Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] Re:the mirror analogy and nondual realization

Expand Messages
  • Bhanu Padmo
    ... From: dgallagher@aol.com Subject: Re: [Wisdom-l] Re:the mirror analogy and nondual realization To: Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com Date:
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 22, 2013
      --- On Fri, 2/22/13, dgallagher@... <dgallagher@...> wrote:

      From: dgallagher@... <dgallagher@...>
      Subject: Re: [Wisdom-l] Re:the mirror analogy and nondual realization
      To: Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Friday, February 22, 2013, 4:39 PM


      "Tipping point" here seems at least somewhat correspondent
      with Anthony's "razor's edge" in Astronoesis.
      Central proposition:  "The non-dual aspect of ontology of maiden existence
      in the form of the primordial particle would call for coincidence/
      superimposition of epistemic organ and the whole body (when the whole body is
      the epistemic organ)."  This, I believe, is consistent with Plotinus
      in the tractates on Soul (4th Ennead).  "Maiden
      existence" recalls the feminine Greek word for soul: psyche. 
      The signification of soul as feminine in her essential nature is fundamental to
      the metaphor.

      "Entity*s ability may be
      thus divided into two broad divisions : ontic and epistemic. The *parallel
      genesis* of the epistemic ability out of the ontology of existence brings in the
      notion of *mirror*. This metaphorical mirror is an integral part of existence
      (entity*s body) that generates epistemic ability in the generic form of
      *feeling*."  The word "feeling" might mislead here which is likely why
      Bhanu placed it within asterisks.  In Plotinus, the sense is "touching",
      and epistemic refers to perception; fully inclusive of sense-perception in its
      various modes.  All forms of perception are necessarily forms of
      self-knowing.  Our failure of perception lies in not realizing this in
      every moment and experience in our daily lives.  Confusion and intense
      disagreement arise when we investigate whether the images which appear in the
      "mirror" are real.  That, I suspect, involves the "tipping point" where
      balance is challenged in the presence of intellect.

      Good analysis,


      In a message dated 2/22/2013 10:52:13 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
      greenbhanu@... writes:

      The confusion about
      mirror-analogies may be narrowed down to a tipping point that would also
      establish non-duality quite decisively. This tipping point is where all
      thinkers of all ages have been tottering. And indeed, this tipping point
      beyond which lies the world of non-duality is the seminal mirror-ness,
      the maiden mirror-ness. The world of non-duality is reachable only if
      this maiden mirror-ness is transcended. Otherwise, not. So, let*s
      concentrate on the nature of the tipping point and the slippery approach
      to it – with the objective of transcending it.
      The tipping point is
      the epistemic contingency about existence.
      Should the existence
      know that it exists? Should the existence know how it exists? Should the
      existence know how much it exists? Should the existence know why it
      Or, Should existence
      simply continue to exist without even knowing that it exists? Would such
      ignorance solve the purpose of existing?
      How would existence
      know that it exists? What would be the components of post-existence
      knowing? Is self-knowledge (knowledge about own existence only)
      sufficient? Or, is it to be complemented by peri-knowledge (knowledge of
      the neighboring/ surrounding existences)? The latter component becomes a
      necessity if unity is inherent in creation.
      The answers are obvious
      and this subjective obviousness is the proof of absoluteness and
      eternality of these truths (obvious answers). The primordial
      absolute-and-eternal truths may be laid down accordingly as :

      Existence must know
      itself. Existence must know itself through its epistemic organ.

      The non-dual aspect of
      ontology of maiden existence in the form of the primordial particle
      would call for coincidence/ superimposition of epistemic organ and the
      whole body (when the whole body is the epistemic organ).
      As the body grows into
      a conglomerate of organs first and then, into a hierarchy of organs and
      organic constituents, the epistemic organ occupies respectively the
      central or the apical body-point to be in control. The epistemic ability
      of the entity (existence) gives it self-control.
      Entity*s ability may be
      thus divided into two broad divisions : ontic and epistemic. The
      *parallel genesis* of the epistemic ability out of the ontology of
      existence brings in the notion of *mirror*. This metaphorical mirror is
      an integral part of existence (entity*s body) that generates epistemic
      ability in the generic form of *feeling*.
      The metaphorical mirror
      may be analogized to truck-driver*s hind-surveying convex mirror. Thus
      body*s epistemic organ may be seen metaphorically as an *internal
      convexity* that portrays own existence as *feeling*. As a sprawling
      palace hall fitted appropriately with a tiny internal convex mirror on
      its wall reflects upon its surface the entire internal space for a
      visitor, the epistemic organ reflects emotively existence*s worth for
      the subject.
      Blending of the ontic
      and epistemic parallels of existence while still preserving primacy of
      the former is ultimate origin of non-duality. In other words,
      non-duality is identification and appreciation of mirror-ness of emotive
      attribute of epistemic organ which is as *real* as the ordinary mirror.

