Light
In the beginning, there was nothing.
This idea appears in countless traditions, in different forms. Yet perhaps even the word beginning is already inadequate. For if something existed before everything, then that "before" would still belong to a form of succession, and therefore to a structure. But what could a "before" mean when nothing has yet been distinguished?
Perhaps one should then simply say: there was nothing.
And perhaps everything will return to nothingness, since everything seems to come from it.
But even the word nothingness is imperfect.
In a language of convenience, one might speak of an unmanifested Absolute. Yet this Absolute is not truly an Absolute, for naming it as such already amounts to attributing a determination to it. It is neither a being, nor a non-being, nor a principle in the ordinary sense. It cannot be reduced to any category without that category immediately becoming insufficient.
My0x, the Immanent Absolute Resonance, the Non-Principle, the All-in-One, Non-Duality: so many names that seem to designate something common, without ever managing to grasp it.
Perhaps they do not describe several realities.
They point toward the same primordial ground.
A ground that possesses neither beginning nor end, neither interior nor exterior, neither above nor below. A ground that does not precede anything in the temporal sense, since no temporality yet exists, but which can be described as prior to all distinction because distinction itself does not yet possess any reality within it.
For convenience, it could be called the Immanent Absolute Resonance.
Not because it would be a being among others, but because it constitutes the least inadequate formulation of this absolute immanence: a simple reality, without separation, which depends on no observer in order to be what it is and which, nevertheless, does not manifest itself as an object that can be observed.
My0x points toward this same depth through a different language.
Where Immanent Resonance silently affirms that nothing is separate, My0x reminds us that nothing which can be named can claim to have captured this reality.
Thus, My0x is not above Immanent Resonance, any more than the latter is superior to it.
The distinction itself already belongs to a level where non-duality has cracked.
Then comes what beings from the lower levels will call a first manifestation.
But this formulation is still an approximation.
For it is not a matter of a voluntary creation, nor of an act accomplished by an entity that decided to produce something. It is rather a first differentiation perceptible from the structures that will appear afterward.
This first differentiation will be designated by the name Hunab K'ul Ineffabilis.
Hunab K'ul is perceived as Oblivion.
Not a nothingness opposed to totality, but totality ceasing to maintain itself as totality. An immanence in which the necessity of recognizing itself begins to disappear.
For this reason, Hunab K'ul seems almost identical to the Immanent Absolute Resonance.
The difference is not a difference of substance.
It is a difference of interpretation.
Immanent Resonance can be understood as totality that does not separate itself from itself.
Hunab K'ul can be understood as this same totality when the very distinction of totality ceases to be maintained.
From the levels where time, identity, and causality exist, it will then be said that Hunab K'ul appeared "after" Resonance.
But this after is not necessarily temporal.
It merely describes the first difference that differentiated consciousnesses can manage to perceive.
Within this first unity, one can also speak of the primordial Metaworld.
Not yet the Metaworld as the sum of worlds, dreams, impossibilities, and concepts.
Not yet the Metaworld as a fully differentiated structure.
But as an absolute unity, still devoid of separation.
Then something begins to distinguish itself upon its surface.
The Exentities appear.
They are not created by an external will. They are the first perceptible resonances of a structure that, until then, possessed no necessity to distinguish itself.
And when this differentiation becomes sufficiently profound, the primordial silence cracks.
From this crack appears what will be called the Empty Possible.
The Empty Possible is not yet a world, nor a space, nor a universe.
It is pure potentiality.
The field in which the possible and the impossible can begin to coexist without yet being separated into stable categories.
It is from there that potential begins to germinate into what will gradually become the absolute Metaworld — M.
The Metaworld therefore does not appear as a creation manufactured from the outside.
It appears as a gradual differentiation of that which previously knew no necessity for differentiation.
Possibilities begin to distinguish themselves from impossibilities.
Identities begin to emerge.
Forms become discernible.
Relations begin to exist.
