could adherence to rules and observances arise in him? Yet the
underlying tendency to adhere to rules and observances lies within
him. A young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion
‘sensual pleasures,’ so how could sensual desire arise in him? Yet the
underlying tendency to sensual lust lies within him. A young tender
infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘beings,’ so how
could ill will towards beings arise in him? Yet the underlying
tendency to ill will lies within him. Would not the wanderers of other
sects confute you with this simile of the infant?”
Thereupon, the venerable Ānanda said: “It is the time, Blessed One, it
is the time, Sublime One, for the Blessed One to teach the five lower
fetters. Having heard it from the Blessed One, the bhikkhus will
remember it.”
“Then listen, Ānanda, and attend closely to what I shall say.”
“Yes, venerable sir,” the venerable Ānanda replied.
The Blessed One said this:
“Here, Ānanda, an untaught ordinary person who has no regard for noble
ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who has no
regard for true men and is unskilled and undisciplined in their
Dhamma, abides with a mind obsessed and enslaved by identity view, and
he does not understand as it actually is the escape from the arisen
identity view; and when that identity view has become habitual and is
uneradicated in him, it is a lower fetter. He abides with a mind
obsessed and enslaved by doubt…by adherence to rules and observances
…by sensual lust …by ill will, and he does not understand as it
actually is the escape from arisen ill will; and when that ill will
has become habitual and is uneradicated in him, it is a lower fetter. https://suttacentral.net/mn64/en/bodhi?reference=none&highlight=false


text:
Have the copies of original Tipitaka written in Aluvihara Sri Lanka now been lost?
Have the copies of original Tipitaka written in Aluvihara Sri Lanka now been lost?
It appears that the Tipitaka used in Sri Lanka an import from Thailand or Myanmar.
I ask because in this essay, The original Alu Vihara manuscript does not exist, Ven. Sujato writes,

The original text copied 2,000 years has long vanished in the mists of history. Manuscripts in Sri Lanka generally do not last longer than a few hundred years, and presumably it would have been re-copied multiple times. The Alu Vihara, it seems, remained a center for preserving manuscripts. Sadly, though, the old library was destroyed, along with any manuscripts, during the Matale rebellion of 1848 4. So we shall never know exactly what was in it at that time.
We do know, however, that the Sri Lankan Sangha requested that manuscripts be imported from Myanmar and Thailand during the colonial period ...
... Despite all this, it is a common belief among Sri Lankans that the Alu Vihara original Tipitaka still exists.

... and later, presumably referring to a deleted post,

Just in case anyone is wondering, the above post is exactly the kind of conspiracy theory I am trying to dispel.

So -- are "copies of the original" lost? What is the "evidence" on that subject?

Don't take it personal, Upasaka Sarath. Modern monks use of alms is usually not much of gratitude. What for, to deprive people of what they love and feel inspired. Simply foolish this provokings of the tradition and old.

How ever, important to have and maintain Noble Ones and Arahats in Sri Lanka. Having such, having Dhamma next.

It looks as if this question would also be on-topic on History.SE or Skeptics.SE (and that Ven Sujato finds that many people will say it does exist, but without evidence). Given this site's policy about Questions asking for an answer to a controversy, perhaps we should rephrase this question, to follow the question-format used on Skeptics.SE, i.e. "Person X says Y -- what evidence is there that Y is or isn't true?"

I rephrased it slightly -- I hope it's still the question which you wanted to ask?

Thanks Chris.-)

He shared an essay of another scholar Bhikkhu on this topic there, and references provided by Sri Lankan have been deleted. Hardly one would find a serious Thera from the island to get in this matter. Donate much to SC and they will cut of any faith in you.

Where did the writing of Tripitaka really happen? is it in Aluwihare or in "Alu Lena"?

tripitaka written in aluwihara...i don't know are there still have or not the original copy of the first THRIPITAKA....but I believe existing copies of thripitaka not change anything wrote in original one...however there are possibility it have some changes due to language issues in that time (change some for easy understanding or better interpretation ) purpose.
but I believe original copy have or not now, all original text meaning exist.

I am not an active participant of this forum anymore, but in seeing this OP, I just could not be without expanding on the question that I just asked. The writing of the Tripitaka, Theravāda Pāli Canon, was performed at the cave temple “Alu Lena”  and not at the cave temple called Aluvihare in Matale area in Sri Lanka. Tripitaka was committed to writing by 500 monks in the first century BC. The Cave temple in Aluvihare cannot even hold 50 monks, leave aside 500. It is just not spacious enough. But whereas in “Alulena”, this cave is spacious enough to accommodate 500 monks and it is well illuminated by the sunlight.
Before the introduction of paper, palm leaf was the main raw material used for writing and painting for several centuries, and palm trees are abundant in and around “Alulena”. Anyway to your question proper…  The sacred Buddha Dhamma preached by Gautama Buddha 2600 years ago is secured and well preserved only in the Tripitaka Canons which were written in the present-day Sri Lanka. Today this original Tripitaka written in Sri Lanka is found in the British Museum. The present Neville Collection in the UK has 2000 manuscripts. The first of these were taken by George Turner and the second lot by Hugh Nevill of the British Civil Service.
![Now we have a copy of the original scriptures with us.
]1

Have the copies of original Tipitaka written in Aluvihara Sri Lanka now been lost?

It is highly unlikely. The copies of Tipitaka has been found in NINE independent  countries in almost similar form.
If anyone is interested, the mentor at aathaapi.org Tipitaka website is capable of pointing out such evidences.
Additionally, the information comes from radical or expelled groups might have revenge politics or conspiracy theories.

The question is ambiguous. There are certainly modern copies of the originals. The quote in the OP was whether the original copy which was made 1000s of years ago still exists.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
What's the different between kusala (good) and akusala (bad)?
What's the different between ku-sala (good) and a-ku-sala (bad), in regard of what the Buddha taught?
(ku - bad, sala - cutting away, a - not)
What are good and bad actions by deeds, speech and mind, and what qualities defines them as such?
Here   he grieves
    he grieves  hereafter.
In both worlds
the wrong-doer grieves.
He grieves, he's afflicted,
seeing the corruption
    of his deeds.
Here   he rejoices
    he rejoices hereafter.
In both worlds
the merit-maker rejoices.
He rejoices, is jubilant,
seeing the purity
    of his deeds.
Yamakavagga
So good to now really good of how to distinguish and alltime worthy to ask, remember and tell for many's benefit, and the own.
(Note that this is not asked/given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to escape this wheel here)

This may be a duplicate of (or related to) What determines whether actions are good or bad?