      As the epistemic organ
      itself became first a conglomerate and then a hierarchy, the
      metaphorical subjective mirror became very complex indeed. And yet
      mirror-ness can be sensed at any epistemic constituent of the epistemic
      For example, the optic
      organ (eye-feeling) may be deemed to be endowed with the metaphorical
      internal convexity to act as an internal emotive mirror to emanate
      *feeling* (eye-feeling, sight-feeling) out of an optic exercise called
      optic perception.
      The peak deduction
      about aforesaid non-duality arrives over the issue of apical epistemic
      organ (apex of the hierarchy of epistemic organs). The eye-analogy leads
      us to propose and differentiate *soul-organ* and *soul-feeling* and
      leaves before us no other option but to take the *apical epistemic
      organ* as the soul-organ. This soul-organ is the *mother mirror* that
      reflects emotively (as feelings) own life and interfaced
      The different
      mirror-analogies that emerged down the ages are depictions of surmises
      about the-then perplexing questions of emotive life and apparent
      duality/ multiplicity.
      It isn*t perplexing any
      longer. Not after the discovery of (the reality of) soul-organ, the
      soul-organ/soul-feeling parallelism and primacy of the former over the

      (Bhanu Padmo)

      You may reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/%c2%a0
      as well
      or consign a copy to greenlogic@...  
      for extended discussions.

      --- On Mon, 2/18/13,
      Peter Holleran <ptrholl@...> wrote:

      Peter Holleran <ptrholl@...>
      Subject: Re: [Wisdom-l]
      Re:the mirror analogy and nondual realization
      Date: Monday, February 18, 2013, 11:59



      No apologies and no offense. I, too,am just trying to
      understand, and was hoping maybe someone else could offer
      clarity.  This is a problem talking about the 'mirror' -
      exactly that different teachers speak of it in different ways,
      and maybe sometimes referring to different things.- Peter

      --- On Sun, 2/17/13, dgallagher@...
      <dgallagher@...> wrote:

      dgallagher@... <dgallagher@...>
      Subject: Re:
      [Wisdom-l] Re:the mirror analogy and nondual
      To: Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Sunday,
      February 17, 2013, 11:06 AM


      This is all far too complex for me..  Words are
      necessary for dialog, of course, yet do we understand each
      other's intended meanings?  You cite schools and
      teachers, and I do too, although, I feel, in a far more
      limited range than you.  Schools and teachers adopt their
      own distinctive vocabularies.  That alone, for
      me, presents a formidable challenge to
      understanding.  Speaking in the vernacular, are we ever
      on the same page?
      With apologies, and hopefully not giving offense,

      In a message dated 2/17/2013 9:57:49 A.M. Eastern
      Standard Time, ptrholl@... writes:


      What comes to my mind is that the mirror
      analogy is spoken of in different ways, A traditional 'lila'
      way is that the world is a mirror for the Self to know
      itself in. I think we can reject that one right off the bat,
      as it posits 'meaning' to the absolute. anadi, on the
      otherhand, has a novel way of saying that the 'soul' knows
      herself in the light of consciousness - but apparently is
      not defined itself by just conscious per se. He says in
      another of his books, "after all, what does the mirror
      reflect - the mirror?" (Now I know in Ch'an there was the
      famous face-off whereby Hui neng won the master's staff by
      writing 'the mind is not a mirror bright,' , etc., but let's
      not go there as yet). The question, then, is what does anadi
      mean by the soul? I am thinking it comes down to no words
      are adequate to describe what we are talking about. Which
      includes 'conscious is all', or is 'what we are', etc..

