Awareness - Changing or Unchanging?

[Anton Rogachevski]

I very often hear that in the process of inquiry one must seek that which is constant, yet upon reading a commentary on Tao Te Ching I stumbled upon this:

"The ordinary, mundane Tao (the one that can be easily Told, or talked about) is unchanging, static, and permanent. The True Tao is Elusive and Ineffable, is in its very Essence Perpetual Change. In the Tao, nothing whatsoever is fixed and unchanging."

And so how can it be both changing and unchanging, or neither? So the true self refereed in almost all teachings is the mundane Tao?

[ivankiss]

Awareness is the constant.

The now does not change. What is being perceived does. 

Awareness is like a container for all change.

It is itself. Forever.

[Anton Rogachevski]

1 hour ago, ivankiss said:

Awareness is the constant.

Hi dear friend,

How do you know this? If I may ask?

Obviously the writer of the commentary might have got it wrong. (he did say the true tao is ever changing) But I must take it into consideration and observe to truly know.

In a sense, the Tao can also be inappropriately translated or understood, or not! Since "change" is interdependent of "no-change", which implies duality. 

The book might also be wrong. (which is the least likely option, but still.)

Edited December 29, 2018 by Anton Rogachevski

[lmfao]

@Anton Rogachevski the way see it, if the past and future is an illusion and all you literally have is the present then in what way is it meaningful to describe awareness as something that changes? All there is is the awareness right NOW. Its just the way it is right now, saying it changes or doesn't change is a concept. All you know is that there is awareness. 

 

Edit: The illusion of time is something I've often pondered and is a source of great paradox. Because logically speaking, does perception even exist in the absence of time? How can time exist if all we have is the present? For example, consider the fact that it takes a time which is not equal to zero seconds for a word to pass through my mind (e.g. the word "cat"). If all we have is the present moment then in what sense does the perception of even words exist if time does not exist? 

Edited December 29, 2018 by lmfao

[Anton Rogachevski]

2 minutes ago, lmfao said:

All you know is that there is awareness. 

Even that I don't know if I can say for sure.

I want to know because it's necessary for the process of inquiry to know even what you are looking for (or not looking.)

Thank you for your input,
Cheers

Edited December 29, 2018 by Anton Rogachevski

[DrewNows]

direct experience changes unless you just sit and meditate 24/7  

It’s pointing to the ever changing sensations? 

Edited December 29, 2018 by DrewNows

[ivankiss]

19 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

Hi dear friend,

How do you know this? If I may ask?

I cannot know it. I can be it.

But the answear is; through direct experience of now. Infinity.

As long as there is an "I" that wishes to know, awareness cannot fully become aware of itself.

I often find myself mimicking now. 

This helps me merge with it, when I feel seperate. 

It is like focusing on everything in the now simultaniously, yet giving away all focus.

It is a process of surrendering. 

Effortless being and isness.

In this "state" it may become obvious;

Everything is changing within nothing. Constantly. Forever.

The mind is not designed to understand infinity. It cannot grasp it. It can only merge with it.

You are the input and the output.

Yet you are unable to prove it.

 

[Anton Rogachevski]

46 minutes ago, lmfao said:

For example, consider the fact that it takes a time which is not equal to zero seconds for a word to pass through my mind (e.g. the word "cat"). If all we have is the present moment then in what sense does the perception of even words exist if time does not exist? 

The trouble here is to assume that the now is narrow like a second hand in clock. This is a rationalization of non-dual state insight (which is post-rational).

In fact the now is ever present, stretching to infinity in both ends, it was now at the big bang, as it is now today, and in a million years it will still be now.

[Anton Rogachevski]

30 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

direct experience changes unless you just sit and meditate 24/7  

It’s pointing to the ever changing sensations? 

Perhaps you are right sir. Since in the deepest realisation one sees the manifestation as no different from the source, it is changing.

[Preetom]

@Anton Rogachevski

My take is 'Awareness' or The Absolute can't be verbalized or categorized.

As a theory and practice, it is helpful to take Awareness as unchanging. But when direct experience comes forth, all labels has to go and does go if it's a solid awakening. The concept and the label of 'Awareness' itself goes as well.

[SOUL]

26 minutes ago, ivankiss said:

awareness cannot fully become aware of itself.

 If awareness doesn't change as you suggest how can it become something? To become something is to change.

28 minutes ago, ivankiss said:

Everything is changing within nothing. Constantly. Forever.

Is awareness part of this everything that is changing? Then why do you say awareness doesn't change?

2 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

"The ordinary, mundane Tao (the one that can be easily Told, or talked about) is unchanging, static, and permanent. The True Tao is Elusive and Ineffable, is in its very Essence Perpetual Change. In the Tao, nothing whatsoever is fixed and unchanging."

And so how can it be both changing and unchanging, or neither? So the true self refereed in almost all teachings is the mundane Tao?

It's not as mysterious or esoteric as it sounds in that quote. It's the perception of awareness, are we looking at the tao or from the tao?

Although don't confuse this with another duality, it's really just one perspective and whether we see the nature of its change is in our perception of awareness.

 

[ivankiss]

@SOUL Because there is an I.

I am in the way, so to speak.

Ultimately, the two are one.

Awareness is change.

I merely tried to paint a picture.

[Sockrattes]

1 hour ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

Obviously the writer of the commentary might have got it wrong. (he did say the true tao is ever changing)

Not necessarily.

You think, because you are convinced that Advaitas, Zens, Actualizeds-teachings of non-duality are right, therefore Tao must be that same awareness too.

But it's not.

In my understanding Tao is coming from a whole different direction.

If there is something like absolute and relative truth then non-duality probably refers to the former and Tao to the latter.

But ultimately absolute and relative truth are probably two aspects of the same truth so we are probably just talking about perspectives here.

Edited December 29, 2018 by Sockrattes

[Nahm]

@Anton Rogachevski

♥️....(cont’d lol)....In the simplest sense - can you, visually speaking, with your eyeballs, see your thoughts?

[Aakash]

change and not change are dualities only percieved by perceiever with a reference to time which is also an illusion. However within the ever infinite of now the awareness is in hypothetical change itself. We can not state merely without a reference of change without the quantification of time. None the less change is occuring within the ever change of infinite formless ness. 

In other words, words alone can not decitate whether change is occuring. Everything is happening now, forever. 

I believe that there is no constant awareness and by default you have to be everything to be formless if that helps ... 

[Leo Gura]

@Anton Rogachevski You're reading too much into. You shouldn't rely on any one source or you will get stuck.

Formless Tao is unchanging.

Formed Tao is ever-changing.

Formless Tao and Formed Tao are identical. But they can also be distinguished.

Again, changing vs unchanging is a duality.

Tao vs non-Tao is a duality.

Mundane vs True Tao is a duality.

Tao is ALL.

Just...

Tao

[Anton Rogachevski]

6 hours ago, Nahm said:

@Anton Rogachevski

♥️....(cont’d lol)....In the simplest sense - can you, visually speaking, with your eyeballs, see your thoughts?

One could say vision is itself a form of thought. But if we were to create division then no. It appears as if thougts are imagination files playing.

[Anton Rogachevski]

Wow. Thank you for you input everyone. I really appreciate our conversation. Upon revisiting I see that it doesn't matter, I gotta keep inquiring.

[ground]

13 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

And so how can it be both changing and unchanging, or neither?

A strange question of a follower of the religion of non-duality.

[Anton Rogachevski]

2 hours ago, ground said:

A strange question of a follower of the religion of non-duality.

Indeed. It's pretty much the sentence that appears in 90% of zen books.

Good day!