The Jar, the Ground, and the Unqualified State (was: The Mind and The Thought)

[Guest guest]

When a jar is placed on the ground,

We have the ground with a jar;

When the jar is taken away,

We have the ground without a jar;

 

" But when neither of these conditions exists,

The ground exists in its unqualified state.

It is in this same way

That the ultimate Reality exists. "

 

" Jnaneshvar: The Life and Works of the Celebrated Thirteenth

Century Indian Mystic-Poet, " by S. Abhyayananda.

 

<<<<<

The original author said that the ground without

the jar was the unqualified state. Was he mistaken?

Or is the word " ground " more unqualified than the word " mind. "

 

Larry

>>>>>

 

Actually that isn't what he said.

He said that when *neither* of the conditions

(the ground with the jar and the ground

without the jar) exists, the ground exists

in its unqualified state.

 

So he is saying that the unqualified state pertains

only when the condition of the ground without the

jar *does not* exist.

 

It *can*, however, be interpreted that he was mistaken.

Presumably the " ultimate Reality " is unqualified,

which is to say unconditioned. Hence, to say that the

" ultimate Reality " exists as dependent on conditions

is not a sound assertion.

 

Changing circumstances in no way affect

the " unqualified state " . That is tautologically

true, actually, if you look at the words.

The " unqualified state " is unconditioned.

So inherently it cannot be affected by

changing conditions.

 

The author seems to say (quite plainly,

in fact) that the ground alternately

*does not* exist in its unqualified state

and then *does* exist in its unqualified state.

 

But keep in mind that the author is using

a metaphor as a teaching device. One might

argue that to say he was mistaken would be

to push his metaphor too far.

 

However, I suggest it would have be more " apt "

(if less poetic!) if he had said:

 

 

When a jar is placed on the ground,

We have the ground with a jar;

When the jar is taken away,

We have the ground without a jar;

 

But when neither of these conditions exists,

the ground in its unqualified state is

*revealed* as it is, unqualified.

 

Once the ground is realized in its

unqualified state, then in any case --

jar present, removed, neither etc. --

the ground is (ever thereafter) realized

in its unqualified state.

 

 

But what the author is saying is actually

quite subtle, nevertheless. He is saying

that even the removal of the jar does not

reveal the ground in its unqualified state.

 

He is in effect saying that either the presence

or the absence of an " object " can serve as

a " mask " occluding realization of the

unqualified state.

 

Actually, " absence of an object " is effectively

an object as far as the mind is concerned.

Whatever the mind preoccupies itself with is

an object, regardless of an external " real "

existence.

 

So what he is saying can be boiled down to,

quite simply, " As long as the mind is *preoccupied*

(by some object of mind) then the unqualified state

is not revealed. "

 

What " preoccupied " means here, though, is

itself abstruse. It cannot be explained in

ordinary terms.

 

But once the " unqualified state " *is* realized,

because the mind is no longer " preoccupied " ,

then the mind is free from preoccupation.

 

Apparently it is that the mind, finally

unpreoccupied (which is to say utterly innocent),

*sees/realizes its own self-nature*.

 

Upon such realization the mind is free from

" defilement " (a Buddhist term), and all the

many apparitions of consciousness are seen for

what they are, utterly empty.

 

Which is the point of the version I provided.

The " unqualified state " always was, always

has been. It is only the " defilements " that

attach the mind (preoccupy the mind) that

hide the pure inherent nature, the " unqualified

state " . The original author's version suggests

that the " unqualified state " can alternately

not exist and then exist. Either the author

is mistaken in considering that to be the case

(which I tend to doubt) or his poem is a bit

misleading. I think the author was focused,

in his parable, on making his point about even

the " absence of the jar " occluding realization

of the " unqualified state " .

 

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

 

 

> When the mind has a thought

> there appears to be a mind and a thought.

> When the mind has no thought,

> there appears to be a mind with no thought.

>

> In either case, there is neither mind nor thought.

>

> The " unqualified state " pertains in any case.

> Whether thought, no-thought, mind, no-mind,

> always unqualified state.

>

>

> This is called Nothing to Attain.

>

> Bill

>

>

> Nisargadatta , epston@a... wrote:

> >

> > In a message dated 12/23/2005 5:06:21 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > pedsie4@e... writes:

> >

> > > When a jar is placed on the ground,

> > > >We have the ground with a jar;

> > > >When the jar is taken away,

> > > >We have the ground without a jar;

> > > >

> > > > " But when neither of these conditions exists,

> > > >The ground exists in its unqualified state.

> > > >It is in this same way

> > > >That the ultimate Reality exists. "

> > > >

> > > > " Jnaneshvar: The Life and Works of the Celebrated

> Thirteenth

> > > >Century Indian Mystic-Poet, " by S. Abhyayananda.

