Mirror-mind

[norman]

In beholding a mirror, if it is not an object which is seen, but a reflection, the reflection would be in the mirror, and the mirror in itself would not reflect, since the reflection is within the mirror.

If it is the mirror as such that is seen, there would be no reflection, since the act of reflecting that is the mirror, cannot contain anything of which is not itself, i.e., an act of reflection.

So what is seen?

[Sönam]

In beholding a mirror, if it is not an object which is seen, but a reflection, the reflection would be in the mirror, and the mirror in itself would not reflect, since the reflection is within the mirror.

If it is the mirror as such that is seen, there would be no reflection, since the act of reflecting that is the mirror, cannot contain anything of which is not itself, i.e., an act of reflection.

So what is seen?

We say reflection in the mirror, but we should say reflection on the surface of the mirror, because to reflect is a quality of the mirror. In fact, the image is not penetrating the mirror, au contraire, it is sent back (reflected) from where it comes.
So what is seen is simply the image (sent back) of the object ...

Sönam

[CapNCrunch]

but we should say reflection on the surface of the mirror

What is really freaky, is that the reflection most definitely does NOT appear to the mind or eyes to be on the surface of the mirror - although this is where it *has* to be, n'est ce que pas? In fact, you can look and look, but you can never find the actual place on the surface of a mirror *where* the reflection takes place, even though common sense and logic dictates that as a flat surface, the reflection has to physically be there on some part of the surface. But good luck finding it where.

For example - Look into a mirror. Look over your shoulder at something that is behind the 'you' in the mirror. Then try to find where that is on the surface of the mirror, by putting your finger exactly on the mirror at the place where the object you are looking at behind yourself appears to be.

You can see your finger on this side of the mirror, and your reflected finger on 'that' side, but the object you are looking at behind you that *has* to be on the same place on the surface of the mirror, STILL appears to be behind both the finger on the surface, and the 'you' in the mirror.

Ergo, the entire process that is taking place is in your mind - the same way that vision is in your mind, even though your eyes are integral to the process.

Reading what I just wrote is prolly gibberish, unless you actually stand in front of a mirror and do it - it really amazes me how a mirror is in reality a flat surface, but it projects inwards in such a way that you can't find WHERE on the surface something that is deep 'within' the mirror appears.

It's really a freaky deal that, for me, defies logic.

[Sönam]

This is because the "quality" of the mirror is to reflect with all qualities of the object, reflected, color, form, shape, perspective ... it is Rolpa (energy)

"Whether the reflections are good or bad is not important because, at the level of the profound meaning, there is no difference between good and bad. The reflections only manifest because of the natural capacity of our condition to reflect. Everything manifests just as it is—color, form, shape, and size—anything can appear. That is the characteristic manifestation of the aspect of Energy called Rolpa."

- Dzogchen Teachings - Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoché

[White Lotus]

seeing things in mirror mind, i and thou are one. this is an experience of non duality. looking out on the world i see only i and this i is thou. is there still an individual?

for a long time i found it hard to know what was so important about the symbolism of the mirror. however it becomes clear through the teaching of such people as Chogyal Namkhai Norbu that when our dharma eye is open, that all that we see is the mind/true nature. we see ourselves mirrored in all that is around us. subject and object become one and object is seen as a reflection of our mind.

the orthodox teaching of buddhism is surely to see this nature in all things. the dharma wheel is actually the eye of true seeing. it is through the path of practice that one comes to see... all other teachings lead to this seeing and this seeing then leads back to simple being.

best wishes, Tom.

[ground]

So what is seen?

The seen.

[catmoon]

While we are talking about mirrors, here's something to ponder.

We all know a mirror reverses images left to right. You raise your right hand, the image raises its left hand.

Why does a mirror not also reverse images top to bottom?

[Sönam]

Why does a mirror not also reverse images top to bottom?

why shoud it? this is not a quality of the mirror ...