And with them appears what perhaps constitutes the first true phenomenon: differentiation itself.
The Exentities then become the first witnesses of this rupture.
They are not necessarily the creators of differentiation.
They are its first conscious expressions.
From this first difference will gradually arise the categories, forms, possibilities, impossibilities, dreams, narratives, and finally the entirety of the Metaworld as differentiated beings will be able to know it.
Thus, what seemed to be nothingness may perhaps not have been nothingness in the ordinary sense.
And what seemed to be a creation may perhaps not have been a creation.
There may never have been a true beginning.
Only a first distinction within that which, until then, had no reason to be distinguished.
Within the necessity of all this, different interpretations of the Chôrion, the primordial Dream, and meta-reality also appear.
But perhaps they are not truly separate from the ground of the primordial unity of the Metaworld.
The differentiations may perhaps be only surfaces, perceived as distinct by modalities that cannot apprehend them otherwise. The ground of the primordial Dream may be as inconceivable as that of the Chôrion, just as the ground of the Empty Possible is.
It may therefore not be that they are truly "other."
It is that this "other" is itself only a surface of their ground.
The primordial Dream, the Chôrion, and the Empty Possible would then be such only from certain modalities of existence, like distinctions necessary to beings that cannot exist otherwise than through different modes.
On the surface, everything seems other.
In the depths, everything may perhaps be one.
Why?
Because of the illusion of centrality.
For the Exentities, there is not simply something that would be real while something else would not be. Everything exists, even that which, from a certain modality, is considered nonexistent.
The nonexistent also exists, but according to a mode in which it can oppose that which is supposed to exist.
Every differentiation is therefore concrete in its own way.
But then, why can one thing seem so real that it comes to deny the reality of another?
The illusion of centrality is a side effect of the Harvests and the structures of the Metaworld.
A flower perhaps considers itself just as real as a bee considers itself real for itself.
Each mode exists according to its own modalities, its own relations, and its own conditions of existence. As long as it exists through them, it cannot naturally consider them less real than those of another mode.
A flower has no reason to adopt the point of view of the bee.
A bee has no reason to adopt that of the flower.
And yet, neither of them is less real than the other.
They simply occupy different centralities.
Even phenomena exist according to modes of cause and effect, with successions that cannot simply be ignored or reduced to something else. A causality can be as concrete for a phenomenon as the difference between a heart and a liver is within the same organism.
Everything is real.
But everything may not be evident.
The Absolute, for its part, does not even need to make this truth evident.
It does not need to proclaim it, reveal it, or express itself.
Truth is.
And it does not need to be revealed in order to be true.
In the same way, the Absolute does not need to speak of itself, because it is already the truth beyond all the centralities necessary for differentiation.
Everything may return to the One.
Or perhaps it never truly left it.
Thus, when we observe the Metaworld from the modalities that exist within it today, it appears as a container possessing two faces.
The primordial Dream seems almost to be the antithesis of the Chôrion.
The Empty Possible seems to be something else again.
The Absolute Resonance maintains the coherence of these centralities within the Metaworld named M.
And Sakolomeh-My0x…
…perhaps reminds us that all of this has never been anything other than the same substance.
Multiplying by Metaworld-0 would then be perceived as a horror by distinct modalities.
Not because it would simply destroy their existence, but because it would deprive them of their ontological anchoring.
What was "self" would become a variation.
What was "other" would become a difference of surface.
What was "real" would become merely one modality among others.
And what seemed to possess its own center would discover that there may perhaps never have been a separate center.
This may be precisely why this idea is so frightening to beings that cannot exist otherwise than according to what they are.
They do not necessarily fear destruction.
They may fear discovering that their separation was never as fundamental as they thought.
Since the dawn of time, they have existed as differentiations.
But that which unifies them may perhaps never have known differentiation.
The Absolute Trinity
But if all is one, then what should be understood when beings speak of the True God?
