Print

Print


If the body is one, then being of it, IS being it.
Are you your arm?

It might help to get over your own dualism.

Peter
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Diana Manister 
  To: [log in to unmask] 
  Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 8:36 AM
  Subject: Re: Eliot and Divisions


  Peter wrote: "members of the mystical body of Christ." Theology is in the syntax. Being a member OF something is not identical to being it. Diana




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

    From:  Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
    Reply-To:  "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
    To:  [log in to unmask]
    Subject:  Re: Eliot and Divisions
    Date:  Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:05:46 -0700
    Many Christians see themselves as members of the mystical body of Christ.

    P.
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Vishvesh Obla" <[log in to unmask]>
    To: <[log in to unmask]>
    Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 12:25 PM
    Subject: Re: Eliot and Divisions


    > Diana,
    >
    > Great going.  I am learning a lot from you.  I am not
    > sure if CR meant that Christian  and the Upanishadic
    > aspirations are basically the same, but your subtle
    > distinction in the passage ' No sane Christian nor any
    > Christian mystic would make the statement I am Christ
    > in the sense a Hindu who says "I am Brahman" means it'
    > is wonderful to read.  Yes, they are two unique paths
    > of salvation and it is only a mark of respect for
    > either we should not mix one with another.   The
    > neo-Vedantic (new age) Swamis do that mistake often
    > and I am glad you see the difference.
    >
    > 'Christ consciousness' as you call it appears to me as
    > of something 'external' while the Upanishadic and the
    > entire Indic spirituality hardly take that position.
    > I see the argument in this subject here in various
    > threads in that line too.
    >
    > Keep writing more.  Thank You.
    >
    > - vishvesh
    >
    > --- Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
    >
    >
    > ---------------------------------
    >
    > CR I cannot agree, nor does More, with the view that
    > Christian aspiration is the same as that found in the
    > Vedas and Upanishads. Eliot and More both read and
    > commented on Paul Deussen's famous study titled The
    > Philosphy of the Upanishads and the System of the
    > Vedanta. Deussen describes the doctrine of Brahman as
    > a path to realizing Brahman as the Self within
    > themselves, not as a Godhead opposed to or exterior to
    > themselves requiring pious meditation. In the realm of
    > Brahman in the deep self, distinctions between God and
    > man are abolished.
    >
    > Deussen further explains that in Vedanta philosophers
    > travel the lower or "exoteric" path because in Kearns'
    > words, "the necessity for them to express themselves
    > in words forced them constantly in the direction of
    > exoteric or mythic expressions for difficult and
    > esoteric truths."
    >
    > Kearns writes: "Eliot found the distinction between
    > exoteric and esoteric religious perspectives
    > important, and he made use of it, in one form or
    > another, both before and after his own acceptance of
    > Christian faith. It can even be argued...that Eliot's
    > conversion itself was based on his recognition of
    > himself as a Devotee rather than as a Sage and that he
    > accepted an exoteric world of myth, allegory,
    > devotion, and religious observance instead of that
    > (inner) recognition." Reilly, in The Cocktail Party,
    > describes what amounts to these two paths to Celia."
    >
    > Christianity has no equivalent to Tat Tvam Asi. No
    > sane Christian nor any Christian mystic would make the
    > statement I am Christ in the sense a Hindu who says "I
    > am Brahman" means it. "Christ consciousness" is not
    > the same, is it? If you see it as identical, I would
    > love to know. Diana
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ---------------------------------
    >
    > From:  cr mittal <[log in to unmask]>
    > Reply-To:  "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum."
    > <[log in to unmask]>
    > To:  [log in to unmask]
    > Subject:  Eliot and Divisions
    > Date:  Tue, 26 Sep 2006 08:54:18 -0700
    >
    >
    > >>Diana : More refers to "that viviid consciousness of
    >
    >   >>a dualism felt in the daily habit of humanity."
    >
    >   Diana, when the Vedas and the Upanishads speak of
    >   "That art thou", they speak of the "ultimate reality
    > of
    >   a human being", i.e. his/her true essence, which
    >   he/she should try to realize. That remains an object
    > of
    >   aspiration, as much as in Eliot's poetry, say
    >   in Four Quartets. In "the daily habit of humanity",
    >   man is as much divided from God in the Vedic
    >   philosophy as in any other.
    >
    >   Best,
    >   CR
    >
    >
    > Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
    > Carrol I was not attempting to present a thesis on
    > Christianity via the TSE list. I cited the book T.S.
    > Eliot and the Indic Traditions which outlines
    > differences between Christianity and the religion of
    > the Upanishads. Kearns quotes portions of Eliot's own
    > writing on the subject and texts by Paul Elmer More
    > whose view of religion Eliot said he supported which
    > state clearly that a Christian cannot "amalgamate" the
    > command Thou Shalt Love Thy Lord thy God with the
    > Indic belief I am Brahma. More refers to "that viviid
    > consciousness of a dualism felt in the daily habit of
    > humanity." Religion for Eliot, Kearns says, "was the
    > acceptance of this cleavage in our nature."
    >   For further explication of Eliot's view of exoteric
    > and esoteric religious perspectives, see Kearns,
    > chapter 2, "Hindu Traditions."  Best, Diana
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ---------------------------------
    >
    > From:  Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]>
    > Reply-To:  "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum."
    > <[log in to unmask]>
    > To:  [log in to unmask]
    > Subject:  English Vocabulary, was Re: Eliot and
    > Divisions
    > Date:  Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:03:05 -0500
    > Diana Manister wrote:
    > >
    > > Dear Carroll: Surely you are aware of the many
    > commentaries on Eliot's
    > > work that interpret his narrators as expressing not
    > only their divided
    > > selves, but severings and fragmentations in the
    > environment?
    >
    > But nowhere does any commentary suggest that the
    > purpose of the poems is
    > to create enmity between God and humanity. As closely
    > related as the
    > words "division" and "devisive" are, you simply cannot
    > use the latter
    > word as you are using it and expect people to know
    > what the hell you are
    > talking about. Try using the term "fragmentation"
    > instead, and not by
    > itself but, for example, "fragmented experience,"
    > "fragmented responses
    > to experience," etc.
    >
    > Carrol
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ---------------------------------
    > Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll
    > help. Yahoo! Small Business.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > __________________________________________________
    > Do You Yahoo!?
    > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
    > http://mail.yahoo.com
    >
    >
    > --
    > No virus found in this incoming message.
    > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
    > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.8/455 - Release Date: 9/22/2006
    >
    >



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


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.9/458 - Release Date: 9/27/2006