Sönam

[norman]

In beholding a mirror, if it is not an object which is seen, but a reflection, the reflection would be in the mirror, and the mirror in itself would not reflect, since the reflection is within the mirror.

If it is the mirror as such that is seen, there would be no reflection, since the act of reflecting that is the mirror, cannot contain anything of which is not itself, i.e., an act of reflection.

So what is seen?

We say reflection in the mirror, but we should say reflection on the surface of the mirror, because to reflect is a quality of the mirror. In fact, the image is not penetrating the mirror, au contraire, it is sent back (reflected) from where it comes.
So what is seen is simply the image (sent back) of the object ...

Sönam

By this reasoning the object reflected must be independent from its reflection. Otherwise the object could not reflect the image perceived.
Similarly if it is not the mirror that is seen, but a reflection, i.e., the image, then reflectivity cannot be a quality of the mirror, since it is the object that is reflecting.

[norman]

So what is seen?

The seen.

Is the seen the reflection, the mirror, or something else?

[Sönam]

We say reflection in the mirror, but we should say reflection on the surface of the mirror, because to reflect is a quality of the mirror. In fact, the image is not penetrating the mirror, au contraire, it is sent back (reflected) from where it comes.
So what is seen is simply the image (sent back) of the object ...

Sönam

By this reasoning the object reflected must be independent from its reflection. Otherwise the object could not reflect the image perceived.
Similarly if it is not the mirror that is seen, but a reflection, i.e., the image, then reflectivity cannot be a quality of the mirror, since it is the object that is reflecting.

The object reflected is dependent and independent from its reflection. Depending on the view shared, the object is not seen separated (splitted) from its reflection or it is seen splitted. Therefore the answer to the question is only depending on the view of the wiever. When one has realized his real nature, he does not see things/phenomena as others, they are all of the same taste. On the other hand, when one has not yet realized his real nature, he sees things as other and therefore consideres the reflection different.
Regarding the mirror, what is seen is the object obtained due to the quality of the mirror, which is the reflection. What ever is the object in front of the mirror, a Buddha or a pig, it has the same quality, the one of the mirror, the reflectivity, not the quality of the objet in front of it.

Sönam

[CapNCrunch]

Why does a mirror not also reverse images top to bottom?

Mirrors don't reverse anything - neither side to side, nor top to bottom. It appears to us that they reverse from side to side b/c of our conditioning - but all mirrors actually do is flip things front and back... see: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/ ... and-right/

[ground]

So what is seen?

The seen.

Is the seen the reflection, the mirror, or something else?

The seen is neither reflection, nor mirror nor something else other than the seen. Your thinking is not the seen but your thinking.

[gregkavarnos]

In beholding a mirror, if it is not an object which is seen, but a reflection, the reflection would be in the mirror, and the mirror in itself would not reflect, since the reflection is within the mirror.

Your starting premise is worng and this is what is leading you into confusion. A visual image requires the existence of three factors: light, a visual object, the eye.

Reflection, as the term denotes, is merely the bouncing of light off a surface (visual object). A mirror happens to be a surface that can bounce light "better" than other visual objects. The reflection is not "within" the mirror. A mirror (a visual object in its own right) merely acts as a medium for the light being reflected off another visual object. So when you look at the reflection off a mirror you are not looking at the mirror itself. And when you are looking at the reflection you are not seeing the mirror but te reflection. By a small strech of logic this proves true for ALL visual objects. ie that what you are "seeing" is in fact not the object but the reflection of light off of the object.

Ultimately though, normal sentient beings don't even "see" what I have just described. They "see" a mental impression via the sense mind of the eye, "coloured" by the discriminating function of the sense mind of mind. Basically you are seeing a mental image. Abhidharma 101.

So what is seen?

Ultimately: mind. Unless you happen to be an enlightened being.

[norman]

”Within” in this regard is metaphorical. When an object is placed three feet away before the mirror, its image appears to be six feet away from the object. The perceived distance, therefore, is part of its appearance as a reflected image.