      For example, in Dzogchen, according to Namkhai Norbu
      in The Crystal and the Way of Light, he explains that they
      talk about the Base, the Path, and the Fruit. What is
      relevent right now is the Base. The base of rigpa is
      described in three aspects: Essence, Nature, and Energy. The
      Essence is pure space-like unconditioned mind with the
      potential to reflect and manifest; its Nature then is to
      reflect, and what it reflects is Energy (which includes
      forms). It is kind of strange, don't you think, to speak of
      a mirror that reflects its own inherent reflections or
      manifestations? What is it reflecting them to - itself? Why?
      He concludes what should be obvious by now that these three
      aspects are interdependent and inseparable and only a way of
      talking about this in language. He says:

      "Although in
      order to explain the base we may artificially separate its
      Essence, Nature, and Energy, the example of the mirror shows
      that these three aspects are interdependent and cannot be
      separated from each other. In fact, a mirror's primordial
      voidness, its clear capacity to reflect and the reflections
      that arise in it are inseparable and are all essential to
      the existence of what is known as a 'mirror'."

      "If it
      were not empty, the mirror would not reflect, it if did not
      have a clear capacity to reflect, how could it manifest
      reflections? And if it could not manifest reflections, how
      could we say it was a mirror?" (p. 98-99)

      Isn't this
      interesting: the mirror itself is manifesting reflections in
      its own mirrorness? This certainly backs us into the nondual
      position totally. We can't then just call 'consciousness'
      the primary datum so glibly. It seems to me that maybe we
      need to go back to a Trinity model of sorts to more
      accurately reflect the nature of reality, as opposed to just
      consciousness at rest and conscious-energy. We might posit
      Brahman/Nirguna/ Tao, whatever - realizing theat are
      uncharacterizable, and then two principles, perhaps
      siva-shakti, purusha-prakriti, or
      consciousness-manifestation, and reflections on down the
      line. Within this model we find room for all sorts of things
      like souls, and God, for instance, understood hopefully
      nondually. Then we will acknowledge that speaking of
      consciousness, and adding superlatives like 'universal
      consciousness', 'pure consciousness', or 'awareness' ,
      'universal awareness', and 'pure awareness', or 'prior to
      consciousness', etc., are just meaningless words. Knowing
      and intelligence have a different feel, but probably even
      these will face the same difficulty. But how do we know that
      it is awareness that 'knows' whatever it is we know? Just
      because awareness is always there is not proof. That is
      still a word after all.

      For another instance, how
      does anyone know that 'things' manifest out of
      consciousness? Damiani says no one ever 'sees' that, that
      you can only know that by hard dialectical reasoning. But it
      is generally assumed by most teachers. Certainly the two
      always occur together, and not causally.

      relates, imo, to the very nature of nondual realization and
      the questions of selfhood. Better perhaps to simply say, as
      Jack Kornfield and some other teachers are now saying, that
      we go beyond all notions of a 'separate-self', rather than
      'beyond all notions of self', as Adya tends to say. Because
      just because we feel an impersonal realization doesnlt mean
      there is no 'self' there; it may just be too subtle for us
      to perceive, or our experience is colored by our
      expectation. By simply using 'no-separate self' - and on
      this point I agree with Colin Drake - then we are not
      needing to assume anything about 'self' other than its ever
      deepening mystery. Because in a nondual world self and other
      are intertwined and inseparable. And 'who' realizes
      non-duality? Some kind of self or individuality. Nondual
      realization excludes nothing. Non-dual realization or
      nirvana, as well as samsara, are both in Relativity and
      known to some kind of self. That self becomes ever more
      interconnected and non-separate, but it still is there,
      otherwise who could become liberated? Saying it is the
      Infinite, the Self, emptiness, enlightenment that realizes
      these same things is not much help, and can lead to
      misunderstanding of the scope and nature of Relativity.
      Samsara and Relativity are not the same, imho. Samsara is
      bondage in Relativity. Nondual realization, occuring within
      relativity, is the realization that samsara and nirvana are
      not separate, and it includes both a realization or
      perception of the existence of the Nondual Ground (which can
      not be said to be either realized or not realized, it is
      beyond all such concepts), but also of the implications of
      that nondual realization for us within Relativity, and this
      latter could go on almost indefinitely - including the
      post-enlightenment increasing of relative 'merit and wisdom'
      (understanding of impermanence, dukkha, increase of
      compassion, power, skillfulness, etc.) that began long
      before one realized non-duality, according to certain
      teachings.. And I think this is what PB points to in the
      many quotes where he talks about this thing taking along
      time, even though it is simple in essence. We can find
      nondual realization to varying degrees while we are still
      increasing in relative 'merit and wisdom', as the Tibetans
      say, and even after more complete, direct realization of
      non-duality, the relative wisdom is now seen as
      interpenetrating and mutually influencing the absolute
      wisdom. Relative wisdom generally does emerge first and
      forms the foundation of spiritual development which
      eventually prepares one for direct nondual insight, but at a
      deeper level they come to be seen as fundamentally
      inseparable, two aspects of one primordial wisdom. Just some
      thoughts - Peter

