impermanence, what does it mean and what is aware of it?

[michadelic]

Hi all, I'm new to the forum and would like to begin by asking a heavy question. I was watching a talk on youtube given by Ajahn Brahmali on non-self. In it he describes impermanence and change as 'absolute.' Everything, every level of awareness, without exception, is impermanent. There was time for questions at the end of his talk. Naturally, a question arose that was also on my mind: if everything, without exception, is impermanent, even momentary (not the same even for two consecutive moments), then what is aware of this change? Ajahn Brahmali gave to my mind a deeply unsatisfying answer: by inference, he says. He said that you notice at every moment everything is changing, therefore, there is nothing permanent. To my mind, this was a total non-answer, because it only restated the paradox. How can "you" be "aware of change" or notice it, even by inference, if that change is absolute? Especially if nothing is the same from one moment to the next?

Momentariness seems to say not simply that things change, but they are erased and replaced wholly in each new moment. Call this 'existential replacement.' This entails that each moment of awareness exists only for that moment, then completely passes away, being replaced with a completely new moment of awareness. But there can no continuity, not even the illusion of continuity, with such a theory. Say that you live for one minute, but there's a clone of yourself that's created the moment you die, and that clone will live for a minute, until a clone is created to replace that one, etc. Naturally, there cannot be a first-person sense of awareness that continues throughout all these clones. Each one would only be aware of one minute, and nothing else. Yet momentariness and/or absolute impermanence seems to say that the opposite is true. Even though awareness is absolutely impermanent and is replaced by new moments of awareness, continuity is experienced. Stated as such, this is a logical impossibility. What am I not understanding here?

[SarathW]

- Impermanence lead to Dukkha ( unsatisfactoriness ) so you have to look for some thing permanent .
- Awareness is the aware of it self.
- We are subject to awareness as a whole but can pay attention only to one thing. I can see the flower as a whole then see the petal as a whole etc.

[Reductor]

First, two questions: 1) do you have a link of this talk? 2) do you do much meditating?

I do have some thoughts on this, but it is noisy and distracting where I am, so I will wait. Perhaps some good answer will come along in the mean time.

[Polar Bear]

Putting momentariness aside, one could argue that unchanging awareness is impossible. Cognizing phenomena is an activity and requires change. If awareness didn't change then it could cognize nothing new, and one could be aware of only a snapshot instead of say a video. But not even that, because in the act of cognizing one snapshot of experience there is activity. So it is impossible for cognition to be unchanging.

Venerable Analayo brings up this point at some time in this fairly long talk, but the talk in general is well worth listening to:

Mindfulness According to Early Buddhist Sources

http://dharmaseed.org/teacher/439/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Thisperson]

Hi all, I'm new to the forum and would like to begin by asking a heavy question. I was watching a talk on youtube given by Ajahn Brahmali on non-self. In it he describes impermanence and change as 'absolute.' Everything, every level of awareness, without exception, is impermanent. There was time for questions at the end of his talk. Naturally, a question arose that was also on my mind: if everything, without exception, is impermanent, even momentary (not the same even for two consecutive moments), then what is aware of this change? Ajahn Brahmali gave to my mind a deeply unsatisfying answer: by inference, he says. He said that you notice at every moment everything is changing, therefore, there is nothing permanent. To my mind, this was a total non-answer, because it only restated the paradox. How can "you" be "aware of change" or notice it, even by inference, if that change is absolute? Especially if nothing is the same from one moment to the next?

Momentariness seems to say not simply that things change, but they are erased and replaced wholly in each new moment. Call this 'existential replacement.' This entails that each moment of awareness exists only for that moment, then completely passes away, being replaced with a completely new moment of awareness. But there can no continuity, not even the illusion of continuity, with such a theory. Say that you live for one minute, but there's a clone of yourself that's created the moment you die, and that clone will live for a minute, until a clone is created to replace that one, etc. Naturally, there cannot be a first-person sense of awareness that continues throughout all these clones. Each one would only be aware of one minute, and nothing else. Yet momentariness and/or absolute impermanence seems to say that the opposite is true. Even though awareness is absolutely impermanent and is replaced by new moments of awareness, continuity is experienced. Stated as such, this is a logical impossibility. What am I not understanding here?

We can understand awareness by understanding how it arises. The Buddha taught of different types of consciousness arising through the (six) different sense bases. Eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, tactile consciousness (the sense of touch) and mind consciousness. These arise when the sense organ meets with a sense object. An example of this is the ear (sense organ) meeting with a sound (sense object) which results in ear consciousness arising. When these factors (ear, sound, and ear consciousness) unite they form what the Buddha termed contact. Contact leads to feeling (pleasant, unpleasant or neutral). From feeling arises craving (for the sensation of feeling to either stick around or go away). Craving leads to clinging. Clinging leads to becoming. Becoming leads to birth. Birth leads to sorrow, lamentation, death, pain, and despair.

Mind consciousness arises in the same causal manner. Here's two different translations.

In dependence on the mind and mental phenomena, mind-consciousness arises.

Or

Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact.

So the mind meets with mental objects and mind consciousness arises. Without seeing this truth with insight, there is the belief that somewhere in these six consciousnesses is a "self", but as we can see through the Buddha's explanation the consciousness arises dependent on sense base meeting with sense object.

The Loka Sutta may help you to understand this better.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.44


The Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta also explains this same idea:

Consciousness, monks, is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.

Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[samseva]

The person who asked the question classically confused one or more of the aggregates as the 'self'. What creates the illusion that there is a 'self' is actually the mind cognizing. You compare every moment with what you have experienced in the past, based on the 6 senses—and nothing more, no matter how hard you try. You have memories, subconscious beliefs, tendencies, etc. It is simply the mind that is cognizing.