It isn't and to delete things going against your grain does not change that but simply increases the akusala actions of your further.

The individual question> "What determines whether actions are good or bad?", really doesn't fit the question here. It would be good is that would be answered separate here

The explanation for Kusala can be found in MN-3 -> Maha Chattarika Sutta ( I can't find this in english translation site, but this is in Sinhala / Pali Thripitaka ), So if I explain it how I understood by reading it,
It's about noble eightfold path, and in each it's describe two things one is lokottara (= focusing on Nivana) path the other one is laukika (= focusing on good things in this world: eg -> samma kammanta = to do a decent job, not kill animals and sell).
And the opposite of this is Akusala which doing opposite things not knowing what the right view, resolve, speech, etc..
About lokottara path that person should have a correct view what is the problem with the world, why we are attached to things, and why we should not attached, what's the danger in that so on.
Hope my description led some lights and I should accept that I'm not a good translator.
Update:
Found more information on this. It's in Vibhangaprakaranaya-1, paticcasamuppada vibhangaya There you can notice what is kusala dharmayo, the explanation is given the paticcasamuppada cycle but it starts with sankara not with avijja that means when a thought is processed without avijja it causes to Nivana as it is a kusala

English copies of MN 117 are here and here.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
How should a Buddhist approach honoring parents who abused them?
As a Buddhist, we are called upon to honor our mother and father. However, how should this be applied in a situation where parents were abusive, neglectful, and harmful? When engaging the parents is often revictimizing? What are the obligations to parents in this situation? Is it their karma to be not honored because of their actions?

Welcome Sarah. I will write an answer to your question at a later time however I did answer a somewhat similar question here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/33531/a-question-about-my-karma-and-how-it-s-affecting-me/33532#33532 Kind regards

See also Relationship with bad parents (kamma and issues)

Feel sorry for them, their shortcomings are not their fault.

Perhaps another part of this question is whether Buddhists adhere to the Western concept of “Boundaries” to protect oneself? Or is the creation of boundaries an obstacle to enlightenment because of its avoidance of future suffering?

I could try to post a comment to answer that, but you're likely to get better answers if you post it as a new (i.e. a follow-on) question -- e.g. "Further to [this question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/33618/254), do Buddhists adhere to the Western etc.?" Most users won't notice that you posted a new comment, or re-read a topic after they answered and you already accepted an answer -- so better to start a new question. It's an interesting question, too -- I hope you might get a helpful answer.

I am not sure Buddhism teaches us to unconditionally "honor" our mother and father.
A sutta about mother & father is AN 2.31, which is about "gratitude" or "kataññu". The Pali word "kataññū" means: "to be mindful of former service" and is often used together with the word "katavedī, which means "thankful" or "grateful". Therefore, in relation to parents, the term "kataññū-katavedī" appears to imply the parents must have performed a former "service" to their children for their children to be grateful in return. About performing "service", AN 2.31 says:

Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they
  nourish them, they introduce them to this world.

Another sutta about mother & father is Iti 109, which says parents are “worthy of veneration" when they are:

Compassionate towards their family of children; when they are very helpful to their children, take care of them, bring them up and teach
  them about the world.

The Pali word translated as “worthy of veneration" is "āhuneyya", which appears to mean "deserving of offerings". In other words, to be "worthy" of honor, it appears Buddhism teaches parents must deserve or earn such honor; that such honor is not automatic or not unconditional.
Therefore, where parents were abusive, neglectful & harmful, such actions are not compassionate, not helpful and thus not deserving of honor. Parents who are abusive towards their children are obviously not "teaching them about the world" because often such children grow up confused & struggle in the world.
The Buddha himself would not praise but would disapprove of such abusive, neglectful & harmful actions.
If parents are not able to show remorse for such actions, then engaging the parents may certainly result in revictimizing.
I think a Buddhist in such a situation should practise as follows:

Recognise, acknowledge & be grateful towards any good actions done by parents.
Clearly recognise any harmful actions done by parents as being wrong.
If possible, per AN 2.31, try to rouse an unvirtuous mother & father and settle & establish them in virtue. This may include using a professional counselling or mediation service. However, here, as mentioned, the parents must show remorse for their past actions, which generally may be difficult.
In general, practise compassion meditation towards such parents who cannot show remorse; keeping in mind it was "ignorance" and even "past hurt" that made the parents act in such unloving ways. Compassion meditation is, for example: "May they be free from their suffering; may they be free from their unhappiness; may they be free from their unskillful qualities and may they develop skilful qualities; may my parents learn to truly love".

Also, on a higher level of practise, Buddhism teaches us to not blame "persons" but, to instead, blame "ignorance" for unwholesome & unskillful actions.
In addition, as mentioned, it is important to recognise that often abusive parents themselves have been subjects of abuse by their parents or by others.
Therefore, if we ourselves can break this "cycle of abuse", we ourselves move in the direction towards goodness, awakening & what Buddhism calls "the human" or "humane state".
To conclude, we must keep our mind grounded in & clear about what is good & what is bad, so we do not become confused. The Dhammapada says:

Those who are ashamed of what they should not be ashamed of, and are not ashamed of what they should be ashamed of — upholding false
  views, they go to states of woe.
Those who see something to fear where there is nothing to fear, and see nothing to fear where there is something to fear — upholding
  false views, they go to states of woe.
Those who imagine evil where there is none, and do not see evil where it is — upholding false views, they go to states of woe.
Those who discern the wrong as wrong and the right as right — upholding right views, they go to realms of happiness.

Excellent and well balanced answer! One thing to add: even if one does not feel that he/she has received any kindness from his/her parents, one can still be grateful for the body which the parents have built for him/her. A human body is considered to be extremely precious, because it is almost the only body which helps you to completely overcome all obscurations and suffering.

@Dhammadhatu  Thanks for writing importance of parents. One thing to be  noted is above comment  tells us to maintain compassion towards parents without any reason because it gives answer to problem of  ," Why, while maintaining dhyan in brahma_loka , disturbance is there of parent's tears and/or problems/issues faced by them "...that's why ,It would be better to add above comment's(by Eerik Sven Puddist) info. into your answer... although bounty is yours... ÷)

Thank you Tempo

My father was a selfish alcoholic who physically abused me on several occasions, my mother was loving but would often be off putting because of anxieties. I see the error in their ways and have better insight to why they are who they are by practicing mindfulness and right view. I see them both as victims, my father trapped by drugs and selfishness, my mother by worry and fear.
This helps me have strong love and compassion for both, because I can see their suffering and know its part of the human condition. I don't take it personal, remember attributes are not permanent, there are roots to why people act like they do and it can change.
Recognizing someone suffers, is human, can be a great honor.

