/lit/ - Literature

>>16744908
>Suppose you had a ball, which had an intrinsic nature to be red. "Redness" was part of its character, and it could never change. Thus, it could never stop being red. It could never be blue. Ever. If you can make something that is red blue, however, then "redness" is not part of its intrinsic nature. Now apply that to all characteristics.
The phenomenal world is conditioned and changing, so the seen can change, but the Absolute who sees is unconditioned and eternal.


You literally ignores basic metaphysics
Aristotle responded to this more than 2000 years ago with his act-potency distinction. Change is possible and only understandable with this metaphysical distinction, which refutes static (Parmenides) and dynamic (Heraclitus, Buddha) monisms.

>If things can change, then they are impermanent.
Yes, but change is only possible if it is supported by the Pure Act, that thing which does not and cannot change even in principle.