Hindu idea of "unchanging" self

[PolyHedral]

From what I understand, the Hindu belief system gets the idea that consciousness is a thing external from a person from the logic that what we normally think of as "I" changes as time goes on. It then goes on to say that the self is, actually, unchanging, and so what we normally think of as ourselves is "false" in some way, and there's a deeper underlying reality.

But why should this be? Why does the self need to be unchanging?

 

[atanu]

From what I understand, the Hindu belief system gets the idea that consciousness is a thing external from a person from the logic that what we normally think of as "I" changes as time goes on. It then goes on to say that the self is, actually, unchanging, and so what we normally think of as ourselves is "false" in some way, and there's a deeper underlying reality.

But why should this be? Why does the self need to be unchanging?

I am stunned and speechless.

 

[PolyHedral]

I am stunned and speechless.

Because I've worked out what on Earth you mean?

 

[atanu]

Because I've worked out what on Earth you mean?

Yes. Regards.

 

[PolyHedral]

Could you answer the question then?

 

[Onkara]

But why should this be? Why does the self need to be unchanging?

Because for change to be recognised there has to be something which has not changed.

By the way It has no needs.

 

[Willamena]

From what I understand, the Hindu belief system gets the idea that consciousness is a thing external from a person from the logic that what we normally think of as "I" changes as time goes on. It then goes on to say that the self is, actually, unchanging, and so what we normally think of as ourselves is "false" in some way, and there's a deeper underlying reality.

But why should this be? Why does the self need to be unchanging?

Both "changing" and "unchanging" are images of "self."

The "unchanging self," though, is the maker of images.

 

[PolyHedral]

Because for change to be recognised there has to be something which has not changed.

By the way It has no needs.

I'd say that there only has to be a recording of what has been before. The "self" as a unit can change and still recognize itself.

 

[Onkara]

I'd say that there only has to be a recording of what has been before. The "self" as a unit can change and still recognize itself.

The "Self" is not a separable unit.
It is easier to reflect on your own self... when were you last separate?

Memory (recording) are of the brain. Recordings change too, they can be forgotten, or suddenly recalled, or change over time etc. Show me one thing which is not subject to change?

 

[PolyHedral]

Memory (recording) are of the brain. Recordings change too, they can be forgotten, or suddenly recalled, or change over time etc. Show me one thing which is not subject to change?

The integers.

 

[Onkara]

The integers.

using System;

class Program
{
static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine(Convert.ToBoolean(5));
}
}


The above changes an integer 5 to "True".



I am talking from your perspective, from the "perspective" of PolyHedral's mind.

 

[PolyHedral]

using System;

class Program
{
static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine(Convert.ToBoolean(5));
}
}


The above changes an integer 5 to "True".



I am talking from your perspective, from the "perspective" of PolyHedral's mind.

That's not changing anything. 5 is still 5. You just outputted (bool)(5), rather than just 5.

 

[Willamena]

That's not changing anything. 5 is still 5. You just outputted (bool)(5), rather than just 5.

Your output changed.

 

[Onkara]

That's not changing anything. 5 is still 5. You just outputted (bool)(5), rather than just 5.

So now you have "5" and "true"!

What thing is not relative to something else?

 

[no-body]

I am coming more from a new age back round but I think the sentiment is the same as Hindu advaita vedanta (non-duality) ... there is an eternal one life that pervades everything in this world of forms and that is the "true self" this world of forms is simply a game that ego loses itself in and it is our "job" to "remember" this thought ultimately it doesn't really matter. This world might or might not be illusory but it is a waste of time to think about. There is only now and that is all there will ever be, the present moment; here in lies the unchanging self. You may call it God, Reality, Brahman, whatever, but it is just semantics it cannot be described only experienced.

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

That's not changing anything. 5 is still 5. You just outputted (bool)(5), rather than just 5.

Hi PolyHedral, Onkara, and Willamena!

I'm not going to pretend I know what you are talking about with the boolean thing, but you sparked a question in my nonmathematical mind. I gather you're talking about the Hindu concept of Atman versus the Buddhist idea of emptiness. My question is, (and I'm asking out of a desire to know, not to be silly) is a concept (like the 5 that you are going 'round about) empty of inherent existence just like a person is?

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

 

[PolyHedral]

So now you have "5" and "true"!

What thing is not relative to something else?

0. It is defined into existence.

Your output changed.

No it didn't. There's only one program, and it runs the same every time.

My question is, (and I'm asking out of a desire to know, not to be silly) is a concept (like the 5 that you are going 'round about) empty of inherent existence just like a person is?

I don't know. I would argue that a concept defined as rigidly as "5" is actually more real than a vaguely defined concept, such as a "person." (Or even the concept of me.)

 

[atanu]

But why should this be? Why does the self need to be unchanging?

That is wrong and leading question. I say that what is the need for PolyHedral the mathematician and PolyHedral the person to be the same and one?

Some scientist, I do not remember who, gave a beautiful example. Suppose you have a fish in an aquarium whose movements are recorded by two cameras from different angles and then the two recordings are shown to a person and asked to comment on similarities and dissimilarities between the two fishes.

If one drilled into the process of cognition, it will go back to one and same unchanging timeless substratum -- it is corroborated by meditators. Change is meaningless here since it is timeless and actionless. Time only comes up with subject-object division that is in the time constrained view of the subject and not in the subject. Mind-thoughts and words begin here and end here.

 

[PolyHedral]

That is wrong and leading question. I say that what is the need for PolyHedral the mathematician and PolyHedral the person to be the same and one?

They aren't the same. The former is a part of the latter.

Some scientist, I do not remember who, gave a beautiful example. Suppose you have a fish in an aquarium whose movements are recorded by two cameras from different angles and then the two recordings are shown to a person and asked to comment on similarities and dissimilarities between the two fishes.

But you can infer you're actually looking at the same fish from two different places by comparing the surrounding objects.

If one drilled into the process of cognition, it will go back to one and same unchanging timeless substratum -- it is corroborated by meditators. Change is meaningless here since it is timeless and actionless. Time only comes up with subject-object division that is in the time constrained view of the subject and not in the subject. Mind-thoughts and words begin here and end here.

No, it doesn't; The very bedrock of cognition is computation, which is an inherently state-ful operation. "Thinking timelessly" is a contradiction in terms. There might not be anything to measure time by, but that doesn't mean time doesn't exist.

 

[Onkara]

The Mundaka Upanishad, of the Hindu scriptures says:

III-ii-3: This Self is not attained through study, nor through the intellect, nor through much hearing. The very Self which this one (i.e. the aspirant) seeks is attainable through that fact of seeking; this Self of his reveals Its own nature.