Dear Ram,

Harold: In my understanding of the spiritual path, there are seven stages. As I have said before, if you are Enlightened, we have very different conceptions of what the term means. I respected you for taking that in your stride - without an ego reaction.

Ram:  We have different conceptions.  I see everyone and everything as the Self.  Everyone and everything is ‘in the light of Awareness’ ergo ‘enlightened.’  There is nothing to be done about it.  Some people appreciate this fact on a moment to moment basis (and could be said to know they are enlightened) and some don’t ( and either strive to know it…or not).  My view is based on the fact that reality is non-dual.  Yours is the experiential view which is based on the idea that reality is dual. For you, I believe, enlightenment is something that happens to someone, a state of consciousness, something that one can attain (and lose).  There has been a perennial war in the spiritual world over these to conceptions since day one.  My view is Vedantic, yours Yogic. 

Harold: I don’t think it serves much purpose to tell people you are Enlightened; you need to show them.

Ram: I agree.  I don’t say I’m enlightlened nor do I say I’m unenlightened.  This discussion hinges on the meaning of enlightenment (see above).

Harold:  In my opinion “ and I readily acknowledge that I might be wrong you are on the fourth, possibly the fifth, level. You have got two levels to go. I can go into detail, if you wish, though I doubt is you are as open as I. Thank you for the compliment, btw. No one could deny that I am the most assiduous of seekers, though, alas, not the most successful of finders. I certainly don't think you are a "jerk" and am never offended by the truth. Strangely, unlike you, I never seem to get angry these days. I don't know why.

Ram: Because I subscribe to the Vedantic view I see reality as non-dual.  Therefore there are no ‘levels’ as far as I’m concerned. This interest in levels is usually all about status because those who hold the experiential view think that ‘enlightenment’ is the ‘highest’ human status.   The Yogic view posits progressive levels of yogic unfoldment leading to some kind of experiential enlightenment called Samadhi or Nirvana, to use the Buddhist term.  As I mentioned the view one holds  depends on one’s concept of the nature of reality.  Is it dual or non-dual?   If it’s non-dual you can’t make a big deal of enlightenment because everything is enlightened already.  If it’s dual then you can imagine that it is something to be ‘attained’ and you can strive for it.  And when you ‘get it’ you can imagine that you have got something that you never had…which if you are small minded will make you feel good about your little self.  Making experiential enlightenment some sort of desirable object is foolish.  Anyone claiming it experientially should rather keep his or her mouth shut in so far as it only calls attention to a long stay in ignorance.  Making a big deal about enlightenment is rather like making a big deal about a glutton who loses four hundred pounds.  We laud these people as examples of great courage and fortitude without condemning them for the weakness and corruption that led them to their misery in the first place.   Are they great because they returned to normal?  If you’re into evaluating things…which is what we humans do best….then dharma is a much better standard.  By dharma I mean whether or not a person follows the moral laws of the universe.  I look forward to an argument about the nature of enlightenment. 

Yours sincerely,

Ram

Note: Harold did not choose to discuss the issue further.