About the non-existence (machine translation)
The concept of “non-being” is usually perceived by human consciousness as parallel to the concept of “Being,” as its opposite, antipode, non-existence, as the other side of existence. This fits well with the dialectical principle, which states that everything is based on the unity and struggle of opposites. In other words, in their collision and, at the same time, in complementing each other, opposites generate movement, the fulfillment of life. From a philosophical point of view, this is also considered as the principle of universal (although not only) equilibrium – when opposites balance each other, and somewhere at their junction conditions are created for the existence and activity of man. In religious teachings, this usually takes the image of the struggle of two universal principles – good and evil, creation and destruction.
According to the Teaching, the aforementioned dialectical principle really works, and the opposition of good and evil takes place. However, universal equilibrium does not exist as such. One of the parties – namely, the side of good and creation – is objectively stronger (which is what most religions agree with). Otherwise, the Universe as a system could not exist and develop. On a scale exceeding the scale of the Universe, or our Universe, this imbalance is expressed as the non-existence of non-existence.
It sounds rather strange: nonexistence of nonexistence. It seems to be non-existence in order not to exist. But if it is the opposite of Being, then, therefore, it exists. And it has properties – because the absence of properties is also a property. That is, there is nothingness, as it were, but it is as it were. If it serves as a “counterbalance” to Being, then it is real. There is a certain contradiction here that does not fit into the framework of logic.
According to the Teaching, everything is simpler. There is only Genesis. There is no non-existence, neither as a “counterbalance” to Being, nor in any other. Being and non-being cannot exist in parallel, that is, at the same time. They are fundamentally incompatible, even as dialectical opposites. Only one thing can take place: either absolute fullness (Being) or absolute emptiness (non-existence). They cannot be interchanged, cannot replace each other, since in non-existence an impulse to fulfillment, movement, creation could not have arisen, just as substance could not have arisen, and Being could not disappear. Something does not appear from nowhere, and something does not disappear into nowhere.
However, we know that evolutionary movement and development can take place only when there is resistance. And Genesis develops, moves forward along the path of its evolution. Therefore, there is resistance. What resists Being if there is nothing? It is not non-being that resists it, but a certain tendency towards its appearance. As mentioned above, non-existence cannot appear, since Being cannot disappear. But it cannot disappear because it is in continuous motion, in constant development. And for this you need resistance. And resistance is created due to the tendency for non-existence. In other words, in order for Genesis to exist, it needs the danger of ceasing to exist. In order to overcome the tendency of non-being, so as not to go into a state of rest, and then decay, Being moves forward in its development, improves. For example, imagine a certain organism carrying a deadly virus. In order to prevent the virus from developing to a fatal degree, the body produces antibodies. The virus is adapting, developing, becoming more sophisticated. In response, the body also develops, developing more advanced and stronger antibodies as it develops. At first glance, this picture may seem depressing. Is the meaning of life – in the constant flight from death? No. The meaning of life lies in life itself and in perfection. And the danger of death here is a service factor, so to speak. You just need to correctly understand what is the cause and what is the consequence. It is not life that exists because it always runs away from death, but the danger of death exists because it is necessary for life. Being could not exist and develop, if it did not carry within itself the embryo of its own destruction. And this embryo – the tendency of nonexistence – exists in order to never grow into nonexistence. It is intended for its non-fulfillment, and that is why it contributes to the realization of Being. This is how the main dialectical principle looks, considered at the level of Being.
Everything in Genesis exists according to uniform and universal fundamental laws and principles. And since the principle that I described above is vital for Genesis as a whole, it must act in our Universe, and must somehow manifest itself at the level of human society. He acts and manifests. It is he who underlies the distinction between good and evil.
There is a point of view claiming that good and evil are relative concepts, invented by man and reflecting his subjective view of reality, and that the criteria here can also be only subjective. It’s a delusion. In fact, in Nature there is an objective criterion for determining good and evil. He is simple, like everything great. The good (good) for Nature, the Universe, the Universe, Being is that which contributes to the development and, thus, the maintenance of life; evil is that which prevents it, leads to destruction and death. And the tendency of non-existence leads to them. In itself, it is useful and even necessary. That is, in itself, it works for the good. But if something or someone succumbs, obeys it and begins to act contrary to the benefits of Being, to harm him, then this is evil. We can say that evil is the desire for non-existence. The desire to stop the perpetual motion, to decay and death. And this definition is objective. It is not based on someone’s private experience or opinion, but follows from the simple, but at the same time, global principle of utility for the system. For any system, what helps its work is good, and what interferes is bad. Being is a system in which the place and function of each part is clearly defined, the interaction of the parts among themselves is debugged, the goals and ways to achieve them are clearly defined. That which leads to failures in the operation of this mechanism and, in the long run, can lead to the death of the system, is objective evil. Thus, a grain of sand that gets into the watch mechanism becomes evil.
According to the law of unity, this global principle is projected onto human society and on each individual person. Good and evil are relative when the assessment is given from the position of the subjective interests of an individual person or group of people. Evaluation is subjective when assessing the degree of harm or benefit to a case based on private, subjective interests. Then what is good for one may turn out to be evil for another, and vice versa. But above all this chaos of private interests and subjective definitions is an objective criterion. We humans are particles of Nature, particles of Being itself. What is good for him is good for us, and what is destructive for him is destructive for us. And this is so – regardless of whether we understand it or not, whether we can determine the objective good and objective evil or not. If you put an apple next to a blind man and plant a scorpion, they will remain so regardless of whether he knows where or what. And holding out his hand, he will either receive food and support his life, or he will perish. It will be natural and objective, no matter what he thinks to himself there.
So, objective evil is that which violates the natural order of things. This is true on the scale of Genesis, on the scale of the Universe, on the scale of our planet, on the scale of human society and of a single person – for all this is a single system with common laws of existence and goals. Evil is what leads to non-existence. Therefore, we can say that people who commit evil serve non-being without realizing it. They serve what is not and cannot be, while doing real harm to the world and society, tormenting others and ourselves. These are those who snatch a scorpion. And the only way to cure such blindness is cognition. The knowledge of man, the world, the universe, being. You can learn to live in such a way as to be for all things not evil, but good. You can develop a scheme of the ideal structure of society, if you understand what is right in terms of naturalness and objective benefit. And this device will be humane, because it will be based on people understanding their place in Nature and understanding the natural principles of the relationship of man with man and with Nature itself. Humanity for this was born of evolution in order to learn the laws of life and help in the development of the Universe and Being itself. This is not only possible, but we are destined for this, it is natural for us. If you cherish your blindness and lovingly cultivate subjectivity in yourself, then from good you can degenerate into evil. And is it possible to imagine a more sad fate for humanity, for an entire rational race, than moving along the ghostly road to non-existence, a blind waste of one’s existence to serve the non-existent and the impossible?
© Atarkhat, 2016