As I suggested, the Changeless creates the illusion of Change via of Its Shape-Shifting attribute. What the Changeless has become is what it always is.
Therefore, "I AM the Existing One" means just that: It exists NOW, in completeness. Any "becoming" is only illusory, and what is the illusion but Divine Playfullness? What need is there for God to become something else since he is already the pentultimate? The only rational thing I can think of is that the Divine Essence loves to play Cosmic Hide and Seek with Itself, by hiding within all the myriad forms of his own creation, and completely
forgetting that he is God.
"The universe is the Absolute seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
So, in truth, no-thing has ever changed; no-thing has ever become anything else.
It is all one Grand Illusion.
You know those videos of the islanders who twirl a flaming torch in the dark of night in order to create the illusion of a spinning fire-wheel?
all very true
but due to humanity's limitations....
I would argue we need change...
The caterpillar cannot fly, until it has wings.
(Yes, caterpillars don't have wings....butterflys do)
...
Of course this depends on the philosophy you follow
some see that the world needs:
repair
understanding, or perceiving "better"
that things are broken
everythign is perfect
In the end, the western views tend to lean more toward a broken world that needs repair
the east tends to lean toward a perfect world that simply needs to be "realised" or perceived better.
You could argue they are the same thing. However, through ignorance people tend to misunderstand and do "incorrect things" for example in the west, the need for repair (Tikkun) allows for manipulation and for the energies of participartion, healing the world...the problemis people get hung on actually doing..and get lost in doing and forget why they were doing it..... thus the ritual becomes God...instead of God being God
In the east we have those that think tis perfect, and thus we have people who think little or no effort is required, I think this is more a problem of the ignorant looking from the outside, thinking that one must simply do nothing and BE, is an act of literally doing nothing.... or the action of inaction as proposed by Lao Tzo in the tao te chin... becomes just that, doing nothing.
To conclude.... language is a barrier...
and there are several views, which if you dig deep enough could be seen as the same, but not always...
...
First of all, it must be noted that the end of the world-process in the Lurianic Kabbalah is tiqqun that is, the restoration of the purified creation to its perfect and undefiled state, or even its inclusion into the sphere of the Divine pleroma. In the Awakening, Enlightenment is seen as the state of elimination of all subject-object relations and the extinction of the manifold world as such: mind returns to its own intrinsic nature, and the waves (i.e., the world) caused by the wind of ignorance cease to appear in the phenomena, revealing the true calm self-nature of the Mind as the plain surface of the Ocean of the Absolute. Therefore the Lurianic attitude toward the creation (manifold world produced from the depths of the Absolute) is ontologically optimistic, while that of the Awakening is pessimistic.
Secondly, the very evaluation of the creative process is rather different in both systems: the moving power of the unfolding of One Mind/Suchness in the world of phenomena is delusion, and only by complete Enlightenment are the effects of this delusion (the influence of the unenlightened aspect of Suchness) and the universe (three worlds of samsara), eliminated. On the other hand, the corresponding attitude in Lurianic Kabbalah is more complicated. There, the shadow of potential evil participates in the process of creation from the very beginning, but that creation is also a positively evaluated act of the Divine unfolding. Moshe Hayyim Luzzato had even suggested that the Absolute En Sof was obliged to give up His omniscience and omnipotence, in order to be able to create the space-and-time dependent world. The Absolute is by its nature static, as Aristotle had asserted; therefore, in order to achieve a dynamic state of creation, the Absolute had to give up being absolute.
Summarizing the above-mentioned differences, it would be rather convenient to use metaphorically Nathan of Gaza’s images of the thought-some and thought-less Lights. (Thought-some lights express the Divine Will to create, while thought-less lights express its Will to remain in the primordial quietness of its hidden mystery, understanding the creation only as an explication of the powers of evil and even as a revolt against the Absolute itself.) Comparing this problem of creation in Lurianic Kabbalah and the Awakening, the former expresses mostly a position of the thought-some Lights, while the latter expresses that of the thought-less Lights.
And last but not least, these two systems use very different languages to express their ideas: that of the Lurianic and Sabbatean thinkers is the gnostic mytho-poetic language of a highly suggestive character, while the language of the Awakening is a philosophical and speculative one, relating this text to the traditional treatises of the learned Buddhist scholasticism.
The Doctrine of the Origin of Evil in Lurianic and Sabbatian Kabbalah and in the awakening of Faith in Mahayanistic Buddhism « Prayers and Reflections
