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

[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.

>>>

Absolutely

 

 

<<<<

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.

>>>>

Unfortunately Silver I must take departure from your

line of reasoning rather early on.

 

I cannot join you in considering the mind as a tool.

That is a very problematic notion, in my view.

First at hand is the question, a tool as used

by whom?

 

As for your, " I think it's safe to use ordinary terms

to explain the meaning of the word 'preoccupied' " , I'm

afraid it is not safe. I said, quite explicitly,

that what " preoccupied " *means here* is abstruse.

In other words, I was indicating that *my use* of

that term is not explainable in ordinary terms. I was

indicating that I was applying a " special use " to

the term " preoccupied " .

 

Well, then, the question naturally arises

as to what I did mean by preoccupied when I used it

in that context. So I will attempt to clarify. But,

as I said, it is abstruse. Don't expect it to be

clear as a bell, even if explained.

 

As I used the term preoccupied means a fundamental

condition that pervades mental activity.

 

I will try to explain by analogy. I have seen

individuals that had a very pervasive anxiety,

such that no matter what was going on with them,

be they happy about something, or in a very

distressed state, the anxiety could be sensed

as underlying their state of consciousness at

all times.

 

Now consider someone who is always restless, always

fidgeting. The person cannot just sit, but rather

must constantly be filling up whatever time they

have with activity. Again, consider that the

restlessness pervades the person's state of

consciousness at all times.

 

The notion of " preoccupation " as I was using it

is " generalized " in the sense of the two examples

above. As I used the term, it is not a transitory

state that comes and goes. It is rather continual

and pervasive.

 

When a person is concerned about their self,

has an underlying concern about their direction,

about their path, that is not something that

comes and goes. It is something that is underlying

and pervades. Indeed, it is a form of anxiety,

and is very analogous to the first example I gave

above.

 

The more familiar notion of " ego " (especially as

used in nondual discussions) is very close to what

I mean by " preoccupied " , if not identical. And with

the notion of ego you see again that it is not

something that comes and goes (like a mood) but

pervades completely.

 

 

<<<<

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?

>>>>

You remark here presumes a notion of " preoccupied "

that is not what I meant, so I cannot comment..

 

 

<<<<

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.

>>>>

I am not suggesting that *the mind* is making

any kind of leap. No *achievement* of the mind

is involved in any of what I said.

 

Also, I don't consider there is any gap been the

mind and ultimate reality. That they are distinct

is an illusion.

 

re: " What the mind seems to " see " when it realizes

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

pure awareness or ultimate reality. "

 

When the mind realizes its own self-nature (of the

two words 'sees' & 'realizes', realizes is the less

misleading), such realization is really a *relaxation*.

I do not concur with your notion of a " reflection " .

What I am speaking of is not a dual, subject/object

kind of thing.

 

And I do not concur with the remainder of your paragraph

above either, in that continues with the same notion of

" reflection " .

 

Sorry to be so non-concurrent!

 

<<<<

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.

>>>>

Your paragraph above does not make clear sense

to my reading. Hence, I cannot comment.

 

<<<<

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.

>>>>

In my view, there is no " agent " doing any defiling,

be it mind or anything else. Ultimately the mind is

realized as non-distinct from the unqualified state.

The so-called " defilements " are realized as inherently

" not touching " mind.

 

When the inherently luminous perfection of mind is

realized, there is nothing that can be said to have

changed. And yet something has changed.

 

 

<<<<

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.

>>>>

Again you distinguish the unqualified state and

mind.

 

Perhaps I should point out that there is no " model "

that one can hold in mind that represents what is

being said here.

 

 

<<<<

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?

>>>>

Very good. Yes, I think you sorted that out pretty well.

 

Bill

 

 

I think you are correct.

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Bill, for clarifying things for me. Let's see if I

understand correctly.

 

> 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. " "

 

****Okay. I think I get this now. But is there nothing to reveal

when the mind becomes still? Or is it that another state of mind is

realized by the mind? Is this Realization? The mind realizes that

it is now in an unqualified state? The conditioned mind becomes the

unconditioned mind? Or is Realization just another state of mind?

Or is there nothingness once the mind becomes still? Is Mind All

there Is? Or do I have to be out of my mind to Realize Ultimate

Reality? I don't understand! Lol.

>

> 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.

> >>>>

> Unfortunately Silver I must take departure from your

> line of reasoning rather early on.

>

> I cannot join you in considering the mind as a tool.

> That is a very problematic notion, in my view.

> First at hand is the question, a tool as used

> by whom?

 

****Yes, I see. Fair enough. I agree with you and I drop the 'mind-

as-tool' notion altogether.

>

> As for your, " I think it's safe to use ordinary terms

> to explain the meaning of the word 'preoccupied' " , I'm

> afraid it is not safe. I said, quite explicitly,

> that what " preoccupied " *means here* is abstruse.

> In other words, I was indicating that *my use* of

> that term is not explainable in ordinary terms. I was

> indicating that I was applying a " special use " to

> the term " preoccupied " .

>

> Well, then, the question naturally arises

> as to what I did mean by preoccupied when I used it

> in that context. So I will attempt to clarify. But,

> as I said, it is abstruse. Don't expect it to be

> clear as a bell, even if explained.

>

> As I used the term preoccupied means a fundamental

> condition that pervades mental activity.

>

> I will try to explain by analogy. I have seen

> individuals that had a very pervasive anxiety,

> such that no matter what was going on with them,

> be they happy about something, or in a very

> distressed state, the anxiety could be sensed

> as underlying their state of consciousness at

> all times.

 

****Angst.

>

> Now consider someone who is always restless, always

> fidgeting. The person cannot just sit, but rather

> must constantly be filling up whatever time they

> have with activity. Again, consider that the

> restlessness pervades the person's state of

> consciousness at all times.

>

> The notion of " preoccupation " as I was using it

> is " generalized " in the sense of the two examples

> above. As I used the term, it is not a transitory

> state that comes and goes. It is rather continual

> and pervasive.

 

****Let me get this straight. Please be patient with me. Generally

speaking, then, you mean that mind is always active? Or do you mean

that mind is active only when it is " preoccupied? " That would imply

an inactive and unpreoccupied state of mind, is that correct? Is

this state considered Realization of the Ultimate Reality? Or is it

the mind realizing another aspect of itself?

 

>

> When a person is concerned about their self,

> has an underlying concern about their direction,

> about their path, that is not something that

> comes and goes. It is something that is underlying

> and pervades. Indeed, it is a form of anxiety,

> and is very analogous to the first example I gave

> above.

>

> The more familiar notion of " ego " (especially as

> used in nondual discussions) is very close to what

> I mean by " preoccupied " , if not identical. And with

> the notion of ego you see again that it is not

> something that comes and goes (like a mood) but

> pervades completely.

>

>

> <<<<

> 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?

> >>>>

> You remark here presumes a notion of " preoccupied "

> that is not what I meant, so I cannot comment..

 

****I see that now, yes. So, in the sense that you are using the

word, is the mind's " preoccupation " of itself, in general, an

obstacle to its realization of the " unqualified state " - Ultimate

Reality?

 

>

>

> <<<<

> 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.

> >>>>

> I am not suggesting that *the mind* is making

> any kind of leap. No *achievement* of the mind

> is involved in any of what I said.

 

****You are saying, then, that there is no obstacle which stands in

the way of the mind's Realization of Ultimate Reality. Is it the

mind's natural state? Is the " unqualified state " normal for the mind

to " be in? " It takes it no effort to " get there? " There is no

reaching? No attaining or achieving of any kind involved? Is the

mind not involved at all?

>

> Also, I don't consider there is any gap been the

> mind and ultimate reality. That they are distinct

> is an illusion.

