Print

Print


Dear Marcin: thank you for your informative explanation. While Eliot indicates that any point of view is as valid as any other, he does not comment on the absence of any point of view, that is to say, non-attachment to a position or opinion. How would he or anyone write about that except by hints and implications? Diana


From: marcin ostrouch <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "That Thou Art" and Preludes
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:50:25 +0200

Dear Diana,

What I meant is that there is no way out of the human predicament,
i.e. no PERMANENT escape from our everyday mode of perception,
WHILE REMAINING here and now.To claim otherwise would inevitably imply
a construction - ontic pertification of the dynamic PROCESS of existence,
or as TSE has it - yet another point of view.

For the knowledge of the true Self (the Absolute, God, Brahman...), obviously,
cannot be attained with the categories of the mind. Incidentally, in his dissertation
TSE, after Bradley, describes the Absolute as "annihilation and utter night".

The speaker in Preludes seems well aware of these facts (all points of view
"revolve" meaninglessly). Again, in Knowledge and Experience TSE points out
that "neither point of view is more nearly ultimate than the other".

I would imagine, that the "unstated Grail quest" which you mention, terminates
somewhere at this point - recognition of the fact that there is no ultimate point of
view (constructed with the categoires of our everyday perception)
which would be attainable to us, as human beings.


The deep awareness of identity with the One (knowledge of the true Self)
may result in modification of our everyday existence, in beneficial
distance "to"/"from" the spinning "worlds", in catharctic benevolent laughter; which, however,  is
bound to  abate due to our (the speaker's) inevitable immersion in the everyday.

I am sorry for this rather longish exposition of what you, most probably, find obivious.

All in all, perhaps, I should have only written, that what I cannot find in Preludes is any
indication of some transcendent reality, any possible shelter for the wayworn idealist.
For the categories of immanence and transcendence do not seem to apply here
(in the experience of the One). 

-------------------------

As for your suggestion to consider the '"infinitely gentle, infinitely suffering thing" as the being
suffering from maya, those fancies that the ego spins, that Indic religions identify
as the cause of all suffering'.

I must admit I am still somewhat puzzled by the Thing...

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could introduce us
to the notion of "sarvahut" the creative sacrifice of Purusha, as presented in the Purusha Sukta.

( http://www.ramanuja.org/purusha/sukta-intro.html )

Best Regards,
Marcin



Diana Manister wrote:
[log in to unmask]>

'All Indian philosophy considers ignorance as a barrier to liberation. This ignorance results from false identification of the Self with body-mind-sense complex. Thus we are entangled in the mesh of attachment and hatred that invariably leads to all our selfish and therefore sinful acts and sufferings. Only when one attains true knowledge of the true Self (God, Brahman, Consciousness) one is freed from the slavery of the senses and all sufferings come to an end.'

Would "the false identification of the Self with the body-mind-sense complex" include one's fancies, as in the lines from Preludes that inspired this discussion, and a "multitude of solipsisms?

If Eliot had Indian philosophies in mind when writing the poem, particularly the "way of liberation" they present, then Marcin's interpretation that one of the poem's subtexts is "there is no way out" would seem to be contraindicated.  Eliot's university studies must have acquainted him with this aspect of Hindu belief. Diana


From:  Vishvesh Obla <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:  "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
To:  [log in to unmask]
Subject:  For Diana (Was :Re: "That Thou Art" and Preludes)
Date:  Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:37:41 -0700
Diana,

It is too difficult to have a comprehensive picture of
Hinduism.

The principle of Maya was championed by Shankara and
formed the core of Advaita philosophy that rejuvenated
Hindu religion at one period of time.  (In could be an
interesting note that Eliot was very much interested
in Shankara.  I am not sure though if he was well
aware of the many other schools of spiritual
philosophy).

There is a brief but well-written account of the six
schools of Indian philosophies which have reference to
the principle of Maya at:
http://www.geocities.com/neovedanta/a80.html I hope it
helps.



---------------------------------

Vishvesh, thank you for the information. I would
appreciate your explanation of aspects of Hinduism, if
any, that cite "attachment" as a cause for suffering.
Diana


---------------------------------
From:  Vishvesh Obla <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:  "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum."
<[log in to unmask]>
To:  [log in to unmask]
Subject:  Re: "That Thou Art" and Preludes
Date:  Mon, 11 Sep 2006 08:49:31 -0700


'the being suffering from maya, those fancies that the
ego spins, that Indic religions identify as the cause
of all suffering? Diana'

Diana,

Just FYI.

The principle of Maya forms only one of the aspects of
Indian spiritual philosophy.  It culminated in
Vedanta, whereas there are various other principles
that form the core of Hindu Religion.


--- Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


---------------------------------

Marcin wrote:

Those "worlds", with their pretensions to exclusivity,
in the context of mystical experience of the ONE
("infinitely gentle"),
may seem, I imagine, somewhat amusing.

Marcin, consider that perhaps the "infinitely gentle,
infinitely suffering thing" is the being suffering
from maya, those fancies that the ego spins, that
Indic religions identify as the cause of all
suffering? Diana



---------------------------------
From: marcin ostrouch <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum."
<[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "That Thou Art" and Preludes
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:14:26 +0200

Dear Dunja,

You  wrote:

You mention "multitude f solipsisms", which isone of
the points important for the Cartesianphilosophical
standpoint, but on the other hand, inyour previous
posts you spoke of an anti-Cartesianapproach presented
in this poem.How do you connect these two?
What I meant, and what hopefully I partly explain in
my reply to CR,
is that  the  speaker in Preludes seems to be
attempting a resolution of
apparent dichotomies.

Subject - object dichotomy of the Cartesian approach
is presented in the poem,
I think, as both inalienable and alienating...

The speaker's awareness of "multitude of solipsisms",
and of his/her own partaking
in such an epistemic situation, is a step towards the
sense of alienation endemic in this very situation.
While there is no way out of it, the speaker comes to
understanding that all the worlds constructed by
solipsistic ego-subjects are merely "points of view"
"revolving like ancient women / Gathering fuel in
vacant lots."

Those "worlds", with their pretensions to exclusivity,
in the context of mystical experience of the ONE
("infinitely gentle"),
may seem, I imagine, somewhat amusing.

Would you agree?

Marcin








__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com