Question 1. I don't know. This point has never been explained satisfactorily to me, why this distinction, if it exists, is significant. I seem to recall in his commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita he was talking about Unity in God consciousness. The BC distinction came up later, after Unity seemed to be described as a distinct state. If someone has an answer to this question of turq's, I would like to know too.
Question 2. Why shouldn't a person who is enlightened just do what they want to do? That is what people do anyway if they are not too hemmed in by circumstances. If everyone was enlightened, there would be no one to teach anyway. Some people like to teach. Others maybe just like to flip flapjacks in a diner somewhere. Goodness or badness has nothing to do with it. I am guessing that most would do something else. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > Just for the fun of it, you understand. :-) > > The first: I bailed from the TMO early on, in 1978 or so. > To my memory, at that point Maharishi had not really ever > talked about anything "beyond" UC, his vision of Unity > Consciousness. I have heard since that he later hypothesized > BC, Brahman Consciousness, but I honestly don't remember him > ever talking about it when I was around. > > For those who were, what 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? > > 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. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > The second: 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? > > What I'm thinkin' is that the "career path" presented > to the Serious Spiritual Seeker is pretty fuckin' lame > and limited. Just sayin'. :-) I mean, the path laid out > for you as a young, aspiring spiritual aspirant is that > you will keep doin' what you've been told to do and one > day you'll get all enlightened and all. At that point, > you will do what all the other enlightened beings we > celebrate in history have done, and become a Teacher. > Other people will flock to you as students and accept > everything you say as The Truth just because you say it. > You will be a walking god. You will have spiritual > groupie status out the wazoo. > > What if someone got all enlightened and all, and decided > to do something else? > > Would that be a Good Thing in your opinion, or a Bad Thing? >
