How do Buddhism, Stoicism, and Ecclesiastes each teach impermanence?

Three very different traditions arrive at nearly the same observation about impermanence, though each draws a different practical conclusion from it. In Buddhism, anicca, impermanence, is the first of the three marks of existence, alongside dukkha, suffering, and anatta, no fixed self: all conditioned things arise from causes and pass away, and clinging to what cannot last is treated as the root of suffering. The prescribed response is non-attachment, cultivated through meditation that trains the mind to notice change directly rather than resist it. Stoicism reaches a related insight through memento mori, “remember you will die,” a practice Marcus Aurelius returns to throughout Meditations, reflecting that empires, reputations, and bodies all decay. For the Stoics this isn't morbid; it clarifies what is actually within one's control, one's own judgments and choices, versus what was never securely held to begin with, health, status, other people's opinions, and it sharpens gratitude and urgency about what matters now. Ecclesiastes reaches similar territory from within a very different worldview: “Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity” (Ecclesiastes 1:2), followed by “I have seen all the things that are done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind” (1:14). Unlike the Buddhist or Stoic frameworks, Ecclesiastes doesn't resolve into a technique for detachment; its conclusion, reached at the book's end, is to fear God and keep his commandments, treating impermanence as a reason to hold worldly striving loosely rather than a problem to be mastered through practice.