I think Eliot intends to convey the idea that the one occurs within other, and that as the ‘world turns’, in our observing and activity, there remains a point of stillness – a sort of Tabula Rasa of awareness that is unmoved by appearances. That’s my take anyway, but who knows? HX
P.S. He uses the phrase “concentration without elimination” – and it’s all in there. Normally, when we concentrate deeply, the world disappears and we are left with a single point of fixity: perhaps a visual object, an object of mentation, or an audible object. In other words, everything gets ‘eliminated’ bar the point of fixity. Then, when concentration weakens, the world reappears, so to speak. Going further into awareness, we may see that it itself is perfectly still, or more accurately, it sees itself as perfectly still. It becomes analogous to a fulcrum for the world, a point d’appui, though is never apart from it. HX
Hmmm, I’m pondering. According to Walter Russell, everything, or the one mind, ultimately is made of light, and that the light is still – that would be the ultimate stillness. Then there’s the moment of connection to that – I don’t believe that happens with concentration, but the opposite, like a vanishing point, one just transcends it, vanishing…
Yes, I said: “Going further into awareness, we may see that it itself is perfectly still, or more accurately, it sees itself as perfectly still.” I didn’t say that the stillness was unveiled via concentration – it definitely isn’t – and that’s precisely where a lot of meditators have it wrong in my view. Again, “it sees itself as perfectly still.” – it isn’t a concentrated representation in the mind, or an apparent subject, that apprehends ‘stillness’ (or ‘silence’ – same thing).
‘Transcends’/’Immanence’: either and neither really.
Point d’Appui II | acrylic on paper | 20 x 30 cm (8 x 12″) | January 2016
MILINKOVIC 
At the still point of the turning world. (Eliot)
Very nice, and so true
Eliot on the point d’appui/fulcrum:
This feels like observation, which is active, rather than still
I think Eliot intends to convey the idea that the one occurs within other, and that as the ‘world turns’, in our observing and activity, there remains a point of stillness – a sort of Tabula Rasa of awareness that is unmoved by appearances. That’s my take anyway, but who knows? HX
P.S. He uses the phrase “concentration without elimination” – and it’s all in there. Normally, when we concentrate deeply, the world disappears and we are left with a single point of fixity: perhaps a visual object, an object of mentation, or an audible object. In other words, everything gets ‘eliminated’ bar the point of fixity. Then, when concentration weakens, the world reappears, so to speak. Going further into awareness, we may see that it itself is perfectly still, or more accurately, it sees itself as perfectly still. It becomes analogous to a fulcrum for the world, a point d’appui, though is never apart from it. HX
Hmmm, I’m pondering. According to Walter Russell, everything, or the one mind, ultimately is made of light, and that the light is still – that would be the ultimate stillness. Then there’s the moment of connection to that – I don’t believe that happens with concentration, but the opposite, like a vanishing point, one just transcends it, vanishing…
Yes, I said: “Going further into awareness, we may see that it itself is perfectly still, or more accurately, it sees itself as perfectly still.” I didn’t say that the stillness was unveiled via concentration – it definitely isn’t – and that’s precisely where a lot of meditators have it wrong in my view. Again, “it sees itself as perfectly still.” – it isn’t a concentrated representation in the mind, or an apparent subject, that apprehends ‘stillness’ (or ‘silence’ – same thing).
‘Transcends’/’Immanence’: either and neither really.