Light is All There Is
On the Relative Illusory Nature of the Shadow’s Existence
Jung is a genius that comes around every 100 years, no doubt, but in my humble opinion there is something he got wrong.
The following quote of his is backwards.
“There is no light without shadow…..”
What I have learned is that “There is no shadow without light”.
Light is really all there is, and the Shadow only exists illusorily and relatively to the light.
Shadow exists only relatively to the light.
It is an illusion of Samsara.
The Illusion and the Imperfections inherent in the duality of Samsara are necessary to distinguish the Existent properties of objects from the Non-Existent Properties.
What Jung should have clarified is that the shadow is necessary in Samsara to distinguish between the Light and the illusory Darkness of objects. Or maybe he corrected this later in another book, and I haven’t read that book yet.
The imperfections are actually illusory non-existent properties being viewed relatively to the Light.
All imperfections are necessary to distinguish between God's Eternal Attributes and the Non-Existent properties of the objects.
Consciousness is what is perceiving these attributes in the objects.
The reality is that it is all Light. Consciousness distinguishing between God properties and Not-God properties.
The imperfections of the objects are being analyzed in the Light of the God Properties and therefore are being designated labels such as shadow, darkness, and imperfection.
On the Inconceivable Transcendent Nature of all Objects and Phenomena
Every object's ultimate nature is transcendent beyond any designation from my own consciousness or other's consciousnesses.
However, all objects must also be able to take on the psychic projections of the subjective observer.
Every object is illusorily and relatively receptible to every meaning that every subjective observer places on it and so the object cannot be said to be any of those individual meanings ultimately and must either be all of those meanings or ultimately none of those meanings.
How can this be so?
How can an object be everyone's meaning and none of those meanings at the same time?
The only way an object can be this way, is if all individual meanings assigned to the objects are actually illusory relative meanings being projected psychically and the actual absolute meaning of the object is inconceivable and impenetrable to any one's consciousness.
Every object, person, place, or thing in existence has a relative illusory nature that is projected onto it by individual consciousnesses and also an absolutely inconceivable nature that is the ultimate reality of the object.
All objects are between ultimate reality and relative reality and share a quality from each reality as a single object.
All objects are between Existence and Non-Existence.
This is how every object can be "Everything and Nothing all at once".
What Does it Mean That Every Object Can Be "Everything and Nothing All At Once"
Every human consciousness assigns meaning to the objects around them.
Everybody’s definition differs.
A simple example to prove that the above-mentioned situation is true, follows;
My dog is not my neighbor’s dog.
My neighbor’s car is not my car.
We assign different meanings to all objects from differing perspectives.
The car and the dog themselves are separate objects but they share the same qualities of all objects, which is that they can be psychically assigned different meanings by every relative observer and yet retain an ultimately inconceivable nature.
This transcendent inconceivable nature of reality is what the Buddhists call the pregnant void. Buddhists use these metaphors to explain this inconceivable nature of reality but keep in mind that no person can really overstand what this inconceivable nature of existence is.
Once it is defined it loses it's inconceivability.
The pregnant void nature of all things must be relatively psychically receptive and yet ultimately impenetrable at the same time. Which is why it can’t be defined, and the term pregnant void is a technical Buddhist term to hint at something that is inconceivable beyond our intellectual observation.
Keeping in mind that the pregnant void is the ultimate nature of reality behind all objects, persons, places, and things. It then becomes easier to overstand how it is that magicians assign wholesale meanings to objects for their respective societies.
On the Magicians Casting Beneficial & Harmful Spells Over Their Respective Societies
The manipulation of the collective meaning of people, places, objects and things within a society, is done by people I call “magicians”.
An explanatory example is necessary and follows:
A spell is placed on a person by stating the following statement “This is an evil person.”
If you manipulate enough people to say the same thing or to agree about a person in this way, then you have cast a successful spell.
Question: Why do you call this a spell?
Answer: If the reality is that the meaning of all things is inconceivable, then whenever anyone attempts to assign a group meaning to an object it is an illusion being cast. A spell is the casting of an illusion.