If we claim that the image is only three feet away, what we're referring to is the object's distance in relation to the mirror, and not the objects appearance as a reflected image.

Inasmuch as I behold something, something is seen. If it is the object that is reflected, the object exists independently of the reflected image; otherwise it could not reflect. If it is the mirror that is reflecting, then it's not the mirror (mind) that is seen, but a reflection; otherwise there could be no reflection. Similarly, if reflectivity is a quality of the mirror, the image seen cannot ”change”, being a reflection.

Your starting premise is worng and this is what is leading you into confusion. A visual image requires the existence of three factors: light, a visual object, the eye.

Reflection, as the term denotes, is merely the bouncing of light off a surface (visual object). A mirror happens to be a surface that can bounce light "better" than other visual objects. The reflection is not "within" the mirror. A mirror (a visual object in its own right) merely acts as a medium for the light being reflected off another visual object. So when you look at the reflection off a mirror you are not looking at the mirror itself. And when you are looking at the reflection you are not seeing the mirror but te reflection. By a small strech of logic this proves true for ALL visual objects. ie that what you are "seeing" is in fact not the object but the reflection of light off of the object.

[gregkavarnos]

”Within” in this regard is metaphorical. When an object is placed three fen feet away before the mirror, its image appears to be six feet away from the object. The perceived distance, therefore, is part of its appearance as a reflected image.

You are like a child that thinks that there exists in/behind/within the mirror, an actual object. Are you really so naive? No! So you know it is just a reflection, right? So why is this conversation even taking place?

If we claim that the image is only three feet away, what we're referring to is the object's distance in relation to the mirror, and not the objects appearance as a reflected image.

How far away is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Like who cares?

Inasmuch as I behold something, something is seen. If it is the object that is reflected, the object exists independently of the reflected image; otherwise it could not reflect.

Says who? Not the Buddha that's for sure!

If it is the mirror that is reflecting, then it's not the mirror (mind) that is seen, but a reflection; otherwise there could be no reflection.

We already said this.

Similarly, if reflectivity is a quality of the mirror, the image seen cannot ”change”, being a reflection.

Say What.jpg (22.66 KiB) Viewed 320 times

[ghost01]

While we are talking about mirrors, here's something to ponder.

We all know a mirror reverses images left to right. You raise your right hand, the image raises its left hand.

Why does a mirror not also reverse images top to bottom?

Man, I just spent a good 10 minutes looking this up. haha..

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/ ... and-right/

[catmoon]

Why does a mirror not also reverse images top to bottom?

Mirrors don't reverse anything - neither side to side, nor top to bottom. It appears to us that they reverse from side to side b/c of our conditioning - but all mirrors actually do is flip things front and back... see: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/ ... and-right/

Ok. Have you tried to read a newspaper in a mirror lately?

[Sönam]

Why does a mirror not also reverse images top to bottom?

Mirrors don't reverse anything - neither side to side, nor top to bottom. It appears to us that they reverse from side to side b/c of our conditioning - but all mirrors actually do is flip things front and back... see: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/ ... and-right/

Ok. Have you tried to read a newspaper in a mirror lately?

If it seems difficult, it's just because you don't know the language ... you can learn it, like any other one.

Sönam

[norman]

You'll have to ask yourself whether this conversation is valuable or not. I'm merely attempting to sort out the implicit arguments in the reasoning to begin with.

Any apparant reflection you refer to doesn't exist, since the sensed/perceived image IN itself cannot appear as an object OF itself. Otherwise you have two images of the same Appearance.

The reason for not being able to See any reflection is due to the fact that the act of seeing, or other sensing, is part of the image cognized. Therefore ”reflectivity” is a concept, and ”movement” as a perception is imaginary, since nothing appears.

You are like a child that thinks that there exists in/behind/within the mirror, an actual object. Are you really so naive? No! So you know it is just a reflection, right? So why is this conversation even taking place?