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

[Guest guest]

That was an excellent analysis, Bill.

Crystal clear.

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

 

 

" billrishel " <illieusion

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

The Thought)

 

 

When a jar is placed on the ground,

We have the ground with a jar;

When the jar is taken away,

We have the ground without a jar;

 

" But when neither of these conditions exists,

The ground exists in its unqualified state.

It is in this same way

That the ultimate Reality exists. "

 

" Jnaneshvar: The Life and Works of the Celebrated Thirteenth

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

 

<<<<<

The original author said that the ground without

the jar was the unqualified state. Was he mistaken?

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

 

Larry

>>>>>

 

Actually that isn't what he said.

He said that when *neither* of the conditions

(the ground with the jar and the ground

without the jar) exists, the ground exists

in its unqualified state.

 

So he is saying that the unqualified state pertains

only when the condition of the ground without the

jar *does not* exist.

 

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

Presumably the " ultimate Reality " is unqualified,

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

" ultimate Reality " exists as dependent on conditions

is not a sound assertion.

 

Changing circumstances in no way affect

the " unqualified state " . That is tautologically

true, actually, if you look at the words.

The " unqualified state " is unconditioned.

So inherently it cannot be affected by

changing conditions.

 

The author seems to say (quite plainly,

in fact) that the ground alternately

*does not* exist in its unqualified state

and then *does* exist in its unqualified state.

 

But keep in mind that the author is using

a metaphor as a teaching device. One might

argue that to say he was mistaken would be

to push his metaphor too far.

 

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

(if less poetic!) if he had said:

 

 

When a jar is placed on the ground,

We have the ground with a jar;

When the jar is taken away,

We have the ground without a jar;

 

But when neither of these conditions exists,

the ground in its unqualified state is

*revealed* as it is, unqualified.

 

Once the ground is realized in its

unqualified state, then in any case --

jar present, removed, neither etc. --

the ground is (ever thereafter) realized

in its unqualified state.

 

 

But what the author is saying is actually

quite subtle, nevertheless. He is saying

that even the removal of the jar does not

reveal the ground in its unqualified state.

 

He is in effect saying that either the presence

or the absence of an " object " can serve as

a " mask " occluding realization of the

unqualified state.

 

Actually, " absence of an object " is effectively

an object as far as the mind is concerned.

Whatever the mind preoccupies itself with is

an object, regardless of an external " real "

existence.

 

So what he is saying can be boiled down to,

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

(by some object of mind) then the unqualified state

is not revealed. "

 

What " preoccupied " means here, though, is

itself abstruse. It cannot be explained in

ordinary terms.

 

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

because the mind is no longer " preoccupied " ,

then the mind is free from preoccupation.

 

Apparently it is that the mind, finally

unpreoccupied (which is to say utterly innocent),

*sees/realizes its own self-nature*.

 

Upon such realization the mind is free from

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

many apparitions of consciousness are seen for

what they are, utterly empty.

 

Which is the point of the version I provided.

The " unqualified state " always was, always

has been. It is only the " defilements " that

attach the mind (preoccupy the mind) that

hide the pure inherent nature, the " unqualified

state " . The original author's version suggests

that the " unqualified state " can alternately

not exist and then exist. Either the author

is mistaken in considering that to be the case

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

misleading. I think the author was focused,

in his parable, on making his point about even

the " absence of the jar " occluding realization

of the " unqualified state " .

 

 

Bill