Dhamma as a Mirror

[thepea]

It’s a teacher because it is always reflecting what is accurate, but it is up to the individual to develop the skills to make use of that accuracy.

Certainly but this teacher is permanent in this stanza. This is the paradox of apparent and ultimate reality. Who experiences Nibanna?

No, the principle of Dhamma, and the Path, are always a potentiality for those not free from suffering. Once the principle has been established, it can be used to uproot the defilements.

And the “it” as you refer is not a thing or thought. The “it” is the mirror which operates twofold as the observer and the observed. When there is nothing to be observed the observation is reflected back onto “it”self. Which uproots or liberates from sufferings.

[SDC]

Certainly but this teacher is permanent in this stanza. This is the paradox of apparent and ultimate reality. