Print

Print


Conscious focus on something, eliminates focus on the surrounding
processes, otherwise one would be aware only of the chaos of all the
passing processes and surrounding grounds. There would be no figure.

I'm not sure that there is a diffference between common consciousnerss
and so-called higher consciousness. They may have qualitative variety, but
structurally I think they are the same.

Obviously consciousness can be developed, as can bodily operations.
A highly developed consciousness has greater capacity and functionality.
Still I am very suspicious of any kind of elitism attached to so-called
higher consciousness. Hesse's SIDDHARTHA shows the faults of so-called
higher consciousness.

  "As my conception of ahimsa went on maturing, I became more vigilant
   about my thought and speech. The lines in the Anthem:
       Scatter her enemies
       And make them fall;
       Confound their policies,
       Frustrate their knavish tricks
   particularly jarred upon my sentiments of Ahimsa."
   M.K. Gandhi; The Story of My Experiments With Truth; 1927.

A muscle, whether highly developed or not, is still basically a muscle.

A child's perception of something in the world has a purity and directness
that, I think, no amount of developpment can achieve. It is very noticeable
that children spend little time in time. :)

Cheers,
Peter
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: cr mittal 
  To: [log in to unmask] 
  Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 6:59 AM
  Subject: Re: Eliot's Indic Studies


  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 



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


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.15/581 - Release Date: 12/9/2006 3:41 PM