 

****Yes, but what about the gap between " preoccupied " mind and

Ultimate Reality? How does the mind " go " from " preoccupied "

to " unpreoccupied? " There seems to me to be two distinct states of

mind here. The one is a state, the other is a sort of " non-state "

state. A non-state is not a state at all. It implies that there is

only one state for the mind to be in: the " preoccupied " state.

To " go " from state to " state, " the mind has to " stop " somewhere.

Mind becomes no-mind.

>

> re: " What the mind seems to " see " when it realizes

> its own self-nature is a " revealed " reflection of

> pure awareness or ultimate reality. "

>

> When the mind realizes its own self-nature (of the

> two words 'sees' & 'realizes', realizes is the less

> misleading), such realization is really a *relaxation*.

> I do not concur with your notion of a " reflection " .

> What I am speaking of is not a dual, subject/object

> kind of thing.

>

> And I do not concur with the remainder of your paragraph

> above either, in that continues with the same notion of

> " reflection " .

>

> Sorry to be so non-concurrent!

 

****No, that's fine by me. I agree with you regarding " realization

is really a *relaxation.* " That makes more sense to me.

 

>

> <<<<

> 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.

> >>>>

> Your paragraph above does not make clear sense

> to my reading. Hence, I cannot comment.

 

****Hmm. It does'nt make clear sense to my reading either. What the

hell was I talking about!?! Lol.

 

>

> <<<<

> 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.

> >>>>

> In my view, there is no " agent " doing any defiling,

> be it mind or anything else. Ultimately the mind is

> realized as non-distinct from the unqualified state.

> The so-called " defilements " are realized as inherently

> " not touching " mind.

 

****So, the " unqualified state " or " unpreoccupied state " or " non-

state " is the normal " state " for the mind to " be in? " Are

the " defilements " which " (preoccupy the mind) " illusory?

 

>

> When the inherently luminous perfection of mind is

> realized, there is nothing that can be said to have

> changed. And yet something has changed.

>

>

> <<<<

> 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.

> >>>>

> Again you distinguish the unqualified state and

> mind.

 

****!!!Grr!!!****

>

> Perhaps I should point out that there is no " model "

> that one can hold in mind that represents what is

> being said here.

 

****Yeah! For me, that fact is frustrating.

 

>

>

> <<<<

> 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?

> >>>>

> Very good. Yes, I think you sorted that out pretty well.

>

> Bill

>

>

> I think you are correct.

 

****Okay, now I have a wicked headache! Lol.

[Guest guest]

Actually, dear Watsons,

 

It is always all ways a case of mis-taken identity. a lot of it going around,

don't ya watch the commercials on tv? Stealing identities-identity thefts..

 

Who am I, if not for the 'you'.

 

Scientific experiment.

Blind study.

Placebo effect.

Elementary.

Carbon based, tapes erased.

Long-standing program

Who am I,

Who I am

Thought I Am

Thinking...

 

Ana

 

Happy Day after...;-)

-

s_i_l_v_e_r1069

Nisargadatta

Monday, December 26, 2005 5:54 AM

Re: The Jar, the Ground, and the Unqualified State

(was: The Mind and The Though

 

 

Thank you, Bill, for clarifying things for me. Let's see if I

understand correctly.

 

> 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. " "

 

****Okay. I think I get this now. But is there nothing to reveal

when the mind becomes still? Or is it that another state of mind is

realized by the mind? Is this Realization? The mind realizes that

it is now in an unqualified state? The conditioned mind becomes the

unconditioned mind? Or is Realization just another state of mind?

Or is there nothingness once the mind becomes still? Is Mind All

there Is? Or do I have to be out of my mind to Realize Ultimate

Reality? I don't understand! Lol.

>

> 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.

> >>>>

> Unfortunately Silver I must take departure from your

> line of reasoning rather early on.

>

> I cannot join you in considering the mind as a tool.

> That is a very problematic notion, in my view.

> First at hand is the question, a tool as used

> by whom?

 

****Yes, I see. Fair enough. I agree with you and I drop the 'mind-

as-tool' notion altogether.

>

> As for your, " I think it's safe to use ordinary terms

> to explain the meaning of the word 'preoccupied' " , I'm

> afraid it is not safe. I said, quite explicitly,

> that what " preoccupied " *means here* is abstruse.

> In other words, I was indicating that *my use* of

> that term is not explainable in ordinary terms. I was

> indicating that I was applying a " special use " to

> the term " preoccupied " .

>

> Well, then, the question naturally arises

> as to what I did mean by preoccupied when I used it

> in that context. So I will attempt to clarify. But,

> as I said, it is abstruse. Don't expect it to be

> clear as a bell, even if explained.

>

> As I used the term preoccupied means a fundamental

> condition that pervades mental activity.

>

> I will try to explain by analogy. I have seen

> individuals that had a very pervasive anxiety,

> such that no matter what was going on with them,

> be they happy about something, or in a very

> distressed state, the anxiety could be sensed

> as underlying their state of consciousness at

> all times.

 

****Angst.

>

> Now consider someone who is always restless, always

> fidgeting. The person cannot just sit, but rather

> must constantly be filling up whatever time they

> have with activity. Again, consider that the

> restlessness pervades the person's state of

> consciousness at all times.

>

> The notion of " preoccupation " as I was using it

> is " generalized " in the sense of the two examples

> above. As I used the term, it is not a transitory

> state that comes and goes. It is rather continual

> and pervasive.

 

****Let me get this straight. Please be patient with me. Generally

speaking, then, you mean that mind is always active? Or do you mean

that mind is active only when it is " preoccupied? " That would imply

an inactive and unpreoccupied state of mind, is that correct? Is

this state considered Realization of the Ultimate Reality? Or is it

the mind realizing another aspect of itself?

 

>

> When a person is concerned about their self,

> has an underlying concern about their direction,

> about their path, that is not something that

> comes and goes. It is something that is underlying

> and pervades. Indeed, it is a form of anxiety,

> and is very analogous to the first example I gave

> above.

>

> The more familiar notion of " ego " (especially as

> used in nondual discussions) is very close to what

> I mean by " preoccupied " , if not identical. And with

> the notion of ego you see again that it is not

> something that comes and goes (like a mood) but

> pervades completely.

>

>

> <<<<

> 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?

> >>>>

> You remark here presumes a notion of " preoccupied "

> that is not what I meant, so I cannot comment..

 

****I see that now, yes. So, in the sense that you are using the

word, is the mind's " preoccupation " of itself, in general, an

obstacle to its realization of the " unqualified state " - Ultimate

Reality?

 

>

>

> <<<<

> 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.

> >>>>

> I am not suggesting that *the mind* is making

> any kind of leap. No *achievement* of the mind

> is involved in any of what I said.

 

****You are saying, then, that there is no obstacle which stands in

the way of the mind's Realization of Ultimate Reality. Is it the

mind's natural state? Is the " unqualified state " normal for the mind

to " be in? " It takes it no effort to " get there? " There is no

reaching? No attaining or achieving of any kind involved? Is the

mind not involved at all?

>

> Also, I don't consider there is any gap been the

> mind and ultimate reality. That they are distinct

> is an illusion.

 

****Yes, but what about the gap between " preoccupied " mind and

Ultimate Reality? How does the mind " go " from " preoccupied "

to " unpreoccupied? " There seems to me to be two distinct states of

mind here. The one is a state, the other is a sort of " non-state "

state. A non-state is not a state at all. It implies that there is

only one state for the mind to be in: the " preoccupied " state.

To " go " from state to " state, " the mind has to " stop " somewhere.

Mind becomes no-mind.

>

> re: " What the mind seems to " see " when it realizes

> its own self-nature is a " revealed " reflection of

> pure awareness or ultimate reality. "

>

> When the mind realizes its own self-nature (of the

> two words 'sees' & 'realizes', realizes is the less

> misleading), such realization is really a *relaxation*.

> I do not concur with your notion of a " reflection " .

> What I am speaking of is not a dual, subject/object

> kind of thing.

