557. It might be suggested here that the "X" in question is quite unnecessary for manifestation, because it might seem that the other two "X's" cover the whole of the analysis of manifestation, but this viewpoint is a long way from encompassing the reality. If just "X2" and "X3" existed, one would be without that very "something" which prevents existence from being a "nothing". In their basic analysis, "X2" and "X3" are illusions, for they do not exist outside sensory perception and can only be identified as reality by virtue of the fact that, in the final point of their analysis, they are the same as "X1", or the absolute "something that is". If one still maintains that life or consciousness exists without "X1", then this same life or consciousness would be a completely blind and dead automatic function. One manifestation would be the inevitable consequence of another, and in short, the whole of existence would be merely a totally unconscious release of cause and effect, an eternal, continuous automatic machine.
      But is it not clear to all normal, civilized people that there is an essential difference between a machine and a living being? While living beings are able to act independently regarding their future and fate, a machine usually can manifest itself only automatically, based on the way it was initially constructed to operate or function. One might then object that this is merely a question of its construction. If the machines we know are not able to perform as living beings can, it is only because we have not yet reached a level of technical expertise which would enable us to equip the machines in question with such extensive capacity. But who will equip the machines with this capacity? Are the objections of sceptics not in themselves a proof that the creation of a machine requires a source and besides, there is also the question of development to consider. In objecting, the sceptic is actually confirming that the creation of machines rests on the ability of a source which existed prior to the machine. But then we are in agreement. In its highest analysis, this source is none other than the absolute "something that is", or more precisely that "something" which raises living beings above the level of mere machines, so that, unlike these, they are not mere lifeless instruments having only unconscious automatic functions.