Guru Ramaji, along with his partner Ananda Devi, published an 820-page book entitled "1000: The Levels of Consciousness and a Map of Stages of Awakening for Spiritual Seekers and Instructors," where they discuss the different levels of enlightenment that this couple considers, and which they list from 1 to 10.
I saw that they've even made a new revised, expanded, and improved edition of their book.
This book also classifies hundreds of gurus.
I haven't read it, but Facundo, who is a scholar of Eastern spirituality, commented on it as follows:
Facundo's Review
Among the instructors that Ramaji and Ananda ranked are:
At level 10: Ramana.
At level 8: Jiddu Krishnamurti and Blavatsky.
At level 7: Osho.
At level 6: UG Krishnamurti.
A
truly enlightened being, 100%, that is, at the dharmakaya level and who
has already destroyed the mind (the concept of world and self), only
settles in consciousness and does not need riches or partners, much less
so many.
The subconscious is not cleansed until level 8 is passed.
Krishnamurti
didn't liberate almost anyone; he only stimulated the intellect and a
bit of buddhi. Clearly, this was because he was at level 8, or the "One
Taste" level, of Mahamudra. Obviously, he was evolved, but not fully
enlightened.
Krishnamurti
had two phrases that I remember hearing as a kid (that's how it's said
in Argentina): "Love is destruction" and "The observer is the observed."
If we analyze them, they are phrases from level 8 or "I Am" or "One
Taste of Mahamudra," since love characterizes that level, the vision of
witness and of the world as well as unity. The issue is that this is
still a construction of the false self, even if it is minimal.
That's
why he didn't achieve enlightenment, because he didn't possess the
ultimate truth of no-mind, or nothingness, also called non-meditation
and the right heart by Ramana Maharishi, or the state of Sahaja Samadhi.
Obviously, Krishnamurti was in a state superior to emptiness or the
deconceptualization of self-observation, but he wasn't liberated, as his
way of life confirms. Investigate and stop relying so much on the
intellect, because the attainment of the Dharmakaya is qualitative and
deconstructive and has nothing to do with the intellect. That is true
enlightenment, and it is the foundation for the adeptship of the
Mahatmas to form the Sambhokaya and the Nirmanakaya.
Another
example of level 6 is the "Self-Remembering" of the Fourth Way and
"Self-Observation" as level 7. Self-remembering holds the secret of
working with earth and water, which no one talks about, and that's why
most people get stuck in mindfulness; that is, it's not just attention
but also compassion or metta, as Buddhism calls it.
However,
it is important to keep in mind that this numbering is merely a
reference to organize thought; it is not reality but representations.
For example, level 6 represents the level of mindfulness, acceptance,
and renunciation; level 7 is adherence to emptiness; level 8 is
renunciation of emptiness and living the "I am"; level 9 is
transfiguration; and level 10 is no mind, no meditation, equivalent to
the final state of non-meditation in Tibetan Mahamudra. From 6 to 10, it
coincides with the four immeasurables of Buddhism, the four levels of
Mandukya, and the four levels of Kabbalah.
Levels 1 through 5 must be the first 5 paramitas of Blavatsky, and that is why most of humanity is said to be at level 2.
However,
there are other classifications, for example according to the blog of
studies of enlightenment from the perspective of "a course in miracles"
the two Krishnamurtis were not enlightened, nor was Ramana totally, they
argue that the illusion has to be broken at all levels including the
physical body: Ramana for example lived a lot of pain from cancer.
The blog I'm referring to is: http://jugandoalegremente.blogspot.com/
My opinion
I
believe that different levels of enlightenment must exist, but I don't
know how valid the classification that Ramaji and Ananda presented in
their book is, and I disagree with several of the levels they assigned
to some instructors because:
Personally,
I wouldn't even put Osho on a positive level, because although this guru was a brilliant man, the abuses and atrocities he committed
indicate that he was not at all spiritually enlightened (not even a
little because then he would have had some empathy towards his
followers), but on the contrary he was a manipulative guru who ended up
lost in narcissism, megalomania and madness.
UG
Krishnamurti is a tremendously depressing instructor, which is the
opposite of an enlightened person who sees divinity in everything; so I
consider it very overrated that they put him at level 6.
I don't feel that Ramana was at level 10 if we compare him to Buddha, who is the enlightened one par excellence.
I
believe that Krishnamurti and Blavatsky were not completely
enlightened, but I don't know if I would give them an 8 because I also
don't see that they "renounced emptiness and lived the I am".
My conclusion is that you should be cautious with the rankings.
No comments:
Post a Comment