/lit/ - Literature

>>21945244
>All change is illusion. But doesn't changing illusion signify change in Being?
It's still "being an illusion". It never changed it did what it always did and if anything negated itself. True being is unmoved, unchanged.

>>21947374
"Nature abhors a vacuum", but that begs the question of what it does to fill it. It negates the vacuum.

>>21941283
>Quantum
>Quantity
You realize the works spoken about in this thread absolutely blows that theory of out of the water right?

>>21941194
>>21942192
It goes much deeper than that. The explanation as to how that conclusion was derived is important because it shows the power of negation. "Being" compared to "non-being" is just the negation of "being". The non enlightened cannot segregate this and reify the illusions in the first place...also using negation. You cannot think of "non-being", it's not on a polarized spectrum scale with "being" at the top. A maple seed is not maple syrup.

>>21942233
>I think, therefore I don't exist
Indeed, "I think" therefore I am not. For if I were then I would "be", but that changes does it not? I wouldn't have to think about doing it, I would go be doing it and not stuck in this past tense pickle. This is why things that don't think tend to be more permanent than lost souls who ponder said unmoved stones that have been there exponentially longer than they have. The one does not participate in thinking it does not participate in the world of thinkers, just as the sun does not think or participate in the world of thinkers. Still manages to prop you and the planet you live on up into this illusory plane of existence despite this fact.