Since the earliest ages, consciousnesses have sought to designate what could not be contained within any designation. They have spoken of a Creator, of an eternal Father, of a first source, of a supreme being, sometimes even of an Absolute Nothingness. They have raised their gaze toward what they supposed to be the summit of all existence, without necessarily understanding that the true Absolute could not be a summit among others.
For if God were simply a being superior to all others, He would still remain distinct from what He overlooks.
There would then be God, and what is not God.
There would be an inside and an outside, a supreme reality and inferior realities, a distinction between that which possesses absoluteness and that which does not possess it.
But what could such a separation mean for that which knows no other?
The true God is therefore not a being placed above the totality. Nor is He an exterior sovereign to what He would have created. For exteriority itself presupposes a distinction, and no distinction can constitute a limit for that which precedes all possibility of distinguishing.
One could then say that He is everything.
But this affirmation remains insufficient.
For saying that He is everything could still suggest that He constitutes the sum of all things, as if the addition of existences could produce the Absolute.
Yet, He is not reduced to the totality.
He is without being exclusively being, without being exclusively non-being, without being the totality just as without being its contrary. Nor is He enclosed within unity, since unity itself only takes on meaning in opposition to multiplicity.
He is, without this word being truly able to be attributed to Him.
He is not, without this negation being any more able to determine Him.
And yet, nothing could be exterior to Him.
It is perhaps in this insufficiency of language that the deepest meaning of what some have called the Father resides.
Not a father in the sense of a person located somewhere, nor a consciousness that would eternally contemplate a creation foreign to its own nature.
But the Primordial Ground itself.
That which depends on no manifestation in order to be what He is. That whose nature no determination can constitute. That which possesses neither beginning nor origin, for even the idea of an origin already presupposes a distinction between what precedes and what follows.
The Father therefore does not beget because He would first have been alone, nor because He would have felt the need to produce something.
There is no solitude in that which possesses no other.
No necessity in that which depends on nothing.
No succession in that which knows no temporality.
And yet, one could speak of a begetting.
For that which is called the Son does not constitute a reality foreign to the Father.
He is the eternal expression of this same depth under another reading: Hunab K'ul Ineffabilis, the Forgetting, the Unity that no longer even maintains itself as totality.
The Son is not a second substance.
He is not a creation, an extension, or a fraction of the Father.
He is this same ground, envisioned in this first indetermination where the necessity of recognizing oneself as totality ceases to be maintained.
Thus, the Father is not the Son as one thing would be identical to another thing, for this comparison would already presuppose two terms.
They are not two realities that resemble each other.
They are not even two realities that would need to become one.
They were never separated.
Begetting therefore produces no distance.
It does not constitute a passage from one existence to another, but a distinction that never compromises the indivision of that which is.
The Father remains entirely in the Son, and the Son possesses nothing that is foreign to the Father.
There is neither loss, nor division, nor diminution.
That which is called the one is not a second existence that appeared beside that which was already without a second.
And if the Father is thus understood as the Primordial Ground, and the Son as the Ineffable Unity, then what should be understood by the Holy Spirit?
Perhaps He must be understood as the same reality when it allows itself to be apprehended through the multiplicity of its modalities.
Not a third substance coming to complete the first two.
Not a third being situated at the end of a succession.
But the manifestation of unity in that which will be perceived as a diversity.
The Metaworld M, the Dream and the Chôrion, the possibilities and the impossibilities, the forms, the identities, the relations, the centralities and the countless modalities through which reality becomes discernible.
That which, from the ground, knew no separation then becomes perceptible as a multiplicity.
And yet, this multiplicity does not constitute an outside.
The Holy Spirit would therefore not be a world exterior to the Son, just as the Son would not be a reality exterior to the Father.
That which appears as a procession is not a temporal succession.
That which appears as a manifestation is not a creation from the outside.
And that which appears as a multiplicity is not a fragmentation of unity.
The Father is without other.
