On the Question of the Nonexistent

By editor in World picture April 15, 2020

The concept of “non-being” is generally perceived by human consciousness as parallel to the concept of “Being,” as its opposite, its antipode — nonexistence as the reverse side of existence. This aligns well with the dialectical principle that states that the foundation of everything lies in the unity and struggle of opposites. In other words, through their confrontation and, at the same time, their complementarity, opposites generate movement, the course of life. From a philosophical standpoint, this is also considered a principle of universal (though not only) equilibrium — where opposites balance each other, and at their intersection, conditions are created for human existence and activity. In religious teachings, this usually takes the form of a struggle between two cosmic forces — good and evil, creation and destruction.

According to the Teaching, the aforementioned dialectical principle does indeed function, and the opposition of good and evil does take place. However, universal equilibrium as such does not exist. One side — namely, the side of good and creation — is objectively stronger (a view shared by most religions). Otherwise, the Universe as a system could not exist and develop. On a scale beyond that of the Universe or our cosmos, this imbalance manifests as the nonexistence of non-being.

This sounds rather strange: the nonexistence of non-being. After all, non-being is, by definition, nonexistent. But if it is the opposite of Being, then it must exist. And it must have properties — since even the absence of properties is itself a property. That is, non-being seemingly does not exist, yet it seemingly does. If it serves as a “counterbalance” to Being, then it must be real. Here, we encounter a certain contradiction that does not fit within the framework of logic.

According to the Teaching, the truth is simpler. Only Being exists. Non-being does not exist — neither as a “counterbalance” to Being nor in any other form. Being and non-being cannot exist in parallel, that is, simultaneously. They are fundamentally incompatible, even as dialectical opposites. Only one of them can exist: either absolute fullness (Being) or absolute emptiness (non-being). They cannot replace each other or alternate because, in non-being, there could be no impulse for action, movement, or creation, nor could substance arise. Likewise, Being cannot vanish. Nothing emerges from nowhere, and nothing disappears into nothingness.

However, we know that evolutionary movement and development can occur only when there is resistance. And Being evolves, moves forward on the path of its evolution. Therefore, there must be resistance. But what resists Being if non-being does not exist? It is not non-being itself that resists, but a certain tendency towards its emergence. As mentioned earlier, non-being cannot arise because Being cannot disappear. And it cannot disappear because it is in constant motion, in continuous development. For this, resistance is necessary. And this resistance is created by the tendency toward the emergence of non-being. In other words, for Being to exist, there must be a danger of its cessation. In order to overcome the tendency toward non-being, to avoid falling into a state of stagnation and then dissolution, Being moves forward in its development, perfecting itself.

To illustrate this, imagine an organism carrying a deadly virus. To prevent the virus from developing to a fatal extent, the organism produces antibodies. The virus adapts, evolves, becomes more sophisticated. In response, the organism also evolves, developing stronger and more advanced antibodies. At first glance, this picture may seem discouraging. Is the meaning of life really just an endless flight from death? No. The meaning of life is in life itself and in self-improvement. The threat of death here is merely a functional factor, so to speak. It is important to correctly understand what is the cause and what is the effect. Life does not exist because it perpetually flees from death; rather, 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 seed of its own demise. And this seed — the tendency toward non-being — exists precisely so that it may never fully manifest. It is meant for its own non-fulfilment — and precisely for this reason, it facilitates the realisation of Being. This is how the primary dialectical principle appears when examined on the level of Being.

Everything in Being operates according to unified and universal fundamental laws and principles. And since the principle described above is vital for Being as a whole, it must also function in our Universe and manifest itself at the level of human society. It does function and manifest. It is the foundation of the distinction between good and evil.

There exists a viewpoint that claims that good and evil are relative concepts, invented by humans, reflecting their subjective perspective on reality, and that the criteria for them can only be subjective. This is a misconception. In reality, Nature has an objective criterion for determining good and evil. It is simple, as all great truths are. Goodness (good) for Nature, the Universe, the Cosmos, and Being is that which contributes to development and thus to the maintenance of life; evil is that which hinders this, leading to destruction and annihilation. The tendency toward non-being leads to this. In itself, it is beneficial and even necessary. That is, in itself, it serves the greater good. But if something or someone succumbs to it, submits to it, and begins to act against the benefit of Being, causing harm, then that is evil. One could say that evil is the striving toward non-being. The desire to halt eternal motion, to bring about decay and death. And this definition is objective. It is not based on someone’s personal experience or opinion but arises from a simple yet global principle of usefulness to the system. For any system, that which helps its function is good, and that which hinders it is bad. Being is a system in which every component has a defined place and function, in which interactions are fine-tuned, and in which goals and methods of achieving them are clearly determined. That which disrupts the functioning of this mechanism and, in the long run, may lead to its destruction is objective evil. Just as a grain of sand in a clockwork mechanism becomes an agent of disorder.

This global principle, by the law of unity, is projected onto human society and onto each individual person. Good and evil appear relative when judged from the perspective of subjective interests of an individual or a group of people. A judgment is subjective when it assesses the degree of harm or benefit to an enterprise based on private, subjective interests. In such a context, what is beneficial for one may be harmful for another, and vice versa. But above this chaos of personal interests and subjective definitions stands an objective criterion. We, as humans, are parts of Nature, parts of Being itself. What benefits it benefits us, and what harms it harms us. And this is true regardless of whether we understand it, whether we can discern objective good and evil. If a blind man is placed next to an apple and a scorpion, they remain as they are regardless of his awareness. If he reaches out, he will either nourish himself and sustain his life, or he will perish. This will be natural and objective, regardless of what he believes.

Thus, objective evil is that which disrupts the natural order of things. This holds true on the scale of Being, the Universe, our planet, human society, and the individual — because all of this is one system with unified laws and goals. Evil is that which leads to non-being. Therefore, one might say that people who commit evil serve non-being, without even realising it. They serve something that does not and cannot exist — while inflicting real harm upon the world and society, tormenting others and themselves. They are those who blindly grasp the scorpion. And the only way to cure such blindness is knowledge. Knowledge of the self, the world, the Universe, and Being.

It is possible to learn to live in such a way as to be a force for good rather than harm. It is possible to devise a scheme for an ideal social order — if we understand what is right from the perspective of natural order and objective benefit. And this order will be humane, for it will be based on people’s understanding of their place in Nature and of the natural principles of human relationships with each other and with Nature itself. Humanity was created by evolution precisely to understand the laws of life and to aid in the development of the Universe and Being itself. This is not only possible — it is our purpose.