>

> And I do not concur with the remainder of your paragraph

> above either, in that continues with the same notion of

> " reflection " .

>

> Sorry to be so non-concurrent!

 

****No, that's fine by me. I agree with you regarding " realization

is really a *relaxation.* " That makes more sense to me.

 

>

> <<<<

> 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.

> >>>>

> Your paragraph above does not make clear sense

> to my reading. Hence, I cannot comment.

 

****Hmm. It does'nt make clear sense to my reading either. What the

hell was I talking about!?! Lol.

 

>

> <<<<

> 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.

> >>>>

> In my view, there is no " agent " doing any defiling,

> be it mind or anything else. Ultimately the mind is

> realized as non-distinct from the unqualified state.

> The so-called " defilements " are realized as inherently

> " not touching " mind.

 

****So, the " unqualified state " or " unpreoccupied state " or " non-

state " is the normal " state " for the mind to " be in? " Are

the " defilements " which " (preoccupy the mind) " illusory?

 

>

> When the inherently luminous perfection of mind is

> realized, there is nothing that can be said to have

> changed. And yet something has changed.

>

>

> <<<<

> 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.

> >>>>

> Again you distinguish the unqualified state and

> mind.

 

****!!!Grr!!!****

>

> Perhaps I should point out that there is no " model "

> that one can hold in mind that represents what is

> being said here.

 

****Yeah! For me, that fact is frustrating.

 

>

>

> <<<<

> 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?

> >>>>

> Very good. Yes, I think you sorted that out pretty well.

>

> Bill

>

>

> I think you are correct.

 

****Okay, now I have a wicked headache! Lol.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

**

 

If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription,

sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups:

 

/mygroups?edit=1

 

Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta

group and click on Save Changes.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Like I said, I have a wicked headache now, Sherlock. You are'nt

helping. Lol.

 

Happy day after to you, too, dear Ana!

 

Silver

 

Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote:

>

> Actually, dear Watsons,

>

> It is always all ways a case of mis-taken identity. a lot of it

going around, don't ya watch the commercials on tv? Stealing

identities-identity thefts..

>

> Who am I, if not for the 'you'.

>

> Scientific experiment.

> Blind study.

> Placebo effect.

> Elementary.

> Carbon based, tapes erased.

> Long-standing program

> Who am I,

> Who I am

> Thought I Am

> Thinking...

>

> Ana

>

> Happy Day after...;-)

> -

> s_i_l_v_e_r1069

> Nisargadatta

> Monday, December 26, 2005 5:54 AM

> Re: The Jar, the Ground, and the

Unqualified State (was: The Mind and The Though

>

>

> Thank you, Bill, for clarifying things for me. Let's see if I

> understand correctly.

>

> > 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. " "

>

> ****Okay. I think I get this now. But is there nothing to

reveal

> when the mind becomes still? Or is it that another state of mind

is

> realized by the mind? Is this Realization? The mind realizes

that

> it is now in an unqualified state? The conditioned mind becomes

the

> unconditioned mind? Or is Realization just another state of

mind?

> Or is there nothingness once the mind becomes still? Is Mind All

> there Is? Or do I have to be out of my mind to Realize Ultimate

> Reality? I don't understand! Lol.

> >

> > 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.

> > >>>>

> > Unfortunately Silver I must take departure from your

> > line of reasoning rather early on.

> >

> > I cannot join you in considering the mind as a tool.

> > That is a very problematic notion, in my view.

> > First at hand is the question, a tool as used

> > by whom?

>

> ****Yes, I see. Fair enough. I agree with you and I drop

the 'mind-

> as-tool' notion altogether.

> >

> > As for your, " I think it's safe to use ordinary terms

> > to explain the meaning of the word 'preoccupied' " , I'm

> > afraid it is not safe. I said, quite explicitly,

> > that what " preoccupied " *means here* is abstruse.

> > In other words, I was indicating that *my use* of

> > that term is not explainable in ordinary terms. I was

> > indicating that I was applying a " special use " to

> > the term " preoccupied " .

> >

> > Well, then, the question naturally arises

> > as to what I did mean by preoccupied when I used it

> > in that context. So I will attempt to clarify. But,

> > as I said, it is abstruse. Don't expect it to be

> > clear as a bell, even if explained.

> >

> > As I used the term preoccupied means a fundamental

> > condition that pervades mental activity.

> >

> > I will try to explain by analogy. I have seen

> > individuals that had a very pervasive anxiety,

> > such that no matter what was going on with them,

> > be they happy about something, or in a very

> > distressed state, the anxiety could be sensed

> > as underlying their state of consciousness at

> > all times.

>

> ****Angst.

> >

> > Now consider someone who is always restless, always

> > fidgeting. The person cannot just sit, but rather

> > must constantly be filling up whatever time they

> > have with activity. Again, consider that the

> > restlessness pervades the person's state of

> > consciousness at all times.

> >

> > The notion of " preoccupation " as I was using it

> > is " generalized " in the sense of the two examples

> > above. As I used the term, it is not a transitory

> > state that comes and goes. It is rather continual

> > and pervasive.

>

> ****Let me get this straight. Please be patient with me.

Generally

> speaking, then, you mean that mind is always active? Or do you

mean

> that mind is active only when it is " preoccupied? " That would

imply

> an inactive and unpreoccupied state of mind, is that correct? Is

> this state considered Realization of the Ultimate Reality? Or is

it

> the mind realizing another aspect of itself?

>

> >

> > When a person is concerned about their self,

> > has an underlying concern about their direction,

> > about their path, that is not something that

> > comes and goes. It is something that is underlying

> > and pervades. Indeed, it is a form of anxiety,

> > and is very analogous to the first example I gave

> > above.

> >

> > The more familiar notion of " ego " (especially as

> > used in nondual discussions) is very close to what

> > I mean by " preoccupied " , if not identical. And with

> > the notion of ego you see again that it is not

> > something that comes and goes (like a mood) but

> > pervades completely.

> >

> >

> > <<<<

> > 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?

> > >>>>

> > You remark here presumes a notion of " preoccupied "

> > that is not what I meant, so I cannot comment..

>

> ****I see that now, yes. So, in the sense that you are using the

> word, is the mind's " preoccupation " of itself, in general, an

> obstacle to its realization of the " unqualified state " - Ultimate

> Reality?

>

> >

> >

> > <<<<

> > 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.

> > >>>>

> > I am not suggesting that *the mind* is making

> > any kind of leap. No *achievement* of the mind

> > is involved in any of what I said.

>

> ****You are saying, then, that there is no obstacle which stands

in

> the way of the mind's Realization of Ultimate Reality. Is it the

> mind's natural state? Is the " unqualified state " normal for the

mind

> to " be in? " It takes it no effort to " get there? " There is no

> reaching? No attaining or achieving of any kind involved? Is

the

> mind not involved at all?

> >

> > Also, I don't consider there is any gap been the

> > mind and ultimate reality. That they are distinct

> > is an illusion.

>

> ****Yes, but what about the gap between " preoccupied " mind and

> Ultimate Reality? How does the mind " go " from " preoccupied "

> to " unpreoccupied? " There seems to me to be two distinct states

of

> mind here. The one is a state, the other is a sort of " non-

state "

> state. A non-state is not a state at all. It implies that there

is

> only one state for the mind to be in: the " preoccupied " state.

> To " go " from state to " state, " the mind has to " stop " somewhere.

> Mind becomes no-mind.

> >

> > re: " What the mind seems to " see " when it realizes

> > its own self-nature is a " revealed " reflection of

> > pure awareness or ultimate reality. "

> >

> > When the mind realizes its own self-nature (of the

> > two words 'sees' & 'realizes', realizes is the less

> > misleading), such realization is really a *relaxation*.

> > I do not concur with your notion of a " reflection " .

> > What I am speaking of is not a dual, subject/object

> > kind of thing.