That's a wise approach so far, householder Eli. It just may forget that behind there have been a lot of things given they would not have need to to at all. So it's important to do not dwell in the "brahmaviharas" supported by self-complacence.

Householder Sarah, interested,
a giver (of possibilities, space, birth, material things...) has no obligations toward a receiver. One who has received, how ever has obligations toward the giver.
If someone gives or likes to give something one does not like, actually would harm, there is no need to accept such and to take on it. Once one personal takes on such harmfull, one usually tries to give it back. So best simply not taking (personal) if been given something that is harmful.
So both, giver and receiver, have choices, choices to give, take and reject.
As parents have given a lot, not easy ever to repay, it's proper for ones release to look after the bodily and material needs. How ever, it's not possible to pay all back in this way and sometimes one also does not have the means. So if acting great, and skilled, having certain access to the parents in humble ways, the greatest gift a child can give their parents is to patiently turn not so good parents toward good, without being "parently" and know the position one is into.

"Monks, I will teach you the level of a person of no integrity and the level of a person of integrity. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "Now what is the level of a person of no integrity? A person of no integrity is ungrateful & unthankful. This ingratitude, this lack of thankfulness, is advocated by rude people. It is entirely on the level of people of no integrity. A person of integrity is grateful & thankful. This gratitude, this thankfulness, is advocated by civil people. It is entirely on the level of people of integrity."
{II,iv,2} "I tell you, monks, there are two people who are not easy to repay. Which two? Your mother & father. Even if you were to carry your mother on one shoulder & your father on the other shoulder for 100 years, and were to look after them by anointing, massaging, bathing, & rubbing their limbs, and they were to defecate & urinate right there [on your shoulders], you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. If you were to establish your mother & father in absolute sovereignty over this great earth, abounding in the seven treasures, you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. Why is that? Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they nourish them, they introduce them to this world. But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one's mother & father." Kataññu Suttas: Gratitude

Aside: it's better to look at ones own duties, ones own actions, then to judge others and it's very unwise to develop ideas to justify not doing ones duties because of other ones former actions (kamma). Once duties are done there is release, release that is not violating and reached by skillful (kusala) means, meaning "right release".
Kamma (action) and vipaka (effect of it) is also not something that works linear, so situations present do not necessary have connection to near actions, not even related to particular people and their actions, but can be long time back, even lifetimes. So one will meet good parents with good children, good parents with bad children, bad parents with good children and bad parents with bad children, but where ever one is, child or parent, good or bad, good to go toward light out of the darkness: AN 4.85: Tamonata Sutta — Darkness (wealth here counts also in regard of ones merits, goodness)
The general duties of a child toward it parents are:

"In five ways, young householder, a child should minister to his parents as the East:
(i) Having supported me I shall support them,
  (ii) I shall do their duties,
  (iii) I shall keep the family tradition,
  (iv) I shall make myself worthy of my inheritance,
  (v) furthermore I shall offer alms in honor of my departed
  relatives. The Layperson's Code of Discipline

In regard of duties general: one has never any real duty to act for harm of other beings or for ones own harm (violating the precepts with ones actions). If such is claimed, one can without violating the Dhamma step back form ones contract in this regard.
Some good encouraging talks on gratitude and parents here also attached for ones food in growing:

Parents: Two short Talks on Gratitude
The Lessons of Gratitude
The Right Angle: It’s Never Wrong
Gratitude

May you all ever dwell with Brahma and don't fall into low states rejecting the bases of right view.

"Mother and father are said to be Brahma and an earlier god,
  Children should revere them, for the compassion of the populace
  The wise should revere and care for them, giving eatables, drinks
  Clothes, beds, massaging, bathing and washing their feet
  The wise enjoy attending on their mother and father
  And later enjoy heavenly bliss." Brahma Sutta: With Brahma

A possible extended answer as well as given space for discussion and approaches can be found here: [Q&A] How should a Buddhist approach honoring parents who abused them?
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment but as a means toward escape from this wheel here)

No matter how hard the parents abused you, don't try to do anything against. Only thing you can do is wishing them good(maithree).
Specially if you pay them the aarya (noble) maithree it will do the best for you and them. And I've seen many people have get the successful results out of this.
. How you do it
Daily 20-30 mins (if you can do more then do) think this to your self (close your eyes as it helps to concentrate more). You and your parents may attain Nivana (enlightment). Wish this so deeply. Add what ever the necessary facts like things they do good for you and in return you are wishing them Nivana. As Nivana is the only place anyone can get the ultimate happiness. So basically you are wishing them happiness, no matter the way you get treated.
And as mentioned by Buddha if anyone kill a parent its going to be very bad karma (anantarya papa) that can't get escape. When someone eat poison with or without knowing that it is poison he is going to suffer. Like that the nature is dangerous no matter we know it or not it behaves the way as it supposed to be. So only thing we can be happy about is Nivana. That's why wishing that (the best thing in this universe) to someone who treat you bad will return you good things.
With Metta!

Such would be the mindset of a real son, daughter, of the Buddha, Sakyan putta, after hearing the true Dhamma. Sadhu!

Upasaka could add also the The Simile of the Saw to his answer, if wishing so.

The simile of the saw could be misunderstood -- I don't think it's the duty of an adult child, to e.g. put themselves in danger if the parents are violent. Rather it's a duty or ideal of a Buddhist to "say no evil words (and) remain sympathetic to that person’s welfare, with a mind of goodwill, and with no inner hate". The simile of the saw tells monks to "not let his heart get angered" even if "bandits were to carve you up savagely", but I think the vinaya also tells monks to e.g. avoid bandits.

And the Jataka tale about the tigress says it's wrong for a parent to kill their child -- and that the Bodhisattva (presumably the child, also) should want to protect the parent's sila (perhaps by averting the circumstance for such a misdeed).

Sometimes it's possible to avoid and sure, seeking after such is not smart, sometimes it is not possible to avoid, caught in ones conditions layed out. But even when not: metta to stay a real Buddhist, son or daughter of the Buddha.

