I think the ordinary, every day, garden variety ofconsciousness iswhat Eliot is referring to. To be aware of something is to be outside time.P.----- Original Message -----From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">cr mittalSent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 7:51 PMSubject: Re: Eliot's Indic StudiesPeter 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 ofmind -- like Buddha, for instance -- lives in a perspective of timethat 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