> >

> > And I do not concur with the remainder of your paragraph

> > above either, in that continues with the same notion of

> > " reflection " .

> >

> > Sorry to be so non-concurrent!

>

> ****No, that's fine by me. I agree with you

regarding " realization

> is really a *relaxation.* " That makes more sense to me.

>

> >

> > <<<<

> > 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.

> > >>>>

> > Your paragraph above does not make clear sense

> > to my reading. Hence, I cannot comment.

>

> ****Hmm. It does'nt make clear sense to my reading either. What

the

> hell was I talking about!?! Lol.

>

> >

> > <<<<

> > 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.

> > >>>>

> > In my view, there is no " agent " doing any defiling,

> > be it mind or anything else. Ultimately the mind is

> > realized as non-distinct from the unqualified state.

> > The so-called " defilements " are realized as inherently

> > " not touching " mind.

>

> ****So, the " unqualified state " or " unpreoccupied state " or " non-

> state " is the normal " state " for the mind to " be in? " Are

> the " defilements " which " (preoccupy the mind) " illusory?

>

> >

> > When the inherently luminous perfection of mind is

> > realized, there is nothing that can be said to have

> > changed. And yet something has changed.

> >

> >

> > <<<<

> > 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.

> > >>>>

> > Again you distinguish the unqualified state and

> > mind.

>

> ****!!!Grr!!!****

> >

> > Perhaps I should point out that there is no " model "

> > that one can hold in mind that represents what is

> > being said here.

>

> ****Yeah! For me, that fact is frustrating.

>

> >

> >

> > <<<<

> > 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?

> > >>>>

> > Very good. Yes, I think you sorted that out pretty well.

> >

> > Bill

> >

> >

> > I think you are correct.

>

> ****Okay, now I have a wicked headache! Lol.

>

**

>

> If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your

subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups:

>

> /mygroups?edit=1

>

> Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the

Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Silver,

 

Your remarks are so refreshingly frank,

so unpretentious. I was absolutely

delighted to read you post.

 

I'm a little puzzled about how to reply,

as you seemed to move through stages over

the course of the post. I.e. I wonder if

some of your questions at the beginning

became non-questions by the end.

 

As it is, I'll do the best I can.

 

> Thank you, Bill, for clarifying things for me. Let's see if I

> understand correctly.

>

> > 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. " "

>

> ****Okay. I think I get this now. But is there nothing to reveal

> when the mind becomes still? Or is it that another state of mind is

> realized by the mind? Is this Realization? The mind realizes that

> it is now in an unqualified state? The conditioned mind becomes the

> unconditioned mind? Or is Realization just another state of mind?

> Or is there nothingness once the mind becomes still? Is Mind All

> there Is? Or do I have to be out of my mind to Realize Ultimate

> Reality? I don't understand! Lol.

 

 

I won't try to untangle all those questions.

I don't see a question there I would really

want to say yes to. Perhaps we can clear this

up more further on.

 

 

> >

> > 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.

> > >>>>

> > Unfortunately Silver I must take departure from your

> > line of reasoning rather early on.

> >

> > I cannot join you in considering the mind as a tool.

> > That is a very problematic notion, in my view.

> > First at hand is the question, a tool as used

> > by whom?

>

> ****Yes, I see. Fair enough. I agree with you and I drop the 'mind-

> as-tool' notion altogether.

> >

> > As for your, " I think it's safe to use ordinary terms

> > to explain the meaning of the word 'preoccupied' " , I'm

> > afraid it is not safe. I said, quite explicitly,

> > that what " preoccupied " *means here* is abstruse.

> > In other words, I was indicating that *my use* of

> > that term is not explainable in ordinary terms. I was

> > indicating that I was applying a " special use " to

> > the term " preoccupied " .

> >

> > Well, then, the question naturally arises

> > as to what I did mean by preoccupied when I used it

> > in that context. So I will attempt to clarify. But,

> > as I said, it is abstruse. Don't expect it to be

> > clear as a bell, even if explained.

> >

> > As I used the term preoccupied means a fundamental

> > condition that pervades mental activity.

> >

> > I will try to explain by analogy. I have seen

> > individuals that had a very pervasive anxiety,

> > such that no matter what was going on with them,

> > be they happy about something, or in a very

> > distressed state, the anxiety could be sensed

> > as underlying their state of consciousness at

> > all times.

>

> ****Angst.

> >

> > Now consider someone who is always restless, always

> > fidgeting. The person cannot just sit, but rather

> > must constantly be filling up whatever time they

> > have with activity. Again, consider that the

> > restlessness pervades the person's state of

> > consciousness at all times.

> >

> > The notion of " preoccupation " as I was using it

> > is " generalized " in the sense of the two examples

> > above. As I used the term, it is not a transitory

> > state that comes and goes. It is rather continual

> > and pervasive.

>

> ****Let me get this straight. Please be patient with me. Generally

> speaking, then, you mean that mind is always active? Or do you mean

> that mind is active only when it is " preoccupied? " That would imply

> an inactive and unpreoccupied state of mind, is that correct? Is

> this state considered Realization of the Ultimate Reality? Or is it

> the mind realizing another aspect of itself?

 

A problem with our discussion is the word mind.

I don't generally incline to use that word when

talking about matters nondual, but since the

quoted poem used it, here we are.

 

If you think of mind as something that *attempts*

to solve things, and makes an *effort* to do so,

and if you see yourself as virtually identical

to the mind when it is so *efforting* (i.e. it

is as if it is *you* efforting)... then there is

angst underlying that, yes? And when the sense of

who-you-are is continually identifying with the

activities of the mind, then there is what I

called " preoccupation " .

 

However, the " condition " I called preoccupation

can dissolve. How that happens is utterly mysterious.

There is no recipe, there is no " how " . Nor is there

a " why " or a " when " .

 

That being said, when the condition I call

" preoccupation " has dissolved, the activities of

mind continue. What is different is the identification

with the activities of mind. After the " dissolution "

there is no longer identification with the activities

of mind.

 

An analogy to perhaps understand what I mean:

 

Consider that you are on the Internet and that

you just did a search on some search engine

on some topic of interest, a list of " hits "

came up, and then you selected one looking to

be of interest, the page selected comes up

and you are now engrossed in reading something

of absorbing interest.

 

Step back and look at what happened there. You

went from an interest in a general topic to

enjoying some absorbing material pertaining

to that topic, all in a few seconds... really

quite magical!

 

And yet YOU DO NOT IDENTIFY with the performance

of the actions leading to that result. You

attribute it to the Internet, to Google (or

whatever search engine), to the browser, etc.

etc.

 

Now then, imagine the activities of the mind

being viewed in the same way. You have a notion

about something and then suddenly a (thought)

stream of information is available, perhaps

something to write on the topic, which then

you do, taking out a pencil and paper and

dashing it down.

 

When the " preoccupation " has dissolved the

activities of mind are no longer so " closely

held " . Everything from the notion appearing in

mind, to the thought stream presenting itself,

to taking out the paper and pencil and dashing

out the words, all of that is as easily and

naturally performed as if *for one* automatically

(automagically:), just as the results

presented on the Internet all happen as if

*for one*.

 

One somewhat theoretical way of looking at it

is to suppose that the " unqualified state "

is the Self and that " realization " is the

breaking of a false identification by Self

with the activities of mind. I'm not especially

fond of that as a way of putting it, but it

is a view not entirely without merit.

 

So you see the " mind " never really changes.

The only " change " is the breaking of the

false identification with the activities of

mind. This is why the term " relaxation " is

fitting. The breaking of the false identification

results in the Self relaxing into its *natural

state*, or more simply: the Self relaxing into

Itself.

 

Once the Self has relaxed into Itself the

mind is no longer seen as something separate.

When the Self no longer identifies with the

*activities of mind* the sense of mind as

something separate (or as a component,

dissolves).

 

[Don't be concerned about this point, however.