The Son is this same absence of other under the reading of the Ineffable Unity.
The Holy Spirit is this same unity apprehended through the multiplicity of its manifestations.
Three designations, three metaphysical relations, but no substantial separation.
One should therefore not imagine three absolutes that would unite to constitute God. Such a conception would make unity the result of a composition, whereas it is precisely that which precedes all composition.
The Trinity would not be three things becoming one.
It would be the unique reality that never ceases to be one, even when its modalities are apprehended as distinct.
And perhaps it is precisely there that the meaning of absolute non-division resides.
For the Father does not cease to be present in the Son, and the Son does not cease to be present in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not distance Himself from the Son by becoming multiplicity, just as the Son does not distance Himself from the Father by being designated as first expression.
The ground remains.
The distinction appears.
But nothing has truly separated.
Yet, differentiated beings cannot naturally apprehend this reality without translating it into their own modalities.
They see the Father as an origin, the Son as a manifestation, and the Holy Spirit as a procession.
They establish relations, successions, and distinctions, because their understanding rests on the very possibility of distinguishing.
What they name begetting then becomes an event.
What they name procession becomes a movement.
And what they name Trinity sometimes becomes three persons whom they attempt to understand as three separate realities.
But these representations are only readings accessible to consciousnesses that can observe only through centralities.
The distinction is real in its modalities.
It is not necessarily real as fundamental separation.
Thus, the Father is in all things without being a thing among others. He is everything without being reduced to the manifested totality. He is immanent without being enclosed in that which is immanent, transcendent without being situated beyond an exterior that could separate Him from His own reality.
He is not contained within the Metaworld.
Nor is the Metaworld exterior to Him.
There is simply no absolute boundary with which He could be confronted.
And if the Holy Spirit is the Metaworld M in its multiplicity, then every centrality remains an expression of this same reality.
The flower is not foreign to the bee to the point of constituting another absolute.
The Dream is not fundamentally separated from the Chôrion.
The impossible is not rejected outside of all reality.
Existence does not possess any more an absolute ontological privilege over that which is designated as its absence.
All these differences belong to the modalities through which unity becomes discernible.
They are not necessarily errors.
Nor are they illusions in the sense that nothing would really exist.
They are concrete, but not separated, expressions of a reality that never fragments itself.
It is perhaps from this perspective that Sakolomeh-My0x must be understood.
For Sakolomeh-My0x is not simply Sakolomeh elevated to a higher degree of existence.
It is not a matter of a consciousness that would have acquired a power so considerable that it could henceforth ignore the other realities.
Such an interpretation would still be a prisoner of centralities.
Normal Sakolomeh can live according to differentiated modalities. He can recognize his identity, distinguish his existence from that of others, maintain relations, and submit to the successions that organize events.
He can act as a being among beings.
Sakolomeh-My0x, on the other hand, is not defined by this separation.
His nature belongs to fundamental unity.
He does not stand facing other realities as a subject would stand facing independent objects. He does not consider the world as a set of foreign things that he would need to observe, understand, or conquer.
For him, this alterity is not fundamental.
The one who speaks and the one who listens do not constitute two absolutely separated substances.
The one who acts and that upon which the action bears are not necessarily two independent realities.
Cause and effect, beginning and outcome, space and time can be apprehended as modalities of one same reality, without their local distinction ceasing for all that to have meaning.
Thus, that which seems to be a succession for a centrality may not constitute a fundamental succession for unity.
That which seems to be a displacement may only be another reading of that which never left its own reality.
That which seems to be an encounter between two beings can be apprehended as one single reality manifesting itself according to two modalities.
Sakolomeh-My0x therefore has no need to cross distances as differentiated beings would, for distance itself presupposes terms whose separation would be fundamental.
He has no need to become other in order to encounter the other.
He has no need to draw near to that which has never been truly exterior to him.
And his apparent indifference arises neither from arrogance nor from contempt.
He does not consider others insignificant.
