Guest guest Posted December 25, 2005 Report Share Posted December 25, 2005 In a message dated 12/25/2005 9:24:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, illieusion writes: 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. I'm still in the process of reading your generous reply, but I want to comment at this stage anyhow. If he had said, When both the jar on the ground, And the jar off the ground, And the ground itself is taken away The unqualified state is revealed as it is, unqualified. He insists that " the ground' still exists as the unqualified state, doesn't he? My comment is like saying that even the condition of mind must be given up to move into the unqualified state. Do you agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2005 Report Share Posted December 25, 2005 the jar on the ground removed once replaced twice broken beyond any and all repairs remains to be seen Ana - epston Nisargadatta Sunday, December 25, 2005 12:50 PM Re: The Jar, the Ground, and the Unqualified State In a message dated 12/25/2005 9:24:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, illieusion writes: 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. I'm still in the process of reading your generous reply, but I want to comment at this stage anyhow. If he had said, When both the jar on the ground, And the jar off the ground, And the ground itself is taken away The unqualified state is revealed as it is, unqualified. He insists that " the ground' still exists as the unqualified state, doesn't he? My comment is like saying that even the condition of mind must be given up to move into the unqualified state. Do you agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2005 Report Share Posted December 25, 2005 Hi Larry, I'll wait for your complete reply before giving mine. Bill > > In a message dated 12/25/2005 9:24:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, > illieusion@h... writes: > > 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. > > I'm still in the process of reading your generous reply, but I want to > comment at this stage anyhow. > > If he had said, > > When both the jar on the ground, > And the jar off the ground, > And the ground itself is taken away > The unqualified state is > revealed as it is, unqualified. > > He insists that " the ground' still exists as the unqualified state, > doesn't he? > > My comment is like saying that even the condition of mind must be given up to > move into the unqualified state. > > Do you agree? > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2005 Report Share Posted December 25, 2005 How fun! Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > the jar on the ground > removed once > replaced twice > broken beyond > any and all repairs > remains > to be seen > > > Ana > > - > epston@a... > Nisargadatta > Sunday, December 25, 2005 12:50 PM > Re: The Jar, the Ground, and the Unqualified State > > > In a message dated 12/25/2005 9:24:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, > illieusion@h... writes: > > 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. > > I'm still in the process of reading your generous reply, but I want to > comment at this stage anyhow. > > If he had said, > > When both the jar on the ground, > And the jar off the ground, > And the ground itself is taken away > The unqualified state is > revealed as it is, unqualified. > > He insists that " the ground' still exists as the unqualified state, > doesn't he? > > My comment is like saying that even the condition of mind must be given up to > move into the unqualified state. > > Do you agree? > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.