Principle of Shadows

2003-6-11 06:42:00

Rob writes:
I'm getting totally lost. I know you're trying to make correspondences so that your teaching on seeing spiritual light makes more sense. But you're building on a statement that isn't true.

You say, "Here in the physical plane we do not see light, but our seeing is based on the shadows cast as a result of light (spirit) shining on matter (darkness).

According to science, it's reflected light that allows us to see the physical universe, not the fact they cast shadows. We don't see objects, only light that's reflected off of them. Would you expand on why you think "our seeing is based on the shadows cast as a result of light (spirit) shining on matter (darkness)."?


JJ:
First let me quote some words from DK: "The spiritual life is full of paradoxes.... There are many paradoxes in what I am here giving you, and apparently some contradictions where orthodox occultism is concerned, but that is ever the case as the teaching expands in content and the earlier all- inclusive facts are seen to be minor aspects of still greater facts."

In addition he also says: "Understanding is the secret behind all power to achieve identification with any form of divine expression; understanding is one of the prime factors in producing revelation, and this is one of the paradoxes of occultism. In the world of human thought, understanding follows the prescribed routine, it follows the presented fact. In the life of the spirit, understanding is a necessary predisposing cause of revelation. I would ask you to ponder on this, bracing yourself for revelation, through a deep understanding of the initiator in yourself."

Perhaps a key statement here is "In the world of human thought, understanding follows the prescribed routine, it follows the presented fact."

As we seek to understand higher spiritual truth we will often find that the standard nomenclature of orthodox science or philosophy does not quite do the job in conveying the necessary thoughts to bring the student to the next level of understanding. Thus is the teacher often forced to use words and phrases in teaching which may be disputed by the standard intelligentsia. If the student considers the teaching he is then faced with a spiritual paradox, as mentioned by DK.

This brings us to an important point of our last question concerning the meaning of the "mind slaying the real." If the student receives an inspired teaching and sees a paradox two paths then lie before him.

(1) If he takes the first path he will rely totally on mind and orthodox learning and reject the teaching. If the teaching is true then we have a case of the mind slaying the real for the truth (the real) is rejected by mind. (2) If he takes the second path he will not let an apparent paradox control his mind and shift control to the soul which will consider that a greater truth may lie inside the paradox. In fact, the soul will consider that there may be no paradox at all, but only the illusion of paradox.

Of course, not every paradoxical teaching is true (in fact most are not), but to continue the search even after a paradox is discovered is one of the keys to prevent the mind slaying the real and moving on to the world of intuition where the language is one of principles rather than data.

The statement you question is: "Here in the physical plane we do not see light, but our seeing is based on the shadows cast as a result of light (spirit) shining on matter (darkness).

Why does this seem to not be true? You say: "According to science, it's reflected light that allows us to see the physical universe, not the fact they cast shadows. We don't see objects, only light that's reflected off of them."

Actually, I am talking about a principle here that does not contradict what you say.

It is true that our eyes see reflected light, but what happens in the process of this reflection? What is it we actually see? We see some type of form and every type of form casts some type of shadow which shadow gives us power to differentiate the forms.

What is a shadow?

My dictionary says it is "The rough image cast by an object blocking rays of illumination."

To understand, let us place ourselves in a situation where there is no image blocking light rays. We did mention one and that would be floating in space attempting to see light rays passing to your left. You cannot see the light because there is no image to cast a shadow.

Now let us imagine another situation. You are suspended in the middle of a lighted orange sphere. In every direction you look you see a perfectly smooth surface of uniform orange. Technically you have an image before you, but because you are in it and all color is uniform there seems to be no image and no shadow.

If what I say is correct how can you see orange since there is no shadow?

The answer is that there is a shadow.

Where is it?

Answer: In your mind.

In your mind is a memory of other colors besides orange. You are able to see and recognize orange because you remember red, blue, yellow, etc. and contrast colors in your mind with the orange you see. The contrasting of one color with another in your mind casts a mental shadow that allows you to see orange. Now let us suppose you lose all memory of all colors you have seen in the past and only see uniform orange before you in every direction you look.

What do you now see?

Now you see nothing because your mind has nothing by which to cast the shadow of differentiation. It is as if there is no orange or any other color.

Even so, do we dwell in a universal light and do not see it because we do not have the spiritual differentiation to understand it.

On this note DK tells us that the true color of our sun is not yellow, but blue.

Question: Why do we see the sun as yellow when it is really blue?

I'll answer the rest of your questions later.

Neo: But if you already know, how can I make a choice?
The Oracle: Because you didn't come here to make a choice, you've already made it. You're here to try to understand why you made it. --Matrix Reloaded