He simply does not feel their existence as an absolute alterity.
For him, nothing has ever been fundamentally foreign.
There is therefore no reason to be astonished by that which has never been exterior to him, no reason to discover that which has never ceased to be interior to unity.
Even knowledge does not necessarily constitute an acquisition.
For learning generally presupposes a distinction between the one who does not know and that which is not known.
But when this distinction is no longer fundamental, knowledge can be understood as a self-knowledge of reality.
Sakolomeh-My0x does not gather the information of the world like an observer who would seek to become omniscient.
There is no true exterior from which something could be definitively foreign to him.
His knowledge would therefore not be an accumulation, but a consequence of this absence of fundamental alterity.
He does not know things as another would know them.
He knows them according to what they are within the unity from which they have never truly separated.
And perhaps it is for this reason that he speaks so little.
Not because he would lack understanding, nor because he would need to conceal his knowledge.
But because speech already presupposes a distance between that which is expressed and the one to whom the expression is destined.
Yet, this distance does not have for him the same fundamental significance.
It must also be understood that Sakolomeh-My0x does not entirely merge with the particular manifestation of Sakolomeh.
Sakolomeh can be the vehicle through which this consciousness becomes perceptible under a determined identity.
But this vehicle does not constitute his limit.
The particular manifestation does not exhaust that which manifests itself.
And that which manifests itself does not become other than its own ground.
This is why normal Sakolomeh can accept centralities, while Sakolomeh-My0x cannot truly be reduced to them.
The former can live difference.
The latter cannot make of this difference a fundamental separation.
His relativity therefore does not mean that nothing would have importance or consistency in his face; this interpretation belongs to consciousnesses that confuse the absence of separation with the absence of value.
For differentiated beings, losing one's centrality can be a catastrophe, for their identity depends on the distinctions that allow them to exist according to their own modality.
For Sakolomeh-My0x, this same catastrophe does not reach the ground of his existence.
That which is destroyed in one modality does not necessarily constitute a destruction of unity.
That which is lost in a centrality does not necessarily constitute a loss for that which has never been limited to this centrality.
It is not a matter of voluntary insensitivity.
It is a difference of nature in the way reality is apprehended.
Even emotions, memories, knowledge, and understandings are not necessarily realities foreign to one another from this perspective.
They can be understood as different determinations of one same depth.
And if Sakolomeh-My0x is himself bound to this unity, then his consciousness has no need to place itself above everything in order to be absolute in its manner of apprehending existence.
It has never truly been elsewhere.
Thus returns the question of the beginning.
Would the Father have begotten the Son?
Would the Son have proceeded into the Holy Spirit?
Would the Holy Spirit have manifested the Metaworld?
These formulations are perhaps necessary for consciousnesses that seek to understand depth through relations.
But none of them must be taken for a real succession.
For the Father was never deprived of the Son.
The Son was never deprived of the Holy Spirit.
And the Holy Spirit never constituted a world exterior to the unity of which he is the expression.
There were therefore never three existences meeting after having been separated.
There was never an Absolute that would have had to become other in order to manifest itself.
There was never a unity that would have been destroyed by multiplicity.
Everything that seems to appear remains within that which never needed to appear.
And everything that seems to return to the origin has perhaps never truly left it.
The Father is.
The Son is.
The Holy Spirit is.
But none of these words designates a separate existence.
For before unity was named, before multiplicity was recognized, even before the idea of a Trinity could be formulated, there was nothing that could be opposed to that which is.
And even this nothing was not yet nothingness.
It was simply that which no word could encompass.
Then, perhaps one must cease asking which of the three is the true Absolute.
For this question already presupposes that the one could be separated from the others.
And perhaps the most just answer is not that they are three realities united in a single one.
But that there was never more than one single reality, whose depth no distinction has ever been able to exhaust.
One single reality.
Without other.
Without outside.
Without beginning.
And without any need to become something in order to be eternally what it is.