Conscious?

In my last post on the "Yoga of the Vision" (Sleep? Highways to Knowledge) in the first lines  I´ve written: "Your aim is to be conscious along the day, etc."
And as this blog is about Yoga and Vision and not speculations or worthless mental operations: what do we mean with "conscious"?
Because one can say: -Well, anybody is conscious everyday just because is alive isn´t it? So what´s wrong with it-?
True, we somehow drag our consciousness all along the day to fall into an unconscious sleep just to awaken again at some level of that consciousness and proceed again better or worst along the day and so on for several years if not a whole life.
What we generally describe as <to be conscious>  is an amalgam of different levels of attention (and distraction) depending on a series of reasons, mainly our own interests and motivations.

What we describe as useful for the Vision is a linear unmotivated attention, which is in itself meditation, which can be effectively installed into daily activity, but which is absolutely indispensable in Yoga and the Vision.

Physical activity is an impelling necessity for any living creature, but considering the case of humans, it has been created a dissociation between inner spiritual world and outer material world, and sitting meditation as the mean to reach that spiritual world.
Such an important fracture from inner and outer world, real and illusory world, spiritual and sinful world, it has been the root on  which any doctrine has based itself.
But it has started from a dividing attitude which is the signal of a lower mind at work,
of a mild attitude of spirit at the moment of considering the mind its processes and its functions.
Mind was successful in signalize what was spiritual and what sinful, but not in determine its own spirituality or sinfulness...

Back to sit in meditation, even when we know Enlightenment achieved sitting in meditation, this can´t be true in every and each case and not as an absolute, because meditation is unbounded by methods. We cannot imagine that we can resolve the complexity of spiritual understanding just sitting somewhere with closed eyes.
There must be something else, and in fact, there is something else.
Meditation is absolute freedom and absolute freedom of learning, and do not depend on any mental method and exercises we may ideate or others may ideate for that purpose, as meditation has to be alive, a living creation of the moment.

I was amused in learning Mother explain she never saw Sri Aurobindo sitting cross-legged! Should we infere by that he didn´t meditate?
I prefer how Krishnamurty would put it: he was himself meditation.