Why Does The Self Have To Be Something That Is Unchanging, Isn't This A Dualistic Prerequisite Imposed Over Being?

[Joseph Maynor]

Curious.  I think this is one way that going back to the oldies kind of trips us moderns up.  

Indian Philosophers thought that true existence had to be unchanging.

The idea that the Self needs to be unchanging is a duality.  Being just is.  

No thought could issue such an order on Being, or define or limit Being in this manner.

The Self does not *need to be* unchanging.  This is existentially false and a dualistic trap.  

This is an example of where Epistemology needs to trump tradition.  But of course, I don't cling to this opinion too tightly.

Video on point to watch:

 

Edited September 9, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Haumea]

The Self is beyond concepts.  It is unchanging in its transcendent form, it is changing in its immanent form, it is everything and nothing.  All attempts to describe it fall short.

Edited September 9, 2017 by Haumea

[LaucherJunge]

That depends which level of self you mean. The true level, the very highest one is infinite and complete so it is unchanging because of it.
There are other levels of self often referred to as higher self which are, lets say way below the true self in the ladder of dimensions. The higher self probably can change.

[Nahm]

@Joseph Maynor thinking about the Self should be an easy indicator to you that you are not being, but rather attempting to make the word being have a meaningless meaning.  This is not the same as the experience that all is love. That is being, ime. Great progress though.