3 BEING AND NON-BEING
In the preceding chapter we noted the distinction between the possibilities of manifestation and the possibilities of non-manifestation, both being included equally and by the same right in total Possibility. This distinction precedes more particular distinctions, such as those between the different modes of universal manifestation, that is, the different orders of possibilities comprised therein, which are distributed according to the special conditions to which they are respectively subject, and constitute an indefinite multiplicity of worlds, or of degrees of Existence.
If we concede this and define Being in the universal sense as the principle of manifestation, and at the same time as comprising in itself the totality of all the possibilities of manifestation, we must say that Being is not infinite because it does not coincide with total Possibility; and all the more so because Being, as the principle of manifestation, although it does indeed comprise all the possibilities of manifestation, does so only insofar as they are actually manifested. Outside of Being, therefore, are all the rest, that is, all the possibilities of non-manifestation, as well as the possibilities of manifestation themselves insofar as they are in the unmanifested state; and included among these is Being itself, which cannot belong to manifestation since it is the principle thereof, and in consequence is itself unmanifested. For want of any otherterm, we are obliged to designate all that is thus outside and beyond Being as 'Non-Being', but for us this negative term is in no way a synonym for 'nothingness', as seems to be the case in the language of certain philosophers; besides being directly inspired by the terminology of the metaphysical
doctrine of the Far East, it is sufficiently justified by the need to use some kind of terminology in order for one to speak of these things at all; moreover, as we indicated above, the most universal ideas, being the most indeterminate, can only be expressed-to the degree that they are expressible at all-by terms that are in effect negative in form, as we have seen in connection with the Infinite. One can also say that Non-Being, in the sense we have just indicated, is more than Being-or, if one likes, is superior to Being, if one understands thereby that what it comprehends exceeds the extension of Beingand that in principle it contains Being itself. However, when we oppose Non-Being to Being, or even simply differentiate them, it is because neither the one nor the other is infinite, for from this point of view they limit each other in a way: infinity appertains only to the totality of Being and Non-Being, because this totality is identical with universal Possibility.
We can express these things again in the following way: universal Possibility necessarily contains the totality of possibilities, and one can say that Being and Non-Being are its two aspects, Being insofar as it manifests the possibilities (or, more precisely, certain of them), and Non-Being insofar as it does not manifest them. Being, therefore, contains everything manifested; Non-Being contains everything unmanifested, including Being itself; but universal Possibility contains both Being and Non-Being. We would add that non-manifestation contains both what we may call the unmanifestable, that is, the possibilities of non-manifestation, and the manifestable, that is, the possibilities of manifestation insofar as they are not man-ifested-manifestation obviously containing only the totality of those same possibilities insofar as they are manifested.[1]
Concerning the relations between Being and Non-Being, it is essential to note that the state of manifestation is always transitory and conditioned, and that, even for the possibilities that manifestation includes, the state of non-manifestation alone is absolutely permanent and unconditioned.[2] And let us add in this connection that
nothing of what is manifested can ever 'be lost', to use a frequently heard expression, other than by its passage into the non-manifested; and of course this very passage (which in the case of individual manifestation is properly a 'transformation' in the etymological sense, that is, passage beyond form) constitutes a 'loss' only from the special point of view of manifestation, for in the state of nonmanifestation, on the contrary, all things subsist eternally in principle, independent of all the particular and limiting conditions that characterize this or that mode of manifested existence. All the same, to say truthfully that 'nothing is lost', even with this reservation concerning non-manifestation, one must envisage the totality of universal manifestation, and not simply this or that one of its states to the exclusion of the others, for the continuity of all these states relative to each other always allows passage from one to another without this continual movement, which is only a change of mode (implying a corresponding change in the conditions of existence), being in any way a departure from the domain of manifestation.[3]
As for the possibilities of non-manifestation, they belong essentially to Non-Being and by their very nature cannot enter into the domain of Being, contrary to the situation with the possibilities of manifestation; but as we said above, this implies no superiority of
the one over the other, for both are only different modes of reality and conform to their respective natures. Ultimately, the distinction between Being and Non-Being is purely contingent, for it can only be drawn from the point of view of manifestation, which is itself essentially contingent. This in no way diminishes the importance that this distinction has for us, however, given that in our present state it is not possible for us to place ourselves effectively at a point of view other than this, which remains ours so long as we ourselves are conditioned and individual beings belonging to the domain of manifestation, and which we surpass only through liberating ourselves entirely from the limiting conditions of individual existence by metaphysical realization.
As an example of a possibility of non-manifestation we can cite the void, for such a possibility is conceivable, at least negatively, by excluding certain determinations; the void implies not only the exclusion of every corporeal or material attribute, or even, more generally, of every formal quality, but also of all that pertains to any mode of manifestation whatsoever. It is then nonsense to claim that there could be a void in any state of universal manifestation whatsoever,[4] for the void belongs essentially to the domain of non-manifestation, the term admitting of no other intelligible meaning. We must confine ourselves to these simple remarks concerning the void and not treat the subject exhaustively with all the elaboration this would entail, for that would take us too far afield; and, since serious confusions on the question arise above all concerning space,[5] these related considerations will be more aptly treated in a study we intend to devote particularly to the conditions of corporeal existence.[6] From our present point of view, we must simply add that, however it may be envisaged, the void is not Non-Being but only
what might be called one of its aspects, that is to say one of the possibilities that it contains, which possibilities are other than those included within Being and are therefore outside the latter, even when it is envisaged in its totality; and this shows yet again that Being is not infinite. Besides, when we say that such a possibility constitutes one aspect of Non-Being, this possibility must never be conceived of in distinctive mode, for this mode applies exclusively to manifestation; this explains why, even if we could actually conceive of that possibility which is the void, or any other possibility of the same order, we could only express it in completely negative terms; and this remark, which applies generally to all that relates to Non-Being, further justifies our use of that term.[7]
Such considerations then could be applied to every other possibility of non-manifestation. We could take another example, like silence, but its application would be too simple to be useful; and so we confine ourselves here to adding that just as Non-Being, or the non-manifested, comprehends or envelops Being, or the principle of manifestation, so does silence carry in itself the principle of speech; in other words, just as Unity (Being) is nothing but metaphysical Zero (Non-Being) affirmed, so speech is nothing but silence expressed; but, inversely, metaphysical Zero (Non-Being), while being Unity unaffirmed, is also something more (and even infinitely more), just as silence, which is an aspect thereof in the sense we have just explained, is not merely the spoken word unexpressed, for there must also subsist within it what is inexpressible, that is, what is not susceptible of manifestation (for expression means manifestation, and even formal manifestation) and so of determination in distinctive mode.[8] The relationship that is thus
established between silence (non-manifested) and speech (manifested) shows how it is possible to conceive of possibilities of nonmanifestation that correspond by analogical transposition to certain possibilities of manifestation,[9] without our claiming in any way, even here, to introduce into Non-Being an actual distinction, which could find no place therein, since existence in a distinctive mode (which is existence in the proper sense of the word) is essentially inherent in the conditions of manifestation (distinctive mode here is not necessarily synonymous in every case with individual mode, the latter implying especially formal distinction).[10]