KW: And I think the reason that that's the case can be found in just what we've been saying: A sage, let's say a thousand years ago, could have a profound realization of dharmakaya or pure emptiness—a profound realization of nirvikalpa samadhi—and then also have a profound realization of a union with all form. So this sage would have a realization of both emptiness and the world of form and would realize that they are intrinsically each other. They arise moment to moment as the emptiness of all forms that are arising ecstatically. Now, nonetheless, that almost perfectly enlightened sage, in the sahaj sense, the nondual sense, can still only be one with the world of form that is present at his or her time. And that world of form is not going to have the types of knowledge that we now have about the world of form.

AC: You mean about evolution?

KW: About evolution in particular—the exact nature of it, what it actually means, what is going on in the world of form. In the world of form, we are seeing an unmistakable drift toward increasing levels of differentiation and integration and complexity and unification. And that's a profound understanding because it means that our vehicle in the world of form is becoming more transparent to the processes that are in the world of form. That changes everything. It doesn't matter how deeply enlightened somebody was a thousand years ago, the world of form did not include that understanding. So that wasn't part of their realization, even though their realization of emptiness was exactly as great as ours can be today because emptiness is emptiness, it doesn't change, it has no moving parts, and so on. So we're not taking anything away from the sage who lived a thousand years ago. We have one thing on that sage, however—we're alive now. And a thousand years from now, people will look back at our world of form and laugh hysterically over what idiots we were. But in the meantime, we have to get on with embodying this world of form with radical emptiness, and the result is, yes, a type of evolutionary emptiness. Or "evolutionary enlightenment," sure.

AC: And in this evolutionary enlightenment, the significant element, as I understand it anyway, is the surrender to the movement of an awakened compulsion to participate wholeheartedly in the evolutionary process forthe sake of evolution itself. That's what evolutionary enlightenment is all about, not merely the attainment of one's personal liberation from or transcendence of this world.

KW: Yes, I agree.

AC: And it's that shift in emphasis that I'm really pointing to—that's what's significant, I think, in terms of ultimately how to define enlightenment for our time. Because as more and more people do become interested in what enlightenment is and what it means, I would say ninety percent of the time at least, if not more, all they hear about is transcendence, personal transcendence. And while that is usually accompanied by a plea for selflessness and compassion, it's rarely, if ever, the unbridled revolutionary passion for the total transformation of the world that surges up from the spiritual heart when it is truly liberated from the world. I mean, more often than not it's a kind of tepid, strange brew—ancient concepts of enlightenment all mixed up with "new age" emotionally based ideas about compassion—and the fire of liberation itself is definitely not where it's coming from.

KW: We still have a very strange mixture of these three basic spiritual orientations that are available. One is pagan immersion in samsara. One is idealistic, transcendental escape into the world of unmanifest cessation. And one is some form of nondual that embraces them both. And the form of nondual realization in today's world is, of necessity, evolutionary nonduality. People sometimes get put off by the notion of evolution. Either they think, "Well, all this stages crap, I don't believe that—that's ranking, that's marginalizing. I don't like that." Or, if they are on the spiritual side, they think what your teacher thought, which is that any discussion of the world of time shows that you haven't really grasped Being, or grasped the timeless. So in a strange way, your own nondual realization is taken to be a lesser realization than one of these fractured states.

AC: Oh, definitely.

KW: Which is really bizarre! But in any event, it's understandable that people get a little bit put off by the notion of stages or evolutionary unfolding, or things having to get higher and higher.

AC: Because, God forbid, maybe they have further to go, maybe there's something to do here!

KW: Now of course, I would never say something nasty like that. But yes, that certainly is one of the reasons that people are put off by it. However, when we really get into a fine-tuned discussion of what the difference is between states of consciousness and stages of consciousness, I think we can get a better handle on some of these issues.

AC: Is that because, as you say, gradual evolution to higher stages of consciousness development is essential in order to be able to sustain and accurately interpret the experience of higher states of consciousness?

KW: Yes, exactly. One of the reasons that people do have trouble with stages or evolutionary unfolding is that they have, themselves, experienced very profound states of consciousness that sometimes are of a nondual nature. And so they are distrustful of the notion that you have to somehow evolutionarily progress through stages in order to have access to the nondual. But that's not what we're saying. The nondual or pure emptiness itself is the ever-present state of every single stage of development. It's completely present in atoms, carrots, dogs, infants, adults, you name it. Even very young children can have a temporary altered state of a subtle, causal, or nondual nature, for the simple reason that all human beings wake, dream, have deep sleep. You see, the three great states of consciousness (waking, dreaming, sleeping) correspond with the three great realms of being (gross, subtle, causal). In the waking state you are aware of the gross realm, while dreaming you are aware of the subtle, and in deep sleep you are aware of the causal. The nondual is that ever-present witness that is there throughout all changing states. So all human beings have gross, subtle, and causal states available to them twenty-four hours a day, and there is the nondual, ever-present ground, which is also present to them twenty-four hours a day. So anybody at any stage of development can have an altered state of gross, subtle, causal, or nondual realities. But in order for those temporary states to become permanent traits, you have to evolve through the stages of purifying the vehicle, in the realm of form, so that it can ecstatically, permanently, continuously embrace these higher states.

