vaporinospagethi
Esteemed member
my brain sluggy
can you help me to understand what it could mean?
Do you understand that?
can you help me to understand what it could mean?
Do you understand that?
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
a mirror exists both within and without the image reflected
- Thread starter vaporinospagethi
- Start date
Could you provide some background for this? Where is it from? Is it a koan or something like that? How did you come across it? Why is it important to you?
It will be helpful to understand better what you are asking.
It will be helpful to understand better what you are asking.
vaporinospagethi
Esteemed member
It's from the ashtavakra gita
but I'd like to just understand this mirror part, without any religious judgement from people trying to explain it, ideally.
it's spiritually important for me, but if I'd have to explain why, I fear the topic would take a big tangeant and nobody would explain this mirror thing
I see, I wasn't familiar with that work.
Can you explain it yourself? It being important to you, I assume you have your own understanding of it. And now I'm curious.
Would you say you understand it, and are looking for other perspectives? Or that you don't understand it and are looking for help interpreting it?
Can you explain it yourself? It being important to you, I assume you have your own understanding of it. And now I'm curious.
Would you say you understand it, and are looking for other perspectives? Or that you don't understand it and are looking for help interpreting it?
vaporinospagethi
Esteemed member
a mirror exists within the image reflected:
I can't see the mirror in the image reflected by the mirror, or can I? I see only reflected image.
or if we see "image reflected" as the image itself and not the reflection, then we talk about the world around the mirror?
a mirror exists without the image reflected:
I've never seen a mirror without an image reflected, except if I look at the back of it?
Tho one could say that the image reflected IS the mirror, and that the object mirror exists by itself even if you remove everything out of it (in space it would still reflect the black color of the void tho..)
and is this "without" used to mean "outside of" or "in the absence of"?
My understanding is vague, not clearly defined, and I'm looking to know what other people understand by it exactly.
I can't see the mirror in the image reflected by the mirror, or can I? I see only reflected image.
or if we see "image reflected" as the image itself and not the reflection, then we talk about the world around the mirror?
a mirror exists without the image reflected:
I've never seen a mirror without an image reflected, except if I look at the back of it?
Tho one could say that the image reflected IS the mirror, and that the object mirror exists by itself even if you remove everything out of it (in space it would still reflect the black color of the void tho..)
and is this "without" used to mean "outside of" or "in the absence of"?
My understanding is vague, not clearly defined, and I'm looking to know what other people understand by it exactly.
Last edited:
I can give you my interpretation of this, for what it's worth.
To me it sounds like the idea is that the mirror is part of the reflection (as it what causes and sustains the reflection to begin with) but also exists independently and beyond it.
It may be pointing to the fact that seeing the reflected image is seeing the mirror: the image reflected by the mirror at a given moment is the appearance of the mirror at that moment.
Here it may be pointing to the fact that the mirror exists independently of the image being reflected.
To me it sounds like the idea is that the mirror is part of the reflection (as it what causes and sustains the reflection to begin with) but also exists independently and beyond it.
Yes, that's more or less my reading too.
For this probably the best option would be to find the original word used and look up what exact meanings and implications it has. You make a good point, and it may mean both "outside of" and "in the absence of".
Same here, but it's an interesting exercise. Maybe @northape will enjoy offering his reading of it too.
vaporinospagethi
Esteemed member
Interpreting Sanskrit is an art form because words have many meanings depending on the context. That's why we still have full-time Sanskrit scholars even today.
I checked the internet and found a few renderings:
Just as a mirror exists everywhere both within and apart from its reflected images, so the Supreme Lord exists everywhere within and apart from this body.
Just as a reflection appears within and all around a mirror, so does the Supreme Lord pervade within and all around this body.
Just as one and the same all-pervading space exists within and without a jar, so the eternal, everlasting Being exists in the totality of things.
Just as the image that appears in a mirror seems to take hold of it, so does the supreme Lord appears in this body as if he has taken hold of it.
First, they use the word mirror for sure, not space. Maybe someone decided to interpret that way for ease of understanding. Secondly, this without is actually the word apart or all around. So, depending on the interpretation, there are a few ideas here. My take is that it tells:
1. God is all-pervading and exists everywhere
2. God is the basis of everything
3. God exists even in illusionary reflection (here they point to our illusionary self, which still has God as a substratum)
I'll try to find something from another source...
I checked the internet and found a few renderings:
Just as a mirror exists everywhere both within and apart from its reflected images, so the Supreme Lord exists everywhere within and apart from this body.
Just as a reflection appears within and all around a mirror, so does the Supreme Lord pervade within and all around this body.
Just as one and the same all-pervading space exists within and without a jar, so the eternal, everlasting Being exists in the totality of things.
Just as the image that appears in a mirror seems to take hold of it, so does the supreme Lord appears in this body as if he has taken hold of it.
First, they use the word mirror for sure, not space. Maybe someone decided to interpret that way for ease of understanding. Secondly, this without is actually the word apart or all around. So, depending on the interpretation, there are a few ideas here. My take is that it tells:
1. God is all-pervading and exists everywhere
2. God is the basis of everything
3. God exists even in illusionary reflection (here they point to our illusionary self, which still has God as a substratum)
I'll try to find something from another source...
From Guru Vachaka Kovai:
46 The Supreme is concealed when the world is seen, and conversely, when the Supreme is seen, the world disappears. Both cannot be seen distinctly, as two separate entities, at the same time, [just as] in a carved statue of a dog, the dog and the stone cannot be seen as two separate entities simultaneously.
47 The world that veils the Self through names and forms, and appears to be real, is only a dream-like appearance. If, instead, that very same world gets veiled by the Self and appears as consciousness alone, then, as the Self, it too is real. The world of triputis is only the play of the power of consciousness.
The triputis are the groups of three elements that are essential for perceiving an external world: seer, seeing and seen, and knower, knowing and known.
It's another spin on the idea. Basically, even a reflection in a mirror is real when you realize that you are this mirror itself (substratum).
That's the beauty of these ancient texts. There is no definite answer, and just by thinking about it, you will mature.
46 The Supreme is concealed when the world is seen, and conversely, when the Supreme is seen, the world disappears. Both cannot be seen distinctly, as two separate entities, at the same time, [just as] in a carved statue of a dog, the dog and the stone cannot be seen as two separate entities simultaneously.
47 The world that veils the Self through names and forms, and appears to be real, is only a dream-like appearance. If, instead, that very same world gets veiled by the Self and appears as consciousness alone, then, as the Self, it too is real. The world of triputis is only the play of the power of consciousness.
The triputis are the groups of three elements that are essential for perceiving an external world: seer, seeing and seen, and knower, knowing and known.
It's another spin on the idea. Basically, even a reflection in a mirror is real when you realize that you are this mirror itself (substratum).
That's the beauty of these ancient texts. There is no definite answer, and just by thinking about it, you will mature.
The mirror allegory made perfect sense to me as I read it; now let's see if that can remain in place while attempting to explain…
The mirror itself will be part of the reflection it is reflecting, while also existing independently of the reflected image. It does not matter to the mirror what is being reflected in it, for that matter. There's a fun bit to contemplate in where the boundary between the mirror and its self-reflection might be found, and what's going on there.
Is it physics or mysticism? Have I taken this too literally?
Sri Ramana used to talk about a cinema screen instead of a mirror. Maybe it's easier to understand for modern people. No matter what we see on the screen, it never touches it or changes it. Oh, and the boundary between the screen and images is the ego. That's the root of the predicament we find ourselves in