I only bring it up to explain a bit why

trying to understand this " mentally " is so

full of riddling paradoxes.]

 

So to sum this portion up, when the " preoccupation "

dissolves the activities of mind are no longer

seen as " what I am doing " . They are just happening

as if *for one*, in a sense akin to the example

of the search performed on the Internet.

 

 

 

>

> >

> > When a person is concerned about their self,

> > has an underlying concern about their direction,

> > about their path, that is not something that

> > comes and goes. It is something that is underlying

> > and pervades. Indeed, it is a form of anxiety,

> > and is very analogous to the first example I gave

> > above.

> >

> > The more familiar notion of " ego " (especially as

> > used in nondual discussions) is very close to what

> > I mean by " preoccupied " , if not identical. And with

> > the notion of ego you see again that it is not

> > something that comes and goes (like a mood) but

> > pervades completely.

> >

> >

> > <<<<

> > 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?

> > >>>>

> > You remark here presumes a notion of " preoccupied "

> > that is not what I meant, so I cannot comment..

>

> ****I see that now, yes. So, in the sense that you are using the

> word, is the mind's " preoccupation " of itself, in general, an

> obstacle to its realization of the " unqualified state " - Ultimate

> Reality?

>

 

It is not *an* obstacle, it is the one and only obstacle.

 

> >

> > <<<<

> > 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.

> > >>>>

> > I am not suggesting that *the mind* is making

> > any kind of leap. No *achievement* of the mind

> > is involved in any of what I said.

>

> ****You are saying, then, that there is no obstacle which stands in

> the way of the mind's Realization of Ultimate Reality. Is it the

> mind's natural state? Is the " unqualified state " normal for the mind

> to " be in? " It takes it no effort to " get there? " There is no

> reaching? No attaining or achieving of any kind involved? Is the

> mind not involved at all?

 

Fair questions indeed.

Once the " preoccupation " has dissolved it is natural to

say that the " unqualified state " ever and always has been.

It is also natural to say there is *no real obstacle*.

Hence the words of one for whom the " preoccupation " has

dissovled can be utterly perplexing to one for whom it

has not!

 

The false identification is in a sense no real obstacle,

as it can end in the blink of an eye. So if it is an

obstacle, it is not in the sense we ordinary think of

an obstacle. Ordinarily an obstacle is something that

the mind can come to grips with. But in this case that

is woefully not the case.

 

 

> > Also, I don't consider there is any gap been the

> > mind and ultimate reality. That they are distinct

> > is an illusion.

>

> ****Yes, but what about the gap between " preoccupied " mind and

> Ultimate Reality? How does the mind " go " from " preoccupied "

> to " unpreoccupied? " There seems to me to be two distinct states of

> mind here. The one is a state, the other is a sort of " non-state "

> state. A non-state is not a state at all. It implies that there is

> only one state for the mind to be in: the " preoccupied " state.

> To " go " from state to " state, " the mind has to " stop " somewhere.

> Mind becomes no-mind.

 

The thing is that the " false identification " (which is

a synonym for the " preoccupied state " [and by the way,

I think the term " preoccupied mind " is a bit misleading])

has no substance really. The " false identification " can't

be said to " exist " in any meaningful sense. All these

terms reflect the mind's attempts to *come to grips* with

the matter. But all that is futile. It is as if one

cannot understand in order to Realize, but rather one

must Realize in order to understand.

 

So it is not the mind that goes from " preoccupied " to

" not-preoccupied " (recall that I said " preoccupied

mind " is a misleading term) but that the Self goes

from false-identification to a relinquishing of false-

identification and (a subequent) relaxation into Itself.

 

Remember, the mind is not affected by all of this.

The change is not " of the mind " . The operation of the

mind will be different after Self has relaxed into

Itself, basically in the sense that it will be more

fluid, characterized by a deep sense of ease. But that

change is not due to a change in mind itself.

 

Beware of thinking of mind as an " entity " , by the way.

That is a misconception. I use the term " mind " as

a collective term to refer to the " activities of mind " ,

not to refer to some entity that is responsible for

the production of those activities. I can seem like a

subtle distinction, but serious confusions can arise,

so beware.

 

 

 

 

 

> > re: " What the mind seems to " see " when it realizes

> > its own self-nature is a " revealed " reflection of

> > pure awareness or ultimate reality. "

> >

> > When the mind realizes its own self-nature (of the

> > two words 'sees' & 'realizes', realizes is the less

> > misleading), such realization is really a *relaxation*.

> > I do not concur with your notion of a " reflection " .

> > What I am speaking of is not a dual, subject/object

> > kind of thing.

> >

> > And I do not concur with the remainder of your paragraph

> > above either, in that continues with the same notion of

> > " reflection " .

> >

> > Sorry to be so non-concurrent!

>

> ****No, that's fine by me. I agree with you regarding " realization

> is really a *relaxation.* " That makes more sense to me.

>

> >

> > <<<<

> > 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.

> > >>>>

> > Your paragraph above does not make clear sense

> > to my reading. Hence, I cannot comment.

>

> ****Hmm. It does'nt make clear sense to my reading either. What the

> hell was I talking about!?! Lol.

>

 

This is an example of what I meant by your refreshing

unpretentiousness. You are a wonderful example for others.

 

 

> > <<<<

> > 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.

> > >>>>

> > In my view, there is no " agent " doing any defiling,

> > be it mind or anything else. Ultimately the mind is

> > realized as non-distinct from the unqualified state.

> > The so-called " defilements " are realized as inherently

> > " not touching " mind.

>

> ****So, the " unqualified state " or " unpreoccupied state " or " non-

> state " is the normal " state " for the mind to " be in? " Are

> the " defilements " which " (preoccupy the mind) " illusory?

 

The " defilements " are illusory. Because of false-indentification

everything is misconstrued. Hence, effectively, everything

becomes a defilement.

 

And again, the " state of the mind " is not what is of

signficance.

 

 

> >

> > When the inherently luminous perfection of mind is

> > realized, there is nothing that can be said to have

> > changed. And yet something has changed.

> >

> >

> > <<<<

> > 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.

> > >>>>

> > Again you distinguish the unqualified state and

> > mind.

>

> ****!!!Grr!!!****

> >

> > Perhaps I should point out that there is no " model "

> > that one can hold in mind that represents what is

> > being said here.

>

> ****Yeah! For me, that fact is frustrating.

 

So good. This is a great point for self-enquiry,

a chance to get a glimpse of the frustration

and its roots. Notice here that it is your *identifcation*

with the futile efforts of the mind that entails your

frustration.

 

> >

> >

> > <<<<

> > 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?

> > >>>>

> > Very good. Yes, I think you sorted that out pretty well.

> >

> > Bill

> >

> >

> > I think you are correct.

>

> ****Okay, now I have a wicked headache! Lol.

>

 

The darkest hour is just before dawn.

 

Nisargadatta often said that it really doesn't matter

*how* you go about, what is significant is one's

*earnestness*. The one who is utterly in earnest will

prevail. Your " headache " reflects your earnestness.

A most excellent sign!

 

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

> It is always all ways a case of mis-taken identity.

 

Quite a synchronicity, Ana!

I just sent my reply to the same post.

Should you care to check it out you will

see what I mean.

 

Bill

 

 

Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote:

>

> Actually, dear Watsons,

>

> It is always all ways a case of mis-taken identity. a lot of it

going around, don't ya watch the commercials on tv? Stealing

identities-identity thefts..

>

> Who am I, if not for the 'you'.

>

> Scientific experiment.

> Blind study.

> Placebo effect.

> Elementary.

> Carbon based, tapes erased.

> Long-standing program

> Who am I,

> Who I am

> Thought I Am

> Thinking...

>

> Ana

>

> Happy Day after...;-)

> -

> s_i_l_v_e_r1069

> Nisargadatta

> Monday, December 26, 2005 5:54 AM

> Re: The Jar, the Ground, and the

Unqualified State (was: The Mind and The Though

>

>

> Thank you, Bill, for clarifying things for me. Let's see if I

> understand correctly.