AC: That's where people have the problem. Because as you eloquently pointed out in Boomeritis, the ego, the narcissistic self, wants to be left alone, violently wants to be left alone, and aggressively resists the idea of not already being perfect and of having to change.

KW: Exactly. And the simple answer to those people is, "That's fine. If you really think you're already enlightened, I'm happy for you. If you don't want to go through evolutionary transformations to perfect your vehicle because you are already ecstatically one with the divine twenty-four hours a day, I'm happy for you. But if you're not that, get with the picture!"

AC: And you would agree that with the purification of the vehicle, there would be a gradual emergence of, shall we say, a profound sense of obligation or an ecstatic compulsion to give all of our heart and energy to the evolutionary process so that the liberated glory of our own absolute nature will emerge as ourselves, in this world.

KW: Absolutely. It can be said very simply; obviously it's very hard to embody. But the basic rule is: resting as emptiness, embrace the entire world of form. And the world of form is unfolding. It is evolving. It is developing. And therefore resting as blissful emptiness, you ecstatically embrace and push against the world of form as a duty.

AC: Right, push against it. That's the important part.

KW: Yes, absolutely.

AC: Because in relationship to the question of what enlightenment means, the notion of pushing against the world of form, or the inertia of the world, in order to enlighten it is something a lot of people find challenging and even antithetical to what "spirituality" is supposed to be all about.

KW: Again, I can understand some of the hesitancies and problems with it. But I think we just need to take a much more considered look at the evidence. Look at the various types of states we have available to us, and particularly look at the past thirty years, when so many experiments have been made by this generation in terms of various paths and practices, and see what the actual results are. I think we're getting to a point now where we realize that a kind of integral practice—a practice that emphasizes both the immanence of spirit in terms of present manifestation and, simultaneously, the transcendent nature of spirit—is necessary. One that is, in some sense, their mysterious union—the nondual. And it is mysterious—it's a love affair. It's a love affair between Shiva and Shakti. Like all love affairs, you'll never figure it out, but your heart is plunged in the mystery of it. The mystery is that you are radically the only thing that exists in the entire universe and yet all these forms are arising within you. And in a sense, the denser forms are just your slow left foot. But you have to push against your own density in the manifest world in order to penetrate it with the awareness that you eternally are. It's that "pushing against" part—if people can't really engage with that, then I'm afraid they do just get caught in states of mere quietude or cessation, or mere immersion in sensory manifestation.

AC: Don't you think that's ultimately why we're here—to liberate ourselves from a merely relative identity, and any binding attachment to an unenlightened perspective, so that we can engage with the life process as perfectly as we're able to?

KW: Exactly, I agree entirely, and, as you know, the only expression that we individually have is through this particular individual vehicle that we have. Which is why you want to polish that sucker up!

AC: That's true—and the exciting part is, as I often tell people, that once one realizes this, there is an ecstatic revelation. One discovers that being exactly who one already is—not only as the timeless, unborn self but also as an incarnated, individuated personality with whatever historical and cultural background one has—is the perfect vehicle for that total engagement. And in that recognition one experiences an ecstatic release from all the old neurotic self-concern.

KW: I think that's exactly right. One of the reasons that some spiritual teachers seem perhaps not to understand what it means to push against the world is that that pushing comes on the other side of the great release. There is already that radical freedom with the realization of the emptiness that is pervading all form. So you're not pushing against the world out of a sense of lack; you're pushing against the world out of a sense of duty.

AC: Exactly! And ecstasy and love and compulsion.

KW: Absolutely. They would think that if somebody says the kind of thing you've been saying, then you are coming out of a state of lack, you haven't quite realized—

AC: —or maybe I'm not accepting things enough the way they are—maybe I have some kind of personal agenda.

KW: Or maybe they have not yet pushed through radically to incarnational nonduality.

AC: Incarnational nonduality—that's it. That's exactly what evolutionary enlightenment is all about!

KW: When it comes down to actual practice, and you know this as well as anybody, it's not a kind of "one-step, two-step" affair. In reality, it's a very messy, sloppy business. Sometimes you're dunked into pagan immersion in samsara; sometimes you're whisked into transcendental Theravadan nonexistence. And then other times you miraculously, mysteriously find your cells in love with emptiness and form simultaneously. Whether you develop on the way up or on the way down, so to speak, either way is fine.

AC: As long as one does. And you're right, the ecstatic emergence is a messy and often painful business.

KW: Yes, very much so.

AC: That's what even material evolution, organic evolution is like, you know. It's all very messy, and so is spiritual evolution. Even though it's ultimately an ecstatic event.

KW: Exactly.