By all accounts esoteric gnosis acknowledges this material plane of existence as the 'grossest.' Not gross in the ick! sense, only that it is dense. (crowded closely together, compact--hard to penetrate--difficult to understand) And this physical manifestation is dependent on the appearance and supposed realism of duality. Up, down, forward, backward. However, there seems to me sufficient evidence to argue this logic.
Begin with the idea of none. (no one, not one, nobody) It would seem rational to suppose that 'none' existed before one. Even the very definition states,"no one." Still, it wasn't until the concept of 'one' arrived, that 'none' came into creation. There was no juxtapostion, no contrast for 'none' to exist. Osho put it this way: "The moment a child is born, the mother is also born. She never existed before. The woman existed, but the mother, never."
Now, let us take it a step further. I have made claims in other posts that God is nothing. (no thing) This is not sophistry! As one example, New Science editor-in-chief Jeremy Webb has compiled 25 articles from various authors to create a book entitled; "Nothing: Surprising Insights Everywhere from Zero to Oblivion." I have not read the book, although I have glanced at the Introduction. A portion of what it says is; "The word nothing is applied in all manner of settings and in every case reveals a different aspect of reality. Can something really come from nothing? Why do some animals spend all day doing nothing? What happens in our brain when we try to think of nothing? These are all questions scientist have asked and gained intriguing results."
If science feels 'nothing' is a worthwhile topic, ('...and in every case reveals a different aspect of reality.') am I wrong to explore it? Of course not. So, as I was saying, God is nothing. And just like none and one, nothing cannot be understood without something. A distinction, a differentiation, must be made for 'nothing' to be understood. Hence creation, life, and eventually, you! God is the no thing that is dependent on the some thing for His very existence--and vice versa. As I proposed in the story White Bird: "You cannot separate Creator from Creation without certain chaos. You render the former impotent and the latter inanimate. Both are essential, one to the other."
Now, I get that the whole idea is counter-intuitive. To think of something defining the nothing of which everything had it's origin, is subtle beyond words. But if there is a "God," would we expect less? If a finite mind dare gaze at the Infinite, what does one imagine? And would the furthest reaches of his imagination move more than a nano-meter on the cosmic scale? If so, should that deter him? Or are the whispers of eternity an echo of the spiritual fecundity a mind cannot suppress?
Nothing was everything until something emerged. Everything was nothing until something diverged.