I like the way you always think things through. The idea of enlightenment is a strange one on many levels and it's impossible to know what another person's worldview is even if he tries to explain it to others.

You wrote: "Why expect, then, morality to flow from that sense of enlightenment?"

Although I read his book a long time ago, it seems Sam Harris did a good job placing morality on a scale. As I recall, he showed that morality and well-being are in relationship and that we all want to be happy and well and therefore morality has to do with our interest in promoting and sustaining this well-being for ourselves and others (as a reciprocal agreement of sorts).

This seems to make sense in terms of how we animals have evolved (brain-wise) to have or exhibit compassion and we find it useful to support one another. (I'm not considering psychopathy or other kinds of pathologies here, so this is a generality). Perhaps, just as a thought, the so-called enlightened mind is able to see this utility clearly, which is why the enlightened monk or guru may be said to be moral, ethical, and all the rest of the good stuff. Or, the enlightened person is able to see the totality of everything and that every expression, form, and being is actually just an expression of his own beingness and therefore is a part of himself, and this is the source of his compassion.

However, as I've suggested, to say that the so-called enlightened person is none of the bad stuff is to make him or her something superhuman. I'm not sure I agree that anyone is devoid of the egoic self, enlightened or not.

Re: Substack: it's a slow climb, but I have written a lot of articles over the years on medium, so I'm editing many of them and posting them on Substack along with new ones as I go along. Followers don't have to pay to read but they can also choose to pay to support a particular writer. I still have a lot to learn about how to use the platform.