One of the Abrahamic 10 commands is about "Honor thy parents" which includes of obedience -- I'm not sure there's something quite like that in Buddhism.
There is occasionally a sutta which mentions "honoring" your parents' wishes (i.e. doing something because they ask you to) -- see the start of DN 31 for example -- note that's not a Buddhist who is doing that, and the Buddha takes that opportunity to explain how to do it better.
The suttas certainly talk about gratitude, and about its not being possible to repay parents, but I guess that's another matter than obedience.
There's a monastic rule that if you want to ordain (as a monk) you must get your parent's permission -- and a sutta where someone doesn't get permission (the parents have other plans for him), and so he refuses to eat until the parents relent and give permission. That's a bit of an unusual example of "honoring wishes" and "obedience", isn't it.
I'd like to add though that I've seen (heard from) people, who remain unhappy because of their past relationship (or ex relationship) with their parents, or children -- and that seems to me less than ideal.
More ideal (or inline with Buddhist ideals) might be something like this from the start of the Dhammapada:

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

I think I remember another story, of someone who'd been abused by her father. When she became an adult she told the authorities, and the father spent time in prison as a result. When she was dying he came to see her -- and she let him see her and talk to her, and was glad that she had forgiven him.
Anyway I don't want to encourage you to return to face more abuse -- and maybe "no relationship" is better than a "bad relationship" -- but maybe there is always "a relationship"?
I'm not sure what you mean by "revictimising" either.
It's easy for a dependent child to be victimised, for example -- I'm not so sure about an adult (perhaps they have learned helplessness).
There's a (in my opinion) magnificent sutta, SN 7.2, where the Buddha doesn't allow himself to be insulted -- doesn't accept, doesn't share in the insult.
I guess what I learned is that no matter how a child misbehaves, the adult should always be more-or-less well-behaved -- it isn't or shouldn't be a tit-for-tat, where if the child behaves badly then the adult does too. I guess that (i.e. good behaviour) is what I see as ideal now, for an adult -- i.e. that we should behave well.
Apparently one of the problems people have, with dysfunctional parents, is that they may not have learned good coping/behavioural/relationship/communication skills and responses -- because after all, you're supposed to learn those from your parents to some extent -- and I say that without meaning to disparage survivors

Is it their karma to be not honored because of their actions?
I think Buddhists tend to honor actions as being skilful or unskilful ...

"That was well said."
"That was well given."

... and so on.
I'm not sure about honoring the person -- or at least I guess I'd honor my parents for their kindness (and maybe wisdom), and not for any misdeeds (which if any are hopefully bygones).

There are many ways of approaching challenging situations. One way is to view karma as like a coin. One side is the return of your previous actions, but the other side is the opportunity to practice the dharma, letting the opportunity to create more bad karma pass you by, learning in the process how to let go of some of the 3 poisons, and take a positive step towards your liberation and enlightenment.
Another way to view this situation is to practice Guru Yoga (if you practice Tibetan Buddhism). You see this (and every) situation as a teaching by your Holy Guru and this place (and this land) as the Pure Land of your Holy Guru where every moment is a teaching of your Holy Guru. What you are learning about is not "out there". It is all about watching your mind, letting your conceptual thoughts and feelings go on their merry way without you, as they rise and subside and go away. One moment at a time.


text:
Observing the breath vs Pranayama
Is it better to just watch the breath as it unfolds or sometimes we need to control it to slow it down ,calming down and noticing it in the same time ?.

Calm down the mind - breath is indicator of mind state.
https://plumvillage.org/sutra/discourse-on-the-full-awareness-of-breathing/

‘Breathing in a long breath, I know I am breathing in a long breath. Breathing out a long breath, I know I am breathing out a long breath.
‘Breathing in a short breath, I know I am breathing in a short breath. Breathing out a short breath, I know I am breathing out a short breath.
‘Breathing in, I am aware of my whole body. Breathing out, I am aware of my whole body.’ He or she practices like this.
‘Breathing in, I calm my whole body. Breathing out, I calm my whole body.’ He or she practices like this.
‘Breathing in, I feel joyful. Breathing out, I feel joyful.’ He or she practices like this.
‘Breathing in, I feel happy. Breathing out, I feel happy.’ He or she practices like this.
‘Breathing in, I am aware of my mental formations. Breathing out, I am aware of my mental formations.’ He or she practices like this.
‘Breathing in, I calm my mental formations. Breathing out, I calm my mental formations.’ He or she practices like this.
‘Breathing in, I am aware of my mind. Breathing out, I am aware of my mind.’ He or she practices like this.
‘Breathing in, I make my mind happy. Breathing out, I make my mind happy.’ He or she practices like this.
‘Breathing in, I concentrate my mind. Breathing out, I concentrate my mind.’ He or she practices like this.
‘Breathing in, I liberate my mind. Breathing out, I liberate my mind.’ He or she practices like this.

For people with 'monkey-mind', often controlling the breath for a period may be beneficial to help the mind calm down. However, true Buddhist meditation is merely allowing the mind to watch the breath because Buddhist practise is actually not really related to watching breath per se but is about keeping the mind free from unwholesomeness.
The only reason watching breath is mentioned in Buddhism is because a pure mind without any unwholesomeness automatically watches the breath.
As for Pranayama, this can harm the body & mind if done incorrectly:

Satipatthana doesn't any relation to breath. This path is for further perfection towards Arhatship. But Nirvana is achieved before that. Sati doesn't mean breath but awareness in detached form. With eyes of wisdom having detached from inside keeps his awareness there, as it the practitioner turn into that. By keeping this awareness daily in life while walking, sitting, doing something he is detached in every respect. That's the eight fold path. Samma ditthi means insight of thou and that awarenes become one. Samma vaca means that you are talking wholesome with united detached awareness. So also other Samma steps and finally Samma Samadhi. Samma samadhi is the end where previously you perceive as detached awareness, you become that. You crossed from this shore of body to other shore of formless spot. You are embodied. Then one realised his past lives, how karma operating living beings by seeing three realms of heaven, earth and hell and know the four noble truth. Then only he is termed as Arhat. This state is hard to attain without bounty of wholesome deeds. The awareness in satipatthana can be termed as God watching you and all your actions. If you commit misdeeds you bound to repay. How can if one know He is watching, commit misdeeds? Hence five percepts are gem for householder and eight for that of monks. Do good deeds. That's the main motto. Just meditation can't remove your suffering.


text:
Is "impermanence" a bad translation of "anicca"?
This article explains Anicca, Dukkha, and Anatta -- and in this question I'd like to ask about Anicca.
The article says that Anicca doesn't mean, or shouldn't be translated as, "impermanence":

Impermanence is a fact; see, “Grand Unified Theory of Dhamma“. But impermanence is NOT the MEANING of anicca.

