Print

Print


Interesting. It applies both ways :
   
  1. To have ordinary consciousness and be oblivious of 
      the timeless time -- your interpretation of Eliot's line.
   
  2. To have higher consciousness and transcend earthly time.
   
  Thanks.
   
  ~ CR
  

Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
      I think the ordinary, every day, garden variety ofconsciousness is
  what Eliot is referring to. To be aware of something is to be outside time.
   
  P.
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: cr mittal 
  To: [log in to unmask] 
  Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 7:51 PM
  Subject: Re: Eliot's Indic Studies
  

  Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
          But to be conscious is not to be in time.//
  P.
   
  Let me reflect, Peter.
   
  1.  "To be conscious" here implies to be in an enlightened state of mind
       (an enlightened state of consciousness). 
   
  2.  Such a state of mind transcends the limitations of time.
   
  Therefore, one who attains and lives by such an enlightened state of
  mind -- like Buddha, for instance -- lives in a perspective of time
  that is "timeless".
   
  Hence it would be axiomatic, I suppose, to say that 
  "to be conscious is not to be in time".
   
  Is that what TSE meant?
   
  ~ CR 
  

 

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