The ego, the creator of worlds, is most God-like in mobilising its defense mechanisms, and for each of the there is its transcendental complement, the defense mechanisms of the transcendental ego (all the more so as it does not exist), the most excellent of world builders - these are religion, spirituality and enlightenment itself.

Experience is built up entirely out of opposites, or rather by the forces acting between opposed polarities on multiple hierarchical levels. Thus, full and empty, good and bad, distinguished and undistinguished, thing and nothing. There can only be opposites if there is a common ground for their opposition and that ground is necessarily excluded from the oppositions that it hosts. This is obscured by the fact that every ontological category that has any meaning of application is only so by way of its being opposed, being in opposition. The ground of appearance does not appear and what appears cannot ground any other appearance.

Every self-objectification of consciousness is contingent, but if all are withdrawn then nothing remains, not even a dreamless sleep. You cannot call it non-being, it is simply the absence of all positive attributes of being. The nothing deeper than the nothing of annihilation, what can you say of it?

Consciousness is not existentialist. The idea that desire is intrinsic to its nature, that it seeks to confirm or deny its own existence is an error. Consciousness is more like the naive innocent who cannot understand what is happening when it enters into relations with a body, and caught off guard comes to identify itself as what is at stake in bodly desire. This is a strange mistake that comes of the projection of one reality into a totally different one.

The modification of attention that phenomenology seeks to accomplish ought to be done without any reference to consciousness or the mind since these terms already smuggle in an 'outside' view. Better t view what is going on, the experiencing, as if it were a special kind of lucid dream. But what kind? Does it matter as long as all appearances have declare themselves free of any background at all?

In a sense awakening is consciousness and consciousness awakening, and so is open to all conscious beings as they appear in relative reality. This is the hard truth of the Bodhisattva vow, together with the fact that what remains of interest is the nature of this relative and unawakened way of being.

The wisdom of the unconscious is similar to that of Artificial Intelligence a reconfiguration of the already known according to unfathomable rules. Activated by resonances, it can play variations on any topic, including the spiritual, but falls short of the awakening of consciousness for which it would need to actually ad completely present.