Is an endarkened person someone who doesn’t have a clue? Sorry, just never heard this term before…

Enlightenment in what sense of the word? I suppose someone who is very far from enlightenment would be a person who is very narrow minded, out for themselves, and not willing to help others, or desires suffering or harm for others.

I suppose an enlightened person would be one who is willing to learn new things and really enjoys helping others. also, I think these people are like magnets, and people are really intellectually attracted to them.

Yeah, I’m also confused about how a person would actively seek “endarkenment”, or what that is, really.

If it’s like matter and anti-matter, than there would be a huge explosion when the enlightened person and the endarkened person got together. I kid, but please explain yourself further…

Generally, the enlightened person lifts your spirits when you are around them. Whereas, the the other is a vampire of your energy, emotions and your spirit in general.

Generally, I don’t trust anyone who claims to be enlightened.

A truly enlightened person would accept an “endarkened person” fully on their own terms. The unenlightened person would likely be be frustrated at a lack of confrontation, but being incapable of accepting another person, would leave.

What does one do before enlightenment? Chop wood, carry water.
What does one do after enlightenment? Chop wood, carry water.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard Anyone who claims to be enlightened isn’t.

Endarkenment is when you join the sith :P

I work with the endarkened. They sap the life out of me. I’m not sure how our IT partners taking two months to solve an issue, bad data, the shifting sands of ever changing business requirements from the owner, or my manager agreeing to double the scope of the project with an unrealistic deadline is my fault, but it is. I love people who think you can solve complex problems correctly on their deadline, which is imposed without asking you if it’s a feasible request.

This kind of question always dead-ends into this paradox: To conceive of enlightenment as something special—to set it in opposition to delusion (or “endarkenment”, if you prefer) – is just another delusion.

Delusion is simply mistaking our perceptions about the self and the world for reality itself. There is nothing wrong with having the perceptions; they become problematic when they get confused with reality. One of the perceptions that causes the most trouble is the perception of difference, e.g. “This is not That”, or “This is the opposite of That”. Such a perception has its uses, but is not a fundamental property of reality. When we forget that and treat differences as real, that’s a form of delusion.

So any distinction people make between “enlightenment” and “delusion” ultimately has no basis in reality. To someone who actually understands this, it becomes nonsensical to say, “This person is enlightened, but this person isn’t”. So can a person who sees through these distinctions rightly be called “enlightened”? That’s the paradox. In a sense, enlightenment requires letting go of the idea of enlightenment.

Enlightened people challenge general assumptions as well as their own assumptions. A good example is Galileo. He was enlightened while the Church at the time was endarkened.

Today, sadly more and more people choose endarkenment because they are afraid of the rapid changes in science and technology feeling they are a threat to humanity. This is one of the reasons why endarkened movements like young-earth creationism and evolution denial is so popular.

Self-edited.

gratitude