top of page

Light and the Inconceivable Nature of all Objects

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.

The reality is that the person, place or thing is ultimately inconceivable, yet the casting of this spell is creating the illusion that the group KNOWS the Object in an Absolutely Objective way.

This is an impossibility in our current reality. Because everyone is assigning individual relative meanings to all objects.

Therefore: A collectivized group definition about any object, person, place, or thing is an illusion that the group has willfully accepted about the ultimately unknowable meaning of an object. Not only that, but the individuals are attempting to have other people trade their own relative individually assigned meanings for the object in exchange for an illusory collective meaning for the object.

A further example in the form of a dialogue;

What is a wooden stick? Can I define it? Well, if I can use it for firewood, it is firewood. If I can use it to build a fort, is it a wall now? How can this object have the capacity to be both things? Also, how is it malleable to the function I assign to it? I can use this object and turn it into so many different things. My psychic projection of meaning onto the object and successive actions upon the object defines it for me relatively.

So, what is the ultimate definition of this object?

The definition of it is Ultimately Inconceivable.

Every Object is like that.

Our psychic projections upon matter and our successive actions upon it defines objects subjectively and always relatively from our individual universe of meaning. Buddha: “All is mind.”

A spell is a collectivized group’s relative meaning being imposed upon an object psychically such as a person, place, or thing.

A spell imposed psychically by a group upon a person to define the person’s meaning as

“EVIL” will only fool people who have not studied what “EVIL” is.

I highly recommend the blog “In-Formation: On Plotinus and Musa A.S. (Moses)” if you want to overstand from a higher view what “Evil” is.

For in the above-mentioned case “Evil” as an absolute quality or definition of things is illusory and non-existent. So non-existent in fact, that you can’t even define it as non-existent, but that is the closest definition of something that doesn’t exist, currently.

All existent things have existence so there is GOOD in them.

So pure “Evil” or complete and total Non-Existence can’t even be thought of or said to exist.

Once again, the Light is all there is, evil is the relative shadow non-existent psychic projection being perceived as having absolute existence. It is a delusion of the mind to think that the shadow has absolute existence without Light.

The shadow only exists in an illusory comparative form. Anything that derives its existence from something other than itself is not absolutely existing. Therefore, the shadow is an illusion of the realm of duality (Samsara) (Dunia).

All we can say about shadow to define it, is relatively in relationship to light.

For example: Shadow is where there is a lack of light. It depends on light to be definable and so it has no reality in and of itself.

One can then argue, well that’s not true, because if you take away the light all that’s left is shadow or darkness.

This is a misconception about our reality that we assume to be true, but no one could ever prove this because we require Light to see anything. So, how could anyone prove that the shadow would be left after we take away the light.

Light is all there is, shadow has a relative existence. If you take away the light, there is nothing to see the shadow by, so how can it exist?

It is an Illusory phantasm that relies on light for it’s illusory imaginary existence.

In conclusion then, the "evil" spell is double illusion. Not only is it out of touch with the Ultimately Inconceivable Nature of all things, but it is also defining absolutely a person by a term that has been proven to be non-existent in an absolute way.

We all must assign the meaning, to the objects in existence relatively and study the etymology and the philosophy behind the terms being used by people, or else it easy for us to fall victim to illogical unreasonable conclusions or definitions about objects who in reality don’t have those properties.

DISCLAIMER: The term magician is being used here to define a person who deals with illusions. It is not being used here to designate these people as evil. Once again everyone chooses their worlds of meaning, however imposing your world of meaning as THE MEANING for everyone is considered by me to be a SPELL. There are good spells and there are bad spells. Necessary illusions are imposed upon the populace by good spells to keep the peace within society.

For example;

Right now, the reality is, anyone can come and bust into my house and decide to take up residence. What is keeping the rest of society from taking up residence in my home is a SPELL imposed on society through something called THE LAW. Which are group SPELLS but are necessary illusions to keep the peace and provide a sanctity to places, and protection for people’s rights.

We Should Always Keep in Mind

Every sentient being is creating a universe of mind through relative meaning and placing a matrix of this meaning on all objects.

We know this to be true instinctively when my beloved pet who does not pose a threat to anyone is perceived as a threat by someone other than I.

Most people fail to take these perceptions to their conclusion, which is that the object that I have designated as my dog, and then assigned further meaning to it, by designating it further as my beloved pet is an object that receives different meanings from differing perspectives. Which means that the ultimate nature of my dog is not the meaning that I have assigned it. The dog’s ultimate nature is “the inconceivable nature of all things". And this nature is shared by all things.

This may be scary to think about for some people in their current phase of development because it can cause their relative worlds of meaning to fall apart. This is the illusory mind nature we impose on all things falling apart to reveal the reality for what it is.

My mind imposing relative illusory meaning onto a reality in which all objects’ meanings are ultimately inconceivable.

The reality is mind imposing meaning onto an existence which is ultimately inconceivable yet receptive to all meanings at the same time.

Truly a paradox if there ever was one…..Everything and Nothing All At Once.

Everybody Is Alienated Here

Everybody is alienated here, isolated within their own universe of relative meaning

We utter words at objects like “stupid” or “pretty” attempting to fix them with imaginary stability

The actual objects themselves transcend all relative illusory meaning

The actual meaning or nature of objects is inconceivable and holy transcendent

This is the nature of all things

It follows that existence is inconceivable and holy transcendent

Disagreement is Healthy and the Default Condition of the Paradox of “Everything and Nothing All At Once” Nature of the Universe

Since Matter is psychically receptible at least from an apparently individual illusory relative perspective, yet also deflective of all psychic projection from an absolutely definable by consensus perspective.

It follows that it is the nature of our existence for everyone’s universe of meaning to be in disagreement with everyone else’s.

Disagreements naturally arise from this paradox of reality and agreements are actually illusory in the light of the ultimately inconceivable nature of reality.

Therefore, agreements between people about reality are imagined to be, and not actual.

Think about it.

When we agree as to the meaning of objects between a group of different mind universes, we are imagining that we collectively know something about the meaning of an object that is ultimately inconceivable even from an individual perspective.

The reality is that there is no group meaning for anything here so everyone’s imagining that everyone is assigning the same meaning to the objects around them.

We Should Not Be Surprised by Disagreements in Any Society

Disagreements are reflecting the Ultimate Reality of Objects. That their nature is inconceivable, and meaning is individually assigned to them.

Disagreements lead to War out of Ignorance of this reality.

The ignorance is the belief that disagreements are the exception to the rule, when in actuality Disagreements are the Rule to Reality.

Ignorance of this rule leads to War for the Unenlightened.

An enlightened person is in agreement with the Disagreeing nature of Reality.

They view it as “Inevitable conclusion for this reality.”

To go to war because of a disagreement is to go to war against this rule of reality.

To partake in war over a disagreement is like trying to attack the metaphysical nature of existence.

Impossible and Futile.

There will always be disagreements here naturally.

Logically war becomes futile for the enlightened in every occasion of disagreement except in self-defense.

Self-preservation is the only logical justification for war.

In Conclusion, anger over disagreements is ignorance about the reality.

All personal universes of meaning will always differ.

There is no escaping this reality.

Accepting it, observing it, and becoming enlightened by it, is the only logical option.

29 views0 comments


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page