Changing equals Unreal

[JustARandomPanda]

I've noticed a theme among some TTB posters.

 

About how anything that changes automatically makes it unreal.

 

Why what ever is unchanging is defined ipso facto as that which is 'really real' vs anything that changes?

 

It's simply asserted as an axiom. Over and over.

 

And if you point this out they tell you to get out of their thread because it's not meant for someone like you - only those whom have 'realized' this Axiom of Ultimate Truth.

 

 

Why put that which is unchanging on a "real-er" pedestal than anything that changes?

 

To me it seems suspiciously like a very, very deep bias to a particular PoV when posters keep insisting on framing it in those particular terms.

 

It's like one little kid pointing a finger at other little kids going, "Nyah, Nyah. My Real is more real than yours".

[Protector]

Change is unchanging, just give it time

[JustARandomPanda]

Change is unchanging, just give it time

 

That doesn't answer why so many people assert the following:

 

Unchanging defined as that which is real and change is that which is not.

 

For example:

 

The often asserted statement that Awareness is unchanging.

[Protector]

Changing and unchanging are the same thing to me

Creating a perspective makes them two separate things

It can also make changing real and unchanging unreal

[forestofclarity]

I've found this in Vedanta philosophy. It appeals to common sense and generally how we view the world. For example, things that change very rapidly, like thoughts, are often considered less real than things that change slowly, like physical objects or stones. Consider dreams: they change constantly, night to night, even moment to moment. We consider waking life to be more "real" because it doesn't change as rapidly.

 

The other side is that things that change lack an inner essence. An ice cube, for example, lacks an inner "cube essence" because it easily changes (i.e. melts).

[mYTHmAKER]

I've noticed a theme among some TTB posters.

 

About how anything that changes automatically makes it unreal.

 

Why what ever is unchanging is defined ipso facto as that which is 'really real' vs anything that changes?

 

It's simply asserted as an axiom. Over and over.

 

And if you point this out they tell you to get out of their thread because it's not meant for someone like you - only those whom have 'realized' this Axiom of Ultimate Truth.

 

 

Why put that which is unchanging on a "real-er" pedestal than anything that changes?

 

To me it seems suspiciously like a very, very deep bias to a particular PoV when posters keep insisting on framing it in those particular terms.

 

It's like one little kid pointing a finger at other little kids going, "Nyah, Nyah. My Real is more real than yours".

 

The one constant in our known universe is change.

That which doesn't change creates the change.

There is nothing that is not made of this stuff - energy - consciousness in the universe.

Kashmir Shaivism says that everything is god/consciousness. This consciousness is what is unchanging

and can only be experienced through stopping the mind.

[mYTHmAKER]

I've found this in Vedanta philosophy. It appeals to common sense and generally how we view the world. For example, things that change very rapidly, like thoughts, are often considered less real than things that change slowly, like physical objects or stones. Consider dreams: they change constantly, night to night, even moment to moment. We consider waking life to be more "real" because it doesn't change as rapidly.

 

The other side is that things that change lack an inner essence. An ice cube, for example, lacks an inner "cube essence" because it easily changes (i.e. melts).

 

Things that change rapidly SEEM less real.

Dreams - am I Chang Tzu dreaming I'm a butterfly or am i a butterfly dreaming i am Chang Tzu?

An ice cube melts it is still water. The inner cube essence is water.The inner essence of steam is water.

The inner essence of water is that which doesn't change even though it appears to change. It is the same essence of everything that exists.

[eye_of_the_storm]

How does one perceive a state of no change?

 

To perceive no change means there can be no experience of no change... perception implies duration / experience...

 

How else would one know if they are going from changing to no changing to changing...?

Edited August 6, 2012 by White Wolf Running On Air

[gatito]

"That which is never ceases to be. That which is not never comes into being" Parmenides

 

edit (addition):-

 

It is a thorn to remove a thorn.

Edited August 6, 2012 by gatito

[idiot_stimpy]

What the Lord giveth, the Lord can taketh away.

 

He who invests in the transient shall surely suffer.

Edited August 7, 2012 by jconnar

[eye_of_the_storm]

What the Lord giveth, the Lord can taketh away.

 

He who invests in the transient shall surely suffer.

 

What if I am The Lord?

[mYTHmAKER]

[rene]

Oh mYTHmAKER, that was really nice (-: and to me your words describe the unchanging aspect of dao.

[eye_of_the_storm]

@ mYTHmAKER

 

Cool!

[idiot_stimpy]

Why put that which is unchanging on a "real-er" pedestal than anything that changes?

 

 

 

To me, both are as real as each other.

 

However, if you grasp and try and hold onto the changeable, you will be disappointed, as it was born and it will die.

 

That which is transient is born and then passes away.

 

The question is, what is it that is before birth and after death?

 

 

 

This question engages the intellect, and again what is that which is even before the intellect? That which is prior to the urge to even intellectualize something?

[gatito]