Turq's original 4 (or perhaps 3-1/2 or 3 questions). (Some slight
emphasis added) (-:
>Just for the fun of it, you understand. :-)
>
1.
[W]hat exactly (in your opinion, of course, and welcomed as the opinion
it is) was the distinction that Maharishi was trying to draw between UC
and BC?
2. What would you think of a seeker who had enlightenment presented
to him on a platter and who then rejected it, preferring to accept and
try to groove with whatever state of consciousness life presented to
him?
3. What if someone got all enlightened and all, and decided to do
something else?
4. Would that be a Good Thing in your opinion, or a Bad Thing?
>I'm serious in this, and will try my best not to dump on
anyone who replies with an opinion. I honestly don't know,
or don't remember. And it would help me with a writing
project if I were to know the distinction he was drawing,
or attempting to draw. Thanks in advance.
Now, if Turq wanted to know what the distinction is, why would he be
soliciting opinion, and regarding it as merely opinion, because it is
often difficult if not impossible to milk knowledge from opinion? Some
opinion may appear obviously false, but opinion that is not obviously
false, may still be false. So from what will Turq acquire the knowledge
he seeks, if he is sincere in wanting to know something?
All for the fun of it of course.