It says,

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“.

Is that so -- is the article right about that?

It seems to me that this is more logical -- and it explains lots of points where we have doubt about.
As an example, when it says it's dukkha when something is Anicca -- how come loosing a tooth of a kid (to grow new one) makes no sorrow to his mum, but when some boy looses his tooth when he is 19 (adult tooth not kid) it makes the mother cry? it's not because of the impermanence but because the things didn't work out the way as expected.
So impermanence is not always cause to Dukkha -- but when the expected result is not met, that is always Dukkha.
And understanding this deeper make you wise, Not to expect things but to accept the situations as it is. Because things happens not because whether we like it or not but it's the way things are supposed to be.
If I explain with another example:
a boy starts liking a girl, just because she has nice hair, nice eyes and nice voice (Attachment start with Avijja). And boy starts to date the girl and everything is going well . And they decided to marry, after the marriage, boy finds out that the girl can't be a mother, but boy wants to be a dad. Now there's a conflict and it normally result in sorrows (dukkha).
If we think about this, no matter whether they grow older and look bad here nothing is related to impermanence but it's not getting what the boy wanted. So initially boy get attached to the girl base on outer appearance (what ever noticeable) thinking he can achieve what he wanted with girl. When getting attached boy didn't ask her whether she is capable of having a baby or not, but the picture / model / image which is created in boy's mind (by himself) is capable of any of those. In other words, in boy's mind the picture of the girl is perfect, he expects what ever he needs from her as his model in the mind is capable of anything he wants. 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.
Building these images/models/pictures is because of avijja -- we don't know how the world behaves, but we expect things from the attached world. What ever we are attached to, we build our own castles, on top of that in our mind because we don't understand the Anicca nature of the world. That's what the Buddhist (who has the Samma Ditti = Sothapanna) understand the true nature of the world, which means everything is Aniccha -- so don't expect to be happy by attaching to outside world things. Because what ever the joy you create are in your mind they are not because of the external world material. So attachment is dangerous as it creates Karma which will cause you later.

Above is how I've realized this. I expect the comments answers on this. Whether someone rejecting this view if so why? I'm not sticking to any of view, I'm whether this view on Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta is wrong?

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

The terms “Buddhism” and “Buddhist” were invented by the English, French, and German historians in the nineteenth century. Up to that time it was “Buddha Dhamma” or the “Dhamma or Teachings of the Buddha”. And a person who diligently followed the Path advised by the Buddha was called a “Bhauddhayä” (=bhava + uddha+yä= one who strives to stop the rebirth process, i.e., to stop suffering). I do not think that the members of this forum are aware of this fact.
Each person understands Buddha Dhamma differently, mainly based on the level of exposure to “correct Dhamma”. The phrase “Dhammo ha ve rakkati Dhammacari”, i.e., “Dhamma will guide and protect one who lives by Dhamma” is true, becomes a truism only if one is a Sotapanna (a Stream Entrant). But only a minute few will realize this truism.  If one really starts becoming a Buddhist/Bhauddhaya, (=bhava + uddha+yä= one who strives to stop the rebirth process, i.e., to stop suffering), one will be able to see the changes in oneself as time goes by (others will start noticing after a bit longer). One’s likings and associations are the first to change.
Now coming to your question proper, just like beauty doesn't exist on its own but is created by observers, and is in the eye of the beholder, it is the same when it come to this question about “Anicca”. For almost all those who are part of this forum, the meaning of “Aniccä vatha sankhärä; Uppäda vaya dhamminö”… is “All things are impermanent; They arise and pass away;
Having arisen they come to an end; . Their coming to peace is bliss.” But I am one of a very small group of people who take the meaning of it to be thus:
All beings of all worlds, are forever trying to entertain the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind. In this desire to satisfy our six senses we do six types of volitional formations in this endless sansaric journey. Yet we can never fully satisfy these six. They are fruitless, conceited, unproductive acts, that are done in vain. We do not realize that no matter what we do, it is not possible to maintain anything to our satisfaction in the long run. Thus… Anicca vata sankhara — "Alas, We can never maintain to our satisfaction, all such formations!”
Aniccä vatha sankhärä; Uppäda vaya dhamminö… all mind-made pleasures that arise from our ‘abhisankhara’ can never be maintain to our satisfaction, and thus come to pass, eroding our sublime qualities. All pleasures of the mind lead us right into Mara's death trap, eroding the sublime qualities of our hearts…. Uppäda vaya dhamminö… All things that arise, suffer change, and pass away. This is their nature.
Uuppajjitvä nirujjhanti; Te san vüpa samö sukhö….. whatever arises is bound to fade away and thus lead to sorrow. When this “San” or “piling up” is removed or “vüpa sama” or gotten rid of, we can reach the ultimate happiness or “Nibbana”, the Deathless.
Aniccä vatha sankhärä
Uppäda vaya dhamminö
Uuppajjitvä nirujjhanti
Te san vüpa samö sukhö

Sadhu, Upasaka, especialy for the introduction. For example the old Khmer transl. is "min diang", not control-able, not-bend-able. as common replacement. As right mentioned, sometimes impermanent is very welcome, thinking on those fearing boredom.

In summary, instead of translating "Anicca vata sankhara" as "impermanent alas [are] formations", you translate it as, "we can never maintain to our satisfaction, alas, formations". I think that meaning is implied by the Anattalakkhaṇasutta (SN 22.59), so maybe it's not only a minority view (held by "a very small group of people").

@Saptha, Thanks for replying here, I was about to leave this community like it was a waste spending time here. Only few people are open minded in this group (Including Rev. Samana Johann and ChrisW as well). Sadhu Sadhu
Wise person can be identified by another wise person only. (Anguttara Nikaya -> Chathukka Nipathaya -> Brahmana Vargaya -> Dvthiyavassakara Sutta)
Yampi Iccan, Na Labathi Thampi Dukkhan

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.

Can you explain below scenario, how the impermanence become Dukkha?: Imagine a girl in 16 years old get pregnant. Is she happy now? Is her parents, boy friend everyone is suffering right? Now think of a girl married in 22nd of her age and expecting a baby, but she can't be a mother due to some health issue. In this two scenarios, can you explain where the impermanence is?