>

> > 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. " "

>

> ****Okay. I think I get this now. But is there nothing to reveal

> when the mind becomes still? Or is it that another state of mind is

> realized by the mind? Is this Realization? The mind realizes that

> it is now in an unqualified state? The conditioned mind becomes the

> unconditioned mind? Or is Realization just another state of mind?

> Or is there nothingness once the mind becomes still? Is Mind All

> there Is? Or do I have to be out of my mind to Realize Ultimate

> Reality? I don't understand! Lol.

> >

> > 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.

> > >>>>

> > Unfortunately Silver I must take departure from your

> > line of reasoning rather early on.

> >

> > I cannot join you in considering the mind as a tool.

> > That is a very problematic notion, in my view.

> > First at hand is the question, a tool as used

> > by whom?

>

> ****Yes, I see. Fair enough. I agree with you and I drop the 'mind-

> as-tool' notion altogether.

> >

> > As for your, " I think it's safe to use ordinary terms

> > to explain the meaning of the word 'preoccupied' " , I'm

> > afraid it is not safe. I said, quite explicitly,

> > that what " preoccupied " *means here* is abstruse.

> > In other words, I was indicating that *my use* of

> > that term is not explainable in ordinary terms. I was

> > indicating that I was applying a " special use " to

> > the term " preoccupied " .

> >

> > Well, then, the question naturally arises

> > as to what I did mean by preoccupied when I used it

> > in that context. So I will attempt to clarify. But,

> > as I said, it is abstruse. Don't expect it to be

> > clear as a bell, even if explained.

> >

> > As I used the term preoccupied means a fundamental

> > condition that pervades mental activity.

> >

> > I will try to explain by analogy. I have seen

> > individuals that had a very pervasive anxiety,

> > such that no matter what was going on with them,

> > be they happy about something, or in a very

> > distressed state, the anxiety could be sensed

> > as underlying their state of consciousness at

> > all times.

>

> ****Angst.

> >

> > Now consider someone who is always restless, always

> > fidgeting. The person cannot just sit, but rather

> > must constantly be filling up whatever time they

> > have with activity. Again, consider that the

> > restlessness pervades the person's state of

> > consciousness at all times.

> >

> > The notion of " preoccupation " as I was using it

> > is " generalized " in the sense of the two examples

> > above. As I used the term, it is not a transitory

> > state that comes and goes. It is rather continual

> > and pervasive.

>

> ****Let me get this straight. Please be patient with me. Generally

> speaking, then, you mean that mind is always active? Or do you mean

> that mind is active only when it is " preoccupied? " That would imply

> an inactive and unpreoccupied state of mind, is that correct? Is

> this state considered Realization of the Ultimate Reality? Or is it

> the mind realizing another aspect of itself?

>

> >

> > When a person is concerned about their self,

> > has an underlying concern about their direction,

> > about their path, that is not something that

> > comes and goes. It is something that is underlying

> > and pervades. Indeed, it is a form of anxiety,

> > and is very analogous to the first example I gave

> > above.

> >

> > The more familiar notion of " ego " (especially as

> > used in nondual discussions) is very close to what

> > I mean by " preoccupied " , if not identical. And with

> > the notion of ego you see again that it is not

> > something that comes and goes (like a mood) but

> > pervades completely.

> >

> >

> > <<<<

> > 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?

> > >>>>

> > You remark here presumes a notion of " preoccupied "

> > that is not what I meant, so I cannot comment..

>

> ****I see that now, yes. So, in the sense that you are using the

> word, is the mind's " preoccupation " of itself, in general, an

> obstacle to its realization of the " unqualified state " - Ultimate

> Reality?

>

> >

> >

> > <<<<

> > 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.

> > >>>>

> > I am not suggesting that *the mind* is making

> > any kind of leap. No *achievement* of the mind

> > is involved in any of what I said.

>

> ****You are saying, then, that there is no obstacle which stands in

> the way of the mind's Realization of Ultimate Reality. Is it the

> mind's natural state? Is the " unqualified state " normal for the mind

> to " be in? " It takes it no effort to " get there? " There is no

> reaching? No attaining or achieving of any kind involved? Is the

> mind not involved at all?

> >

> > Also, I don't consider there is any gap been the

> > mind and ultimate reality. That they are distinct

> > is an illusion.

>

> ****Yes, but what about the gap between " preoccupied " mind and

> Ultimate Reality? How does the mind " go " from " preoccupied "

> to " unpreoccupied? " There seems to me to be two distinct states of

> mind here. The one is a state, the other is a sort of " non-state "

> state. A non-state is not a state at all. It implies that there is

> only one state for the mind to be in: the " preoccupied " state.

> To " go " from state to " state, " the mind has to " stop " somewhere.

> Mind becomes no-mind.

> >

> > re: " What the mind seems to " see " when it realizes

> > its own self-nature is a " revealed " reflection of

> > pure awareness or ultimate reality. "

> >

> > When the mind realizes its own self-nature (of the

> > two words 'sees' & 'realizes', realizes is the less

> > misleading), such realization is really a *relaxation*.

> > I do not concur with your notion of a " reflection " .

> > What I am speaking of is not a dual, subject/object

> > kind of thing.

> >

> > And I do not concur with the remainder of your paragraph

> > above either, in that continues with the same notion of

> > " reflection " .

> >

> > Sorry to be so non-concurrent!

>

> ****No, that's fine by me. I agree with you regarding " realization

> is really a *relaxation.* " That makes more sense to me.

>

> >

> > <<<<

> > 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.

> > >>>>

> > Your paragraph above does not make clear sense

> > to my reading. Hence, I cannot comment.

>

> ****Hmm. It does'nt make clear sense to my reading either. What the

> hell was I talking about!?! Lol.

>

> >

> > <<<<

> > 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.

> > >>>>

> > In my view, there is no " agent " doing any defiling,

> > be it mind or anything else. Ultimately the mind is

> > realized as non-distinct from the unqualified state.

> > The so-called " defilements " are realized as inherently

> > " not touching " mind.

>

> ****So, the " unqualified state " or " unpreoccupied state " or " non-

> state " is the normal " state " for the mind to " be in? " Are

> the " defilements " which " (preoccupy the mind) " illusory?

>

> >

> > When the inherently luminous perfection of mind is

> > realized, there is nothing that can be said to have

> > changed. And yet something has changed.

> >

> >

> > <<<<

> > 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.

> > >>>>

> > Again you distinguish the unqualified state and

> > mind.

>

> ****!!!Grr!!!****

> >

> > Perhaps I should point out that there is no " model "

> > that one can hold in mind that represents what is

> > being said here.

>

> ****Yeah! For me, that fact is frustrating.

>

> >

> >

> > <<<<

> > 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?

> > >>>>

> > Very good. Yes, I think you sorted that out pretty well.

> >

> > Bill

> >

> >

> > I think you are correct.

>

> ****Okay, now I have a wicked headache! Lol.

>

**

>

> If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your

subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups:

>

> /mygroups?edit=1

>

> Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the

Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In taking delight in painting or in erasing, there is still the

canvas. The man busy with accumulation, and the man casting away -

they are the same.

 

It's not about the jar.

[Guest guest]

> Your remarks are so refreshingly frank,

> so unpretentious. I was absolutely

> delighted to read you post.

>

> I'm a little puzzled about how to reply,

> as you seemed to move through stages over

> the course of the post. I.e. I wonder if

> some of your questions at the beginning

> became non-questions by the end.

>

> As it is, I'll do the best I can.

 

*****Thank you so much! You did an amazing job below. I really

appreciate your candidness. I " get " it now! It makes perfect sense

to me and that's what I find refreshing. Let's see here....

 

>

> > Thank you, Bill, for clarifying things for me. Let's see if I

> > understand correctly.

