Opposite of enlightenment.

[ingurix]

We all know that there is an ultimate stage of consciousness - enlightenment. However - is there an ultimate opposite of enlightenment, where one is so 'asleep' he can never be even more unawakened?

[Forestluv]

Enlightenment is not a something that a person gets or becomes.

In terms of lacking awareness. I would say an extremely drunk person.

[Shin]

Trump

It's a new species.

[ingurix]

@Serotoninluv Perhaps. It's an interesting question, because it seems like in the existence there are dual things like God and Devil, light and darkness, internal and external. It should be the same as enlightened and super-asleep. HOWEVER, as Leo says, existence is NON-DUAL, which means that there's no difference between enlightened and unconscious.

Or maybe I miss out on something?

[Forestluv]

@ingurix I try to avoid suggesting a person is enlightened. Who would become enlightened? There is nothing to become enlightened.

To me, it feels closer to true to simply say “there is enlightenment”. That way, there is no ownership associated with it.

When using terms like “conscious”, be mindful that there are different levels. At the human level, we may say a person is highly conscious, they are highly aware of their self and surroundings. As well, there is social consciousness as illustrated in bird murmurations. There is also the ultimate level of Conscious, in which all is One. At the human level, to say “I am god” would be quite delusional and egotistical. The person may need psycological help. Yet, at the ultimate level, “I am God” is a deeply profound spiritual truth.

At the relative human level, I am comfortable saying there is good and evil. At the ultimate level, I am confrtable saying there is no good or evil (or good = evil).

I think it’s helpful not to conflate different levels. So the question “how can internal be the same as external?” doesn’t make sense at the relative level. At the relative level, of course internal is different than external. At the ultimate level, there is no external and internal (or internal = external).

To gain understanding and experience at the ultimate level, I try to go prior to the distinction. I like inquiry questions like “from what does both internal and external arise?”. or “What is the source of both internal and external”? Or, “Where exactly does internal end and external begin”?

The problem with categorizing things into “this” and “that” is any category is cut away from a nondual whole. It is a fragment of the whole.

When one says “beautiful”, ugly appears.  When one says “honest”, dishonesty appears. With joy brings sorrow. 

Just by saying “enlightened”, unenlightened appears. 

[Amun]

Opposite of enlightenment is becoming a hungry ghost

[Dodo]

In simple terms Ego is the opposite of Enlightenment.

That's why all these spiritual practices targeting the subject of Ego. The false identification with any form is Ego

[Anton Rogachevski]

Seemingly yes, actually no.

[Jack River]

Enlightened perception-seeing(to shine light upon-to see clearly), has no opposite. 

If this holistic perception has its root in an opposite, for example ego, that perception-seeing, remains that of ego, therefore not whole/undivided. 

Every opposite has its root in its own opposite. 

Edited January 5, 2019 by Jack River

[ivankiss]

Endarkenment? 

Edited January 5, 2019 by ivankiss

[cetus]

@ingurix The opposite of enlightenment is unlightenment or the inability to see the light.....O.K. I made that up. But none the less that's fairly close.

Man stands in his own shadow and wonders why he can't see the light

[Jack River]

All opposites contain there own opposites 

Freedom and enslavement..Mind will react to enslavement and move towards the abstraction of freedom, which remains enslavement. The movement away from enslavement towards freedom, being reactionary, is a movement of fear, division, conflict. 

This is a form of positive or negative resistance. Freedom from enslavement is a reaction to enslavement which remains enslavement. 

Just like freedom form violence in which the mind invents and chases its own image of non-violence still has its root violence. 

The same goes with love. Mind will react to its state of non-love, being reactionary, and invent its own idea of love, conform to that idea, yet the mind will still be in a state of non-love. 

 

Enslavement has no opposite 

 

Freedom has no opposite

 

Violence has no opposite 

 

Love has no opposite 

 

Enlightend perception/seeing is love(freedom). 

Enlightned perception/action has no opposite. 

 

Edited January 5, 2019 by Jack River

[DrewNows]

@Jack RiverFosho dude 

Enlightenment is an idea and it does not point to experience 

[ingurix]

@Serotoninluv So it means that the way we perceive reality depends on our current stage of consciousness

[ingurix]

@Jack River If you say that progress mostly is reactionary, then how does one truly change?

[ingurix]

@Joseph Maynor Why 'Enlightened Ego'?

[pluto]

The opposite of Enlightenment is Enlightenment.

[Jack River]

7 hours ago, ingurix said:

@Jack River If you say that progress mostly is reactionary, then how does one truly change?

That question is important.

To an ego the notion of gradual change is favorable as opposed to instant change now. By not acting wholly-totally now the self sustains its own continuity as a result as being enslaved, violent etc.. This is ideal for sustaining self continuity, as in psychological evolution.

It’s very subtle. The me will move from what is to what that confused and conflicted entity thinks should be.

This seems like a productive and progressive action, yet is actually reactionary(resistance). The self will escape the fact of what is (violent) to the concept of non-violence.

The self then is not looking to actually change fundamentally, but is then caught it’s own movement of desire moving towards pleasure(to feel psychologically secure). This is food for self. 

The me seems to avoid staying with what is(the reality). By moving away from that reality it ‘pogresses’-‘gradually’ towards its own fabricated image (opposite). To pursist in its own self constructed illusion. 

This prevents all change. It’s an isolated movement of volition/control, in which self/ego(psychological continuity of the i) thrives. This isolation seems to prevent all change. 

To move from one condition(form) to another. This seems to be a fundamental resistance to act, to change. 

The question would be is deep fundamental change instantaneous or gradual/progressive?

That’s up for others to figure out though. 

 

Edited January 6, 2019 by Jack River

[Tistepiste]

@Serotoninluv what if an enlightened individual gets drunk?

[Jack River]

22 hours ago, DrewNows said:

@Jack RiverFosho dude 

Enlightenment is an idea and it does not point to experience 

Yeah maybe..

Or maybe it points to an experience as the experiencer(the past/the image projection/and pursuit of our very own invention).

Or are we referring to seeing with a cessation of experience? 

Edited January 6, 2019 by Jack River