For icca, nicca. Only thing I've to say, we are still using the word icca (which means, expectation, likeness ) in our vocabularies. So no matter who gives new definitions to it, we know what's the real meaning of icca as we still use it.

The pregnant 16 year-old girl - why is she suffering? What makes her unhappy? She may think that her reputation is ruined and people will look down at her. She may think her future and security is at risk. It's because she pegged her self-worth to these impermanent things, which when lost or at risk of being lost, makes her unhappy and agitated. Her parents may also be concerned about their reputation in society, and peg their self-worth to it.

Ok, so don't you feel like that you are changing the domains here. If I answer to this in different way, assume that when she get pregnant in 22nd, she is happy. As you said, its because her parents and the society is having a new, better view of her. So this is also impermanence, right ? but now she is happy

Yes, she is happy. Her reputation is good. She clings to the idea of her reputation. Now she wants to be a mother. She clings to the idea of motherhood. She is happy now with a child. What if her child suddenly dies? Wouldn't that make her unhappy? Or the child grows up and becomes undisciplined, disobedient and delinquent - wouldn't that make her unhappy? Suffering is due to things that make you happy (like the pleasures and ideas you cling to) being impermanent, and things that make you unhappy are not permanently avoidable (like disease and death).

Suffering is also due to things that make you being happy being unachievable, or once achieved, is taken away from you.

After you say Yes, it seems like you are going to some other direction. (May be my English is bad. Please think again and see, what I'm trying to say ~ with Metta)
: We are talking about the same incident, which is being a mother, 1. In the un-acceptable age (by the society). 2. Acceptable age (by the society). So no matter the impermanence, until it happens as she wishes it to happen she is happy and when it is against the wish she is not happy but worries. The rest can be dragged, about child's death and all... But the exact point we are discussing is being a mother. Isn't it

And another simple example. When you get headache you are suffered (ok. let's say it's the impermanence). Then how about when you are recovered from a long running headache (this is also impermanence) ? Are you suffered or happy?

When you recovered from the headache, you are happy. But would this last forever?

It’s not the case in Buddhism. Many teachers knew this before buddha born. This is pretty simple thing right? If you think this is why Buddha found Nivana then its applicable only to humans. What about gods and brahmas. Gods don’t age. They are in 16years old state forever. And brahma they can stay in brahma worlds for thousands of years. That’s their life time. So this Dhamma is about thoughts we make in our mind. Buddha advised to study the thoughts at the present time (current instant). Thats where the impermanence theory get failed. But anicca=insatiable is true for anything any time.

Devas and brahmas are not immortal in Buddhism. They may live long but they will die eventually. Just like the Great Brahma in DN 1 who thought he was immortal. Thoughts, ideas and other mental objects are impermanent and changing too as stated in SN 12.61.

From SN 12.61: Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.

I didnt say they are immortal. You didn't got the point. So you are following the buddhism in a fear of the birth again? Do you know you will born again or not? Is it guaranteed to your self? Have you seen your previous lives to be so confident about that. (I'm not saying bife birth cycle is a lie). In buddhism birth and death is about the presemt mind (thought). When you uproot avijja, you will not get cheated once the thought is born and you let it die in a way as it suppose to happen. You are not gonna stop it as u know the avijja. In paticcasamuppadaya also there are two sets for this.

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).

According to this definition, it doesn’t talk about building happiness. What i talks about is when something is not the way you (or someone) want it to be that make you dukkha. Why? Because that’s the nature of the world which is Anicca (not the impermanence)

Yes, yes, I understand. This is right. Just don't call it Anicca.

But if you think about the word 'Anucca' = An + icca, where icca has the meaning of like, vote, expectation, etc. So with 'An' in front this makes the negative of it. The issue happened translating the word Anicca to sanscrit. They translated it as Anithya. That means impermanence. With that this confusion came. So the right word for the definition in tge question is Anicca while impermanence is Anithya. And in Sri Lankan canon its clrealy advised by buddha dhamma should not be translated to sanskrit if do it will run to issues. Thats exactly what we are facing today. With Metta

As you have understand Anicca (sorry which you asked not to say it). I'm sharing the below link which you can understand. ( see the link in the update section) its a personal experience of a forieng lady so its in english so u can understand. Like wise there are many experience in dhyana levels and day to day lives. Only thing we think was based anicca. Because thats the root cause for all these dukkha ans problems in the world.

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/33586/16489

Paticcasamuppadaya theres one for the birth. And the other one is idappaccayata paticcasamuppadaya, which explains the how we create karma in each moment. That's where we feel suffer because we haven't uproot the avijja.

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.

“Logically, ‘dissociation from what is liked is anicca” this is wrong. Here what you should think is the ‘like’ part. That likeness has come because not knowing that is anicca. But he thinks it will be the way he wants it. Not to get what we want is dukkha is directly about anicca. The other things anicca is hidden in the attachment (like etc.) part

I’m not talking about Sankara. Anicca is not about sankara. Anicca is about the panchaupadanaskanda. Panchaupadanaskanda is anicca. Why because it is what you build in your mind. And also we build panchaupadanaskanda in our mind without knowing the panchaskanda in anicca. That’s why when someone realizes the anicca nature ( there are some other facts to understand as well ) he stop running after things which is the starting point of dropping sakkaya ditti (not the self view but thinking the world is worth)

Pati-icca-sama-uppada. When some overcome the paticcasamuppada he become arhanth as he is getting no more jathi. What is icca there? Its not knowing anicca, people getting to paticcasamuppada. All of these are bound when we think anicca with this definition. But it won’t happen because the buddhism is not accepted and understood by majority that’s the nature of it (this is told by buddha and also buddha said Only wise people get it) because the world is anicca whether we like it or not thats how it is

You seem to be trying to translate anicca as an+iccha -- so "not liked" or "not likeable" or "not something to wish for", or something like that. The usual translation or definition is as a+nicca -- so "not ongoing", "not constant". There seems to be overlap (between your definition and the conventional one) because we're taught we shouldn't wish for what's impermanent, that the impermanent isn't permanently satisfying.