> > >

> >

> > Larry:

> >

> > When the mind has a thought

> > We have the mind with a thought.

> > When the mind has no thought,

> > We have the mind with no thought.

> >

> > When neither of these conditions exist,

> > The mind exists in its unqualified state

> > It is on this same way

> > That Ultimate Reality exists.

> >

> > Relax and here it is.

> >

> > The Life and Works of the almost totally unknow mystic,

> artist and

> > writer,

> > Larry Epston from the twentieth century, writing from

> > California, U.S.A.

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Bill,

 

Happy holidays to you. Interesting interpretation of Jnaneshvar.

For the sake of discussion, I would like to comment on it. If you're

like me, you derive pleasure from discussion and so it is for the joy

that you discuss anything with anyone. That said, here we go:

 

Bill says, " So what he [Jnaneshvar] is saying can be boiled down to,

quite simply, " As long as the mind is *preoccupied*

(by some object of mind) then the unqualified state

is not revealed. " "

 

Let's consider the mind as a tool. Is it not in its nature to be pre-

occupied?

 

Bill: " What " preoccupied " means here, though, is

itself abstruse. It cannot be explained in

ordinary terms. "

 

I think it's safe to use ordinary terms to explain the meaning of the

word 'preoccupied.' In this context it means that the mind is

absorbed in thought. In this sense, it is not abstruse, meaning not

difficult to understand.

 

Bill " But once the " unqualified state " *is* realized,

because the mind is no longer " preoccupied " ,

then the mind is free from preoccupation. "

 

Yes. Ultimate Reality minus mind or, as per Jnaneshvar, ground minus

jar. Yet, if it is in the nature of the mind to be preoccupied, then

how does one ever come to realize the unqualified state? Is it

possible for the mind not to be absorbed in thought?

 

Bill: " Apparently it is that the mind, finally

unpreoccupied (which is to say utterly innocent),

*sees/realizes its own self-nature*. "

 

I don't believe that the mind can make this leap into the Unknown.

In other words, there is a gap between the mind and Ultimate Reality

which it cannot cross. If the mind, as a tool, " sees/realizes "

anything - and naturally so - it is not unpreoccupied. It is not

Ultimate Reality plus mind. What the mind seems to " see " when it

realizes its own self-nature is a " revealed " reflection of Pure

Awareness or Ultimate Reality. This reflection shows the mind an

image of something other than itself. The mind is not the image

it " sees " of itself. The image is not the mind. It is an image of

an image.

 

Bill: " Upon such realization the mind is free from

" defilement " (a Buddhist term), and all the

many apparitions of consciousness are seen for

what they are, utterly empty. "

 

In the realized state - if that were possible - the mind would see

nothing other than the fact that it has given all the meaning these

apparitions have in its unrealized state. It would recognize that

all these apparitions mean absolutely nothing. Now the mind has

become preoccupied with nothing rather than with Ultimate Reality.

Is it even possible for the mind to be preoccupied with It? If not,

then the mind remains forever unrealized.

 

Bill: " Which is the point of the version I provided.

The " unqualified state " always was, always

has been. It is only the " defilements " that

attach the mind (preoccupy the mind) that

hide the pure inherent nature, the " unqualified

state " .

 

The inherent nature of the unqualified state is to forever exist

undefiled by mind. It's untouchable.

 

Bill: " The original author's version suggests

that the " unqualified state " can alternately

not exist and then exist. "

 

The author is trying to say that the unqualified state exists in

spite of anything the mind attempts to place there, including itself.

 

Bill: " Either the author

is mistaken in considering that to be the case

(which I tend to doubt) or his poem is a bit

misleading. I think the author was focused,

in his parable, on making his point about even

the " absence of the jar " occluding realization

of the " unqualified state " .

 

I'm not sure that I get this. What do you mean by 'occluding?' Do

you mean the thought " absence of jar " or, in other words, the

thought " absence of mind " blocks realization of the unqualified

state, i.e., ground minus jar, Ultimate Reality minus mind? I think

you are correct.

 

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illieusion@h...>

wrote:

>

>

> When a jar is placed on the ground,

> We have the ground with a jar;

> When the jar is taken away,

> We have the ground without a jar;

>

> " But when neither of these conditions exists,

> The ground exists in its unqualified state.

> It is in this same way

> That the ultimate Reality exists. "

>

> " Jnaneshvar: The Life and Works of the Celebrated

Thirteenth

> Century Indian Mystic-Poet, " by S. Abhyayananda.

>

> <<<<<

> The original author said that the ground without

> the jar was the unqualified state. Was he mistaken?

> Or is the word " ground " more unqualified than the word " mind. "

>

> Larry

> >>>>>

>

> Actually that isn't what he said.

> He said that when *neither* of the conditions

> (the ground with the jar and the ground

> without the jar) exists, the ground exists

> in its unqualified state.

