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: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">cr mittal
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[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