2 things here. Anicca is translated to Sanskrit as Anithya. Where that means impermanence and nithya means permanent. Icca is the like, vote, expecting etc. And u just can't put a infront of icca (its like the usage of a, an english eg: an apple and a mango). So its Anicca. Not only you we from the child hood are taught tge same thing which anicca is impermanence. Then recently in past few years, the new definition came in to the scene. And it worked. When I say worked it even easily made the people in to dhyana levels. But you need to wash all the learnings and think from a free mind

Mailnly, anicca, dukkha, anatta and aashwada (joyfulness, happy) aadinawa (danger) nissarana (dissociation) are the things in buddhism. I'll give some references later. Once the anicca is mistaken all the things get mistaken as its the heart of every thing in buddhism. Its there in pancha-upadanaskanda, its in noble dukkha, its in pati-icca-samuppada, its in meditation (anapana sathi) its every where. But when its mistaken there are lots of fault assumptions are made. Ex: sakkaya ditti=self view. People dont understand but everyone says it is. But anicca,  once you realised it its forever.

It would be disrespectful of me to claim, "Everyone who has translated it as 'impermanence' is wrong", so I don't suppose I'll ever do that -- instead I'm here to learn from those who have known the scriptures better than I do. Trying to argue for new definitions seems to me to be what a sectarian might do. And (as Andrei wrote), the realisation isn't wrong, only "just don't call it anicca".

Totally with you Chris. I'm not blaming anyone. Thats the way it supposed to happened as buddha has already mentioned that. I behave the same way as you. Want to learn from people who knows better. And help others to know what I know (when needed). Thing is as a Sri Lankan when the word Anicca (I'll use ABCD foe now) is heard its more closer to think as not getting expected than impermanence. Because Sinhala, Pali and Magadha all these languages are close. Anyway don't wanna continue this. I'll try my best not to offend anyone but to help and learn. I'll give more evidences on path with ABCD

Check the update part in below answer. This are practical evidences of ABCD.  https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/33586/16489

@follower In MN 109 rūpaṃ niccaṃ vā aniccaṃ vā”ti? "Is form permanent or impermanent?" -- I think that's evidence that the opposite of anicca is nicca not iccha.

Yes, you are correct about anicca and nicca, I checked pali canon also. That's how its written. The meaning of these words are different any way. Thanks for the reference. With Metta!

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:

pleasant feeling, sukhā vedanā
painful feeling, dukkhā vedanā
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.

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:

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.
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:

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

You are quoting the mistakenly translated things from the sites. You are not thinking with new definition of ‘Anicca’ and answered this question. And how you recommend that not to trouble others with questions from ‘pure dhamma’ site. What are you? Are you Arhanth, if so I would accept this, if not you are trying to bias this site’s perception to what you think is write. Please just don’t type or quote things as answer. Put your self in to the word Anicca as what defined then convert all the things for a second and think. With Metta

Anicca = (An + icca) what is icca? Icca is the consent to something, expecting something etc. meaning. And Anicca  is not getting that nicca.

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)

Who is Lal? And about dukkha: in the example think if the girl gives the birth to a child now, boy thinks its the girl have what he wants and he attached to her more, this is the noble dukkha. He thinks its pleasure but its just a thought in his mind that the girl makes him happy. Since its something made up in the mind (the reality is whether he like or not she will give the birth) and he get cheated and attached more (upaadana) its the noble dukkha

Upasaka Lal is the author of the page Upasaka (@follower ) quoted and he is generally hard offended by those clinging on views everywhere, has no ease at all, attacked by householder and householders monks. Nyom can approach him personally here. Best greetings if meeting him. He would not go out of his castle, home.

Like some people here :) if you know what I mean.

Try to get ride by your own, Upasaka. No need to seek for siding, and stay along with wise (those who rebuke you toward kusala), seeing that they would not take side and go toward liberation, or are there. As told often, one is not wise if going to lands where wrong view domains to seek out what is near actually where one dwells.

I am Rev. Just thought of sharing what I know here. But it seems very difficult

If placing Dana outside the 5 proper places it always becomes not a pleasure for one, Nyom. If and just if feeling fine, Upasaka tends to scarifies toward the Gems he can always do such here but it's hard as requires to leave home, stand. Anicca as well, but headed toward nicca, dedicated only for that.


text:
SN 22.62: What is meant by "scope of language"?
What is the message of this sutta?

At Sāvatthī.
“Mendicants, there are these three scopes of language, terminology,
  and descriptions. They’re uncorrupted, as they have been since the
  beginning. They’re not being corrupted now, nor will they be. Sensible
  ascetics and brahmins don’t look down on them. What three? When form
  has passed, ceased, and perished, its designation, label, and
  description is ‘was’. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘will be’.
When feeling …
perception … choices …
consciousness has passed, ceased, and perished, its designation,
  label, and description is ‘was’. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘will be’.
When form is not yet born, and has not yet appeared, its designation,
  label, and description is ‘will be’. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘was’.
When feeling …
perception … choices …
consciousness is not yet born, and has not yet appeared, its
  designation, label, and description is ‘will be’. It’s not ‘is’ or
  ‘was’.
When form has been born, and has appeared, its designation, label, and
  description is ‘is’. It’s not ‘was’ or ‘will be’.
When feeling …
perception … choices …
consciousness has been born, and has appeared, its designation, label,
  and description is ‘is’. It’s not ‘was’ or ‘will be’.
These are the three scopes of language, terminology, and descriptions.
  They’re uncorrupted, as they have been since the beginning. They’re
  not being corrupted now, nor will they be. Sensible ascetics and
  brahmins don’t look down on them. Even those wanderers of the past,
  Vassa and Bhañña of Ukkalā, who taught the doctrines of no-cause,
  inaction, and nihilism, didn’t imagine that these three scopes of
  language should be criticized or rejected. Why is that? For fear of
  being blamed, criticized, and faulted.”

How was it perceived by Brahman Dhammadhatu? What was it's message to him? Where would an answer lead him to, what would it be, what likes he it to be? (aside of possible not good translated..)

Use Bhikkhu Bodhis translation, even also not proper given.

"These, bhikkhus, are the three pathways of language, pathways of designation, pathways of description, that are unmixed, that were never mixed, that are not being mixed, that will not be mixed, that are not rejected by wise ascetics and brahmins. Even Vassa and Bañña of Ukkala, proponents of noncausality, of the inefficacy of action, and of nihilism, did not think that these three pathways of language, pathways of designation, pathways of description should be criticized or scorned. For what reason? Because they fear blame, attack, and condemnation.”

Sorry -- were you asking for an explanation of the sutta (e.g. "why is it important?"), or e.g. an explanation of the word, "adhivacanapatha" (e.g. "why is it translated 'scope of language'?"), or both?