>

> So he is saying that the unqualified state pertains

> only when the condition of the ground without the

> jar *does not* exist.

>

> It *can*, however, be interpreted that he was mistaken.

> Presumably the " ultimate Reality " is unqualified,

> which is to say unconditioned. Hence, to say that the

> " ultimate Reality " exists as dependent on conditions

> is not a sound assertion.

>

> Changing circumstances in no way affect

> the " unqualified state " . That is tautologically

> true, actually, if you look at the words.

> The " unqualified state " is unconditioned.

> So inherently it cannot be affected by

> changing conditions.

>

> The author seems to say (quite plainly,

> in fact) that the ground alternately

> *does not* exist in its unqualified state

> and then *does* exist in its unqualified state.

>

> But keep in mind that the author is using

> a metaphor as a teaching device. One might

> argue that to say he was mistaken would be

> to push his metaphor too far.

>

> However, I suggest it would have be more " apt "

> (if less poetic!) if he had said:

>

>

> When a jar is placed on the ground,

> We have the ground with a jar;

> When the jar is taken away,

> We have the ground without a jar;

>

> But when neither of these conditions exists,

> the ground in its unqualified state is

> *revealed* as it is, unqualified.

>

> Once the ground is realized in its

> unqualified state, then in any case --

> jar present, removed, neither etc. --

> the ground is (ever thereafter) realized

> in its unqualified state.

>

>

> But what the author is saying is actually

> quite subtle, nevertheless. He is saying

> that even the removal of the jar does not

> reveal the ground in its unqualified state.

>

> He is in effect saying that either the presence

> or the absence of an " object " can serve as

> a " mask " occluding realization of the

> unqualified state.

>

> Actually, " absence of an object " is effectively

> an object as far as the mind is concerned.

> Whatever the mind preoccupies itself with is

> an object, regardless of an external " real "

> existence.

>

> So what he is saying can be boiled down to,

> quite simply, " As long as the mind is *preoccupied*

> (by some object of mind) then the unqualified state

> is not revealed. "

>

> What " preoccupied " means here, though, is

> itself abstruse. It cannot be explained in

> ordinary terms.

>

> But once the " unqualified state " *is* realized,

> because the mind is no longer " preoccupied " ,

> then the mind is free from preoccupation.

>

> Apparently it is that the mind, finally

> unpreoccupied (which is to say utterly innocent),

> *sees/realizes its own self-nature*.

>

> Upon such realization the mind is free from

> " defilement " (a Buddhist term), and all the

> many apparitions of consciousness are seen for

> what they are, utterly empty.

>

> Which is the point of the version I provided.

> The " unqualified state " always was, always

> has been. It is only the " defilements " that

> attach the mind (preoccupy the mind) that

> hide the pure inherent nature, the " unqualified

> state " . The original author's version suggests

> that the " unqualified state " can alternately

> not exist and then exist. Either the author

> is mistaken in considering that to be the case

> (which I tend to doubt) or his poem is a bit

> misleading. I think the author was focused,

> in his parable, on making his point about even

> the " absence of the jar " occluding realization

> of the " unqualified state " .

>

>

> Bill

> When the mind has a thought

> > there appears to be a mind and a thought.

> > When the mind has no thought,

> > there appears to be a mind with no thought.

> >

> > In either case, there is neither mind nor thought.

> >

> > The " unqualified state " pertains in any case.

> > Whether thought, no-thought, mind, no-mind,

> > always unqualified state.

> >

> >

> > This is called Nothing to Attain.

> >

> > Bill

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , epston@a... wrote:

> > >

> > > In a message dated 12/23/2005 5:06:21 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > > pedsie4@e... writes:

> > >

> > > > When a jar is placed on the ground,

> > > > >We have the ground with a jar;

> > > > >When the jar is taken away,

> > > > >We have the ground without a jar;

> > > > >

> > > > > " But when neither of these conditions exists,

> > > > >The ground exists in its unqualified state.

> > > > >It is in this same way

> > > > >That the ultimate Reality exists. "

> > > > >

> > > > > " Jnaneshvar: The Life and Works of the Celebrated

> > Thirteenth

> > > > >Century Indian Mystic-Poet, " by S. Abhyayananda.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Larry:

> > >

> > > When the mind has a thought

> > > We have the mind with a thought.

> > > When the mind has no thought,

> > > We have the mind with no thought.

> > >

> > > When neither of these conditions exist,

> > > The mind exists in its unqualified state

> > > It is on this same way

> > > That Ultimate Reality exists.

> > >

> > > Relax and here it is.

> > >

> > > The Life and Works of the almost totally unknow mystic,

> > artist and

> > > writer,

> > > Larry Epston from the twentieth century, writing from

> > > California, U.S.A.

> > >

> > >

> > >