      --- In Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com, dgallagher@...
      > Peter,
      > Not confusing
      in the light of Plotinus's doctrine of integral
      > while bearing in mind that the light
      "appears" out of the
      > thrice-unknown-darkness
      (according to the Orphic tradition which seems to have been

      > embraced by Plato -- at least according to
      Proclus). Plato too uses the mirror
      > David
      > In
      a message dated 2/15/2013 11:51:59 A.M. Eastern Standard
      > ptrholl@... writes:

      > Mark:
      > This could be just
      more words, but anadi says that consciousness or
      presence as the light of cognition is the 'mirror' in which
      the soul awakens to
      > herself. Thus he says one first
      needs, generally, to awaken to the state of
      presence or awareness, (as well, in his view, to the feeling
      of being) , in
      > order to know the soul; also
      implying, rather uniquely, that consciousness
      > or
      awareness is not the same or 'higher' than the soul.
      Interesting but
      > somewhat confusing take on the
      'mirror' analogy often found in consciousness
      teachings. - Peter
      > --- On Wed, 2/13/13,
      Mark Scorelle wrote:
      > From: Mark
      > Subject: Re: [Wisdom-l] anadi - The ego
      and self-enquiry
      > To: Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com
      > Date:
      Wednesday, February 13, 2013, 9:38 AM

      > Hi Christi,
      > Yesterday I
      came across this interesting posting on Facebook.

      > The Ego ages... the Soul evolves...
      > and to
      the Awareness,
      > nothing happened.
      To me it seems like alot of the discussions here take place
      between the
      > Soul stance and Awareness stance. There
      are allot of shades between, some
      > more in evolution
      of the soul, some more of a stance of the absolute. That

      > one uses inquiry to refer to an insight gained
      truth, such as one's
      > essential emptiness, is
      slightly more on the being side of things, whereas if one

      > engages in inquiry to gain that insight is slightly
      more on the soul
      > evolution side. But obviously both
      are within the souls movement waking up.
      For example time, time is a reality in the soul's evolution,
      > aeonic time cycles, etc. but is not
      to the Awareness view, there is only
      > the present
      Now and time is manufactured within and by the mind to

      > experience the world.

      > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Christi
      Cox <_christicox@..._
      > (mip://0bb89458/mc/compose?to=christicox@...)
      > wrote:

      > Hey Mark,
      > I took this
      slightly differently. I thought--per his final
      > inquiry would help create the
      conditions in which an initial awakening
      > could
      happen, and that once that awakeness was there, inquiry
      could than be a
      > pathway back to it...
      > From: Mark
      Scorelle <_mark.scorelle@..._
      > (mip://0bb89458/mc/compose?to=mark.scorelle@...)
      > To: wisdom-l _wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com_
      > (mip://0bb89458/mc/compose?to=wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com)
      > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 12:46 PM

      > Subject: [Wisdom-l] anadi - The ego and

      > The ego and
      > Self-enquiry can be described
      as the ego’s existential effort to reveal
      > our
      eternal self hidden beneath the layers of our human
      > Self-enquiry, the awakening question
      of our true identity, link the intelligence
      > that
      seeks its true identity to the awakened answer, the soul
      > Because it points beyond the mind,
      self-enquiry must transcend mental effort
      > to
      illuminate the direct experience to our essential
      > The main point of confusion on the
      path of self-enquiry relates to the
      > false
      assumption that through the power of enquiry we can
      > access the ever-present self that
      remains unrealized only due to ignorance. The
      reality is that our true self cannot be recognized prior to
      first being
      > awakened and actualized. Self-enquiry
      is not limited to seeking and seeing
      > who we are in
      the present now; it actually opens the space of intelligence

      > and being within which the soul can finally
      remember and awaken her
      > timeless essence.

      > (This quote seems to be saying that sudden
      enlightenment has it place and
      > that self-enquiry is
      only effective after spontaneous self-recognition has

      > happened in other words inquiry is similar to the
      remembrance short path
      > exercise. See the Jackson
      Peterson quote on rigpa. When openness and
      > clarity,
      emptiness of self has been established in being, not merely

      > intellectually, then a pathway is open for the
      heart center, oneness, soul waking up to
      > herself to
      occur. ~Mark)
      > the book of enlightenment

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.