“Being only, O gentle youth,” says Uddalaka to his son, “was this [universe] in the beginning, one only, without a second.
“Now some indeed say, ‘Non-being only was this [universe] in the beginning, one only, without a second. From this non-being, Being was born.’
“But how, O gentle youth, might it be so? — thus spake [his father]. How from non-being might Being be born?
“Rather, Being only, O gentle youth, was this [universe] in the beginning, one only, without a second.”
And this One Being, so Uddalaka hereupon continues, somehow mysteriously resolved to become many. And immediately there follows in the text at some length, a cosmology, in which the various principles appear in an order obviously determined by tradition. This tradition, however, at first seems upon its face thoroughly realistic. But erelong this mere cosmology gives place to deeper inquiries. It is one thing to teach the tradition about how, in Nature, the Many came from the One. It is another thing to ask how the Many, now that they appear, are related to the One. As Uddalaka dwells upon this mysterious relation, he soon is led to explain that the Many are essentially illusory, and that not the false consciousness which seems to display to us their diversity, but rather even the unconsciousness of deep sleep itself must express the true relation of the false finite to the true absolute.
“As, O gentle youth, the honey-makers, when they make honey, gather the juices of manifold trees, and bring the [resulting] juice to unity [one-ness, eka-tām], —