> >

> > > 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. " "

> >

> > ****Okay. I think I get this now. But is there nothing to

reveal

> > when the mind becomes still? Or is it that another state of mind

is

> > realized by the mind? Is this Realization? The mind realizes

that

> > it is now in an unqualified state? The conditioned mind becomes

the

> > unconditioned mind? Or is Realization just another state of

mind?

> > Or is there nothingness once the mind becomes still? Is Mind All

> > there Is? Or do I have to be out of my mind to Realize Ultimate

> > Reality? I don't understand! Lol.

>

>

>

> I won't try to untangle all those questions.

> I don't see a question there I would really

> want to say yes to. Perhaps we can clear this

> up more further on.

>

>

> > >

> > > 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.

> > > >>>>

> > > Unfortunately Silver I must take departure from your

> > > line of reasoning rather early on.

> > >

> > > I cannot join you in considering the mind as a tool.

> > > That is a very problematic notion, in my view.

> > > First at hand is the question, a tool as used

> > > by whom?

> >

> > ****Yes, I see. Fair enough. I agree with you and I drop

the 'mind-

> > as-tool' notion altogether.

> > >

> > > As for your, " I think it's safe to use ordinary terms

> > > to explain the meaning of the word 'preoccupied' " , I'm

> > > afraid it is not safe. I said, quite explicitly,

> > > that what " preoccupied " *means here* is abstruse.

> > > In other words, I was indicating that *my use* of

> > > that term is not explainable in ordinary terms. I was

> > > indicating that I was applying a " special use " to

> > > the term " preoccupied " .

> > >

> > > Well, then, the question naturally arises

> > > as to what I did mean by preoccupied when I used it

> > > in that context. So I will attempt to clarify. But,

> > > as I said, it is abstruse. Don't expect it to be

> > > clear as a bell, even if explained.

> > >

> > > As I used the term preoccupied means a fundamental

> > > condition that pervades mental activity.

> > >

> > > I will try to explain by analogy. I have seen

> > > individuals that had a very pervasive anxiety,

> > > such that no matter what was going on with them,

> > > be they happy about something, or in a very

> > > distressed state, the anxiety could be sensed

> > > as underlying their state of consciousness at

> > > all times.

> >

> > ****Angst.

> > >

> > > Now consider someone who is always restless, always

> > > fidgeting. The person cannot just sit, but rather

> > > must constantly be filling up whatever time they

> > > have with activity. Again, consider that the

> > > restlessness pervades the person's state of

> > > consciousness at all times.

> > >

> > > The notion of " preoccupation " as I was using it

> > > is " generalized " in the sense of the two examples

> > > above. As I used the term, it is not a transitory

> > > state that comes and goes. It is rather continual

> > > and pervasive.

> >

> > ****Let me get this straight. Please be patient with me.

Generally

> > speaking, then, you mean that mind is always active? Or do you

mean

> > that mind is active only when it is " preoccupied? " That would

imply

> > an inactive and unpreoccupied state of mind, is that correct? Is

> > this state considered Realization of the Ultimate Reality? Or is

it

> > the mind realizing another aspect of itself?

>

> A problem with our discussion is the word mind.

> I don't generally incline to use that word when

> talking about matters nondual, but since the

> quoted poem used it, here we are.

>

> If you think of mind as something that *attempts*

> to solve things, and makes an *effort* to do so,

> and if you see yourself as virtually identical

> to the mind when it is so *efforting* (i.e. it

> is as if it is *you* efforting)... then there is

> angst underlying that, yes?

 

****Definitely, yes!

 

And when the sense of

> who-you-are is continually identifying with the

> activities of the mind, then there is what I

> called " preoccupation " .

>

> However, the " condition " I called preoccupation

> can dissolve. How that happens is utterly mysterious.

> There is no recipe, there is no " how " . Nor is there

> a " why " or a " when " .

>

> That being said, when the condition I call

> " preoccupation " has dissolved, the activities of

> mind continue. What is different is the identification

> with the activities of mind. After the " dissolution "

> there is no longer identification with the activities

> of mind.

>

> An analogy to perhaps understand what I mean:

>

> Consider that you are on the Internet and that

> you just did a search on some search engine

> on some topic of interest, a list of " hits "

> came up, and then you selected one looking to

> be of interest, the page selected comes up

> and you are now engrossed in reading something

> of absorbing interest.

>

> Step back and look at what happened there. You

> went from an interest in a general topic to

> enjoying some absorbing material pertaining

> to that topic, all in a few seconds... really

> quite magical!

>

> And yet YOU DO NOT IDENTIFY with the performance

> of the actions leading to that result. You

> attribute it to the Internet, to Google (or

> whatever search engine), to the browser, etc.

> etc.

>

> Now then, imagine the activities of the mind

> being viewed in the same way. You have a notion

> about something and then suddenly a (thought)

> stream of information is available, perhaps

> something to write on the topic, which then

> you do, taking out a pencil and paper and

> dashing it down.

>

> When the " preoccupation " has dissolved the

> activities of mind are no longer so " closely

> held " . Everything from the notion appearing in

> mind, to the thought stream presenting itself,

> to taking out the paper and pencil and dashing

> out the words, all of that is as easily and

> naturally performed as if *for one* automatically

> (automagically:), just as the results

> presented on the Internet all happen as if

> *for one*.

>

> One somewhat theoretical way of looking at it

> is to suppose that the " unqualified state "

> is the Self and that " realization " is the

> breaking of a false identification by Self

> with the activities of mind. I'm not especially

> fond of that as a way of putting it, but it

> is a view not entirely without merit.

>

> So you see the " mind " never really changes.

> The only " change " is the breaking of the

> false identification with the activities of

> mind. This is why the term " relaxation " is

> fitting. The breaking of the false identification

> results in the Self relaxing into its *natural

> state*, or more simply: the Self relaxing into

> Itself.

>

> Once the Self has relaxed into Itself the

> mind is no longer seen as something separate.

> When the Self no longer identifies with the

> *activities of mind* the sense of mind as

> something separate (or as a component,

> dissolves).

>

> [Don't be concerned about this point, however.

> I only bring it up to explain a bit why

> trying to understand this " mentally " is so

> full of riddling paradoxes.]

>

> So to sum this portion up, when the " preoccupation "

> dissolves the activities of mind are no longer

> seen as " what I am doing " . They are just happening

> as if *for one*, in a sense akin to the example

> of the search performed on the Internet.

>

>

>

> >

> > >

> > > When a person is concerned about their self,

> > > has an underlying concern about their direction,

> > > about their path, that is not something that

> > > comes and goes. It is something that is underlying

> > > and pervades. Indeed, it is a form of anxiety,

> > > and is very analogous to the first example I gave

> > > above.

> > >

> > > The more familiar notion of " ego " (especially as

> > > used in nondual discussions) is very close to what

> > > I mean by " preoccupied " , if not identical. And with

> > > the notion of ego you see again that it is not

> > > something that comes and goes (like a mood) but

> > > pervades completely.

> > >

> > >

> > > <<<<

> > > 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?

> > > >>>>

> > > You remark here presumes a notion of " preoccupied "

> > > that is not what I meant, so I cannot comment..

> >

> > ****I see that now, yes. So, in the sense that you are using the

> > word, is the mind's " preoccupation " of itself, in general, an

> > obstacle to its realization of the " unqualified state " - Ultimate

> > Reality?

> >

>

> It is not *an* obstacle, it is the one and only obstacle.

>

> > >

> > > <<<<

> > > 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.

> > > >>>>

> > > I am not suggesting that *the mind* is making

> > > any kind of leap. No *achievement* of the mind

> > > is involved in any of what I said.

> >

> > ****You are saying, then, that there is no obstacle which stands

in

> > the way of the mind's Realization of Ultimate Reality. Is it the

> > mind's natural state? Is the " unqualified state " normal for the

mind

> > to " be in? " It takes it no effort to " get there? " There is no

> > reaching? No attaining or achieving of any kind involved? Is

the

> > mind not involved at all?