This is Nirukthipatha sutta right? The same meaning is there in Sinhala canon as well. It says about keeping the past present and future sense when using the language

Clearly the past, present and future (was, is, will be) are all evident and incontestible (i.e., uncorrupted and without defilements). Therefore, this sutta implies that the corruption and defilements arise taking the past, present and future as other than what they are. Indeed, suffering arises when we take the past as the present (remorse or sadness). Or suffering arises when we take the past as the future (craving or aversion). Or suffering arises when we take the past or future as the present (delusion). Mixing up past, present and future is suffering.
Yet if one directly knows what was, is and will be:

He directly knows water … fire … air … creatures … gods … the Creator … Brahmā … the gods of streaming radiance … the gods replete with glory … the gods of abundant fruit … the Overlord … the dimension of infinite space … the dimension of infinite consciousness … the dimension of nothingness … the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception … the seen … the heard … the thought … the known … oneness … diversity … all … He directly knows extinguishment as extinguishment. But he doesn’t identify with extinguishment, he doesn’t identify regarding extinguishment, he doesn’t identify as extinguishment, he doesn’t identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, he doesn’t take pleasure in extinguishment. Why is that? Because he has understood that relishing is the root of suffering, and that rebirth comes from continued existence; whoever has come to be gets old and dies. That’s why the Realized One—with the ending, fading away, cessation, giving up, and letting go of all cravings—has awakened to the supreme perfect Awakening, I say
  --MN1

"There are so many ways to suffer!", there are => to?

Thanks. I edited answer to be less vague since I could not list all the ways to suffer

Scopes of language.

Brahman Dhammadhatu, interested,
It's not sure of what Brahman actually thought that he likes to ask. Maybe he "just" placed some generosity with a reminder and food for reflections with it. So not sure if such kind of extension was expected at the time the question came into being, asking "What is (was) the message of this sutta?", possible meaning "how could it be understood, or should be taken upon".
The Buddha pointed in this Sutta 'simply', if seen, on an important aspect of right speech, mentioning that even the opponents of him did not use wrong speech in regard of what was, is and might be, since such could be 'easy' used that one gets refuted, as being no right speech, not speaking on "facts".
Practicing to hold firm on such, sacca, is of great benefit, since it requires to investigate relations and does not allow much of easy talk, talk that seems as taking phenomena as real and without causes and even puts cause behind effect. As householder Ruben possible tried to point out in his answer, such right speech and good considerations before speaking works well as reminder on the Dhamma, if this is already known, or have been heard, remembering it.
A sample, part of it, in regard of present (knowing) and the past (having seen) is found direct under right/wrong speech:

"There is the case where a certain person, abandoning false speech, abstains from false speech. When he has been called to a town meeting, a group meeting, a gathering of his relatives, his guild, or of the royalty, if he is asked as a witness, 'Come & tell, good man, what you know': If he doesn't know, he says, 'I don't know.' If he does know, he says, 'I know.' If he hasn't seen, he says, 'I haven't seen.' If he has seen, he says, 'I have seen.' Thus he doesn't consciously tell a lie for his own sake, for the sake of another, or for the sake of any reward. Abandoning false speech, he abstains from false speech. He speaks the truth, holds to the truth, is firm, reliable, no deceiver of the world. — AN 10.176

The future is seldom used aside in citing teachers, those who know cause and it's effect, and if mentioned proper.
How do investigations around the topic accrue today, if done maybe differently, in other circumstances?
(note that this question is not given for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment, but for ones work trough faults to escape the wheel here and liberation)

Niruttipathā adhivacanapathā paññattipathā are made known.
The Sutta means everyone has to accept together with the fact of the past, future and present aggregates' arising and vanishing although some of them have wrong view in the relativity of those aggregates as no-cause, inaction, and nihilism.
The accepting is well known in everyone's mind without announcement or language.

This translation was translated follow to Thai version translation, which is a wrong translation.
There are 2 kinds of pa~n~natti: naamapa~n~natti and atthapa~n~natti.
The paali in this sutta is talking about atthapa~n~natti, but the translation was translated as naamapa~n~natti. It is a common mistake of Thai buddhist translation.
See  Paññatti and compare between this sutta paali and Paññattiniddeso.

"sutta is talking"?

"The Sutta means everyone has to accept"?

"The accepting is well known in everyone's mind"?

ja, what's the Thai word for "is", or Pali for is.

Bhikkhu Sujato translates it here as "three scopes of language, terminology and descriptions". Bhikkhu Bodhi translates it here as "these three pathways of language, pathways of designation, pathways of description".
What are they? Basically, they are "was", "will be" and "is".
As applied to the five aggregates (of form, feeling, perception, volitional formations and consciousness), they are:

Past: Passed, ceased, changed
Future: Yet to manifest
Present: Has become manifest

The Buddha says that virtually everybody agrees that these five aggregates are either yet to become manifest, have become manifest, or have ceased or changed, through the same language, terminology and description that they use.
Looking at other suttas in the linked suttas of SN 22, this simply reinforces the theme that the five aggregates are impermanent (anicca), and one should not cling to them. Clinging to the aggregates, having desire for the five aggregates and/or associating them to the self, is a cause of suffering.
The sutta also talks about other non-Buddhist philosophers and their use of these terms for the same context. Here, the Buddha implies that everybody uses the same language, terminology and description to express the fact that they can observe - that the five aggregates are impermanent. Thus, it is ludicrous to believe that there is something permanent (such as a self) in or of the five aggregates. It's also not sensible to think that the five aggregates do not exist - surely they exist, but they are impermanent and changing. It is also perilous to cling to something impermanent, thinking that it will last forever.
Concerning "no-cause, inaction, and nihilism" - the fact that the five aggregates do in fact exist, but are impermanent and changing, hint at a means of how karma and its consequences can work. So, it also doesn't make sense to reject karma and its consequences.
The Buddha is basically pointing out that what he teaches is closely tied to the obvious things that people, since ancient times, have observed, and expressed through their language, terminology and descriptions - that the five aggregates are impermanent.

"it is ludicrous to believe that there is something permanent", that is not what the Buddha taught, householder Ruben. Maybe housholder Ruben meant within the aggregates such could not be expected. If so (1st), then the practice would not make any sense, aside that the explaining here goes for off the simple words. Objections are not proper Scopes of language and if using one mentions them as such. "The Buddha said", or one is reminded. It's not easy to practice right speech, not easy at all but liberating.

I just changed it to "it is ludicrous to believe that there is something permanent (such as a self) in or of the five aggregates"

Sadhu for the generosity and care, householder Ruben.