Guest guest Posted December 25, 2005 Report Share Posted December 25, 2005 On Dec 25, 2005, at 9:49 AM, Nisargadatta wrote: P: Excellent, Bill! > The Jar, the Ground, and the Unqualified State (was: The Mind and The > Thought) > > > 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 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.