Consciousness (viññāṇa) is not defined as 'the unlimited source of universal power' usually promoted by new-agey thinkers. It is simply a function of the mind that cognizes.

Samyutta Nikāya 22, Khanda Saṃyutta

And why, bhikkhus, do you call it consciousness? ‘It cognizes, ’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called consciousness. And what does it cognize? It cognizes sour, it cognizes bitter, it cognizes pungent, it cognizes sweet, it cognizes sharp, it cognizes mild, it cognizes salty, it cognizes bland. ‘It cognizes,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called consciousness.

“Therein, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am now being devoured by form. In the past too I was devoured by form in the very same way that I am now being devoured by present form. If I were to seek delight in future form, then in the future too I shall be devoured by form in the very same way that I am now being devoured by present form.’ Having reflected thus, he becomes indifferent towards past form, he does not seek delight in future form, and he is practising for revulsion towards present form, for its fading away and cessation.

[Pondera]

You ever watched a movie? 64 frames a second. You don't question the continuity of the film because there's a persistent illusion going on. It's the same with percpetion. Perception is occurring in a continuous flow of change. The idea of spatial continuity is held together by the eye as it grasps to every flickering moment of existence. That grasping is this attenuated version of "continous awareness". It's an illusion.

[mal4mac]

Everything, every level of awareness, without exception, is impermanent ... if everything, without exception, is impermanent ... then what is aware of this change?

Your impermanent, everyday, self.

[michadelic]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I don't have much time right now but I just wwant to point out why to my understanding the movie analogy doesn't work,because this articulates precisely the problem I'm having with impermanence. Yes, movies create the illusion of continuity using individual frames. This analogy doesn't work though because we are watching the movie. The movie isn't watching itself. The illusion of continuity isn't happening from the point of view of the frames, that would be absurd.

If impermanence is taken to mean that the previous moment of awareness has ceased to exist, and the next moment arises when this one ceases, then we have the same problem of the movie that watches itself. Awareness cannot have even the illusion of continuity if it literally ceases to exist in eac moment. It can't be aware of change if it has ceased to be and is replaced with a new moment.

[mal4mac]

Awareness cannot have even the illusion of continuity if it literally ceases to exist in each moment.

Why not? It may be reborn with the illusion of continuity.

[samseva]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I don't have much time right now but I just wwant to point out why to my understanding the movie analogy doesn't work,because this articulates precisely the problem I'm having with impermanence. Yes, movies create the illusion of continuity using individual frames. This analogy doesn't work though because we are watching the movie. The movie isn't watching itself. The illusion of continuity isn't happening from the point of view of the frames, that would be absurd.

If impermanence is taken to mean that the previous moment of awareness has ceased to exist, and the next moment arises when this one ceases, then we have the same problem of the movie that watches itself. Awareness cannot have even the illusion of continuity if it literally ceases to exist in eac moment. It can't be aware of change if it has ceased to be and is replaced with a new moment.

You understand this too much as a whole, with awareness being distinct and separate from the rest of other factors. If you look at the mental and physical process as something composed of many many parts, it becomes easier to see impermanence. Every mental formation, feeling, perception arises and ceases. Physically, billions of cells die in our body every single day.

Regarding awareness, if someone looses consciousness or falls into a coma, awareness ceases or at least changes.

[michadelic]

Awareness cannot have even the illusion of continuity if it literally ceases to exist in each moment.

Why not? It may be reborn with the illusion of continuity.

But it's not the same awareness, right? So it hasn't been reborn, it's been replaced. Even the illusion cannot exist awareness literally ceases to exist in each moment. Unless there is something beyond it to notice it's happening. Just like we are not the same as the movie frames, we are beyond them, therefore we can be given the illusion of the motion picture. If we were simply moving along with each individual frame, there certainly could be no such illusion.

[michadelic]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I don't have much time right now but I just wwant to point out why to my understanding the movie analogy doesn't work,because this articulates precisely the problem I'm having with impermanence. Yes, movies create the illusion of continuity using individual frames. This analogy doesn't work though because we are watching the movie. The movie isn't watching itself. The illusion of continuity isn't happening from the point of view of the frames, that would be absurd.

If impermanence is taken to mean that the previous moment of awareness has ceased to exist, and the next moment arises when this one ceases, then we have the same problem of the movie that watches itself. Awareness cannot have even the illusion of continuity if it literally ceases to exist in eac moment. It can't be aware of change if it has ceased to be and is replaced with a new moment.

You understand this too much as a whole, with awareness being distinct and separate from the rest of other factors. If you look at the mental and physical process as something composed of many many parts, it becomes easier to see impermanence. Every mental formation, feeling, perception arises and ceases. Physically, billions of cells die in our body every single day.

Regarding awareness, if someone looses consciousness or falls into a coma, awareness ceases or at least changes.

Thanks I'll have to think on this. Are you saying it's because awareness is complex are it's parts are changing at different rates?

[Thisperson]

Awareness is not an entity with "parts that are changing". Awareness arises/ceases due to conditions which are also arising and ceasing.

[michadelic]

Awareness is not an entity with "parts that are changing". Awareness arises/ceases due to conditions which are also arising and ceasing.

I don't understand. Do you disagree with the concept of parts? Because other than that you seem to have restated what I posited, namely that awareness has conditions which are changing. The more important question is, though, how are you aware that awareness is arising and ceasing? For your awareness of this arising and ceasing should be arising and ceasing too.