>

> Fair questions indeed.

> Once the " preoccupation " has dissolved it is natural to

> say that the " unqualified state " ever and always has been.

> It is also natural to say there is *no real obstacle*.

> Hence the words of one for whom the " preoccupation " has

> dissovled can be utterly perplexing to one for whom it

> has not!

 

 

****Tell me about it! That perplexity I feel is the cause of my

underlying " angst. " I'm " efforting " to find a way out of this

perplexity and to finally end the angst. I understand now that all

my efforting has been in vain. I only need to stop identifying

myself with my mind's preoccupations. I am not that. Nor am I the

perplexity and angst. These happen to me and I watch them. The

trick is to not attach myself to what happens as I watch? That is

the most difficult task I have ever faced in my life. It's almost

like non-efforting is harder to " do " than efforting. If I tell

myself, " Self, try not to make any effort, " I am still trying except

now I'm trying NOT. Ow!

 

>

> The false identification is in a sense no real obstacle,

> as it can end in the blink of an eye. So if it is an

> obstacle, it is not in the sense we ordinary think of

> an obstacle. Ordinarily an obstacle is something that

> the mind can come to grips with. But in this case that

> is woefully not the case.

 

****I understand but there is nothing for my mind to grip onto....

Hey, wait a minute! I think that's the point here, right? When the

mind realizes that there is nothing left to grip onto, it has reached

the last rung on the ladder: It has climbed to the top, step by

step, and with each step taken it has reasserted itself. It has

identified itself with the climbing of the ladder. When it reaches

the pinnacle where there are no more rungs left to climb, the mind

has nothing more to do but relax and accept it. The mind is still

there on the last rung but realizes it and rests from the climbing.

 

>

>

> > > Also, I don't consider there is any gap been the

> > > mind and ultimate reality. That they are distinct

> > > is an illusion.

> >

> > ****Yes, but what about the gap between " preoccupied " mind and

> > Ultimate Reality? How does the mind " go " from " preoccupied "

> > to " unpreoccupied? " There seems to me to be two distinct states

of

> > mind here. The one is a state, the other is a sort of " non-

state "

> > state. A non-state is not a state at all. It implies that there

is

> > only one state for the mind to be in: the " preoccupied " state.

> > To " go " from state to " state, " the mind has to " stop " somewhere.

> > Mind becomes no-mind.

>

> The thing is that the " false identification " (which is

> a synonym for the " preoccupied state " [and by the way,

> I think the term " preoccupied mind " is a bit misleading])

> has no substance really. The " false identification " can't

> be said to " exist " in any meaningful sense. All these

> terms reflect the mind's attempts to *come to grips* with

> the matter. But all that is futile. It is as if one

> cannot understand in order to Realize, but rather one

> must Realize in order to understand.

>

> So it is not the mind that goes from " preoccupied " to

> " not-preoccupied " (recall that I said " preoccupied

> mind " is a misleading term) but that the Self goes

> from false-identification to a relinquishing of false-

> identification and (a subequent) relaxation into Itself.

>

> Remember, the mind is not affected by all of this.

> The change is not " of the mind " . The operation of the

> mind will be different after Self has relaxed into

> Itself, basically in the sense that it will be more

> fluid, characterized by a deep sense of ease. But that

> change is not due to a change in mind itself.

 

****So, the mind Realizes. Period.

 

>

> Beware of thinking of mind as an " entity " , by the way.

> That is a misconception. I use the term " mind " as

> a collective term to refer to the " activities of mind " ,

> not to refer to some entity that is responsible for

> the production of those activities. I can seem like a

> subtle distinction, but serious confusions can arise,

> so beware.

 

****That's the problem I had with Larry Epston. I could'nt accept

his view that the mind is some kind of entity living vicariously as

me and you and everyone and everything else. That just sounds way to

New Ageish to me. And he's so pushy about it. But for all I know,

maybe he's right and there is a Superbeing of some sort. You're

right. It's helpful to beware that serious confusions can arise out

of the view he holds. Not that there's anything wrong with him

personally for holding it.

 

>

>

>

>

>

> > > re: " What the mind seems to " see " when it realizes

> > > its own self-nature is a " revealed " reflection of

> > > pure awareness or ultimate reality. "

> > >

> > > When the mind realizes its own self-nature (of the

> > > two words 'sees' & 'realizes', realizes is the less

> > > misleading), such realization is really a *relaxation*.

> > > I do not concur with your notion of a " reflection " .

> > > What I am speaking of is not a dual, subject/object

> > > kind of thing.

> > >

> > > And I do not concur with the remainder of your paragraph

> > > above either, in that continues with the same notion of

> > > " reflection " .

> > >

> > > Sorry to be so non-concurrent!

> >

> > ****No, that's fine by me. I agree with you

regarding " realization

> > is really a *relaxation.* " That makes more sense to me.

> >

> > >

> > > <<<<

> > > 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.

> > > >>>>

> > > Your paragraph above does not make clear sense

> > > to my reading. Hence, I cannot comment.

> >

> > ****Hmm. It does'nt make clear sense to my reading either. What

the

> > hell was I talking about!?! Lol.

> >

>

> This is an example of what I meant by your refreshing

> unpretentiousness. You are a wonderful example for others.

 

****Well, thanks but it's only because I feel I'm getting somewhere

having someone like you with whom to have an intelligent

discussion.

 

>

>

> > > <<<<

> > > 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.

> > > >>>>

> > > In my view, there is no " agent " doing any defiling,

> > > be it mind or anything else. Ultimately the mind is

> > > realized as non-distinct from the unqualified state.

> > > The so-called " defilements " are realized as inherently

> > > " not touching " mind.

> >

> > ****So, the " unqualified state " or " unpreoccupied state " or " non-

> > state " is the normal " state " for the mind to " be in? " Are

> > the " defilements " which " (preoccupy the mind) " illusory?

>

> The " defilements " are illusory. Because of false-indentification

> everything is misconstrued. Hence, effectively, everything

> becomes a defilement.

>

> And again, the " state of the mind " is not what is of

> signficance.

>

>

> > >

> > > When the inherently luminous perfection of mind is

> > > realized, there is nothing that can be said to have

> > > changed. And yet something has changed.

> > >

> > >

> > > <<<<

> > > 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.

> > > >>>>

> > > Again you distinguish the unqualified state and

> > > mind.

> >

> > ****!!!Grr!!!****

> > >

> > > Perhaps I should point out that there is no " model "

> > > that one can hold in mind that represents what is

> > > being said here.

> >

> > ****Yeah! For me, that fact is frustrating.

>

> So good. This is a great point for self-enquiry,

> a chance to get a glimpse of the frustration

> and its roots. Notice here that it is your *identifcation*

> with the futile efforts of the mind that entails your

> frustration.

 

****Right. I see now that I am not that. In fact, I accept that I'm

not that and I can sense all my futility and frustration dissolving

as I consider it.

 

>

> > >

> > >

> > > <<<<

> > > 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?

> > > >>>>

> > > Very good. Yes, I think you sorted that out pretty well.

> > >

> > > Bill

> > >

> > >

> > > I think you are correct.

> >

> > ****Okay, now I have a wicked headache! Lol.

> >

>

>

> The darkest hour is just before dawn.

>

> Nisargadatta often said that it really doesn't matter

> *how* you go about, what is significant is one's

> *earnestness*. The one who is utterly in earnest will

> prevail. Your " headache " reflects your earnestness.

> A most excellent sign!

>

>

> Bill

>

 

****Thanks again, Bill. It's a pleasure to have this discussion with

you. Now I have to do dishes and laundry. I wonder if I can do

these things mindlessly? Oh, boy. Zen, I think. I'll have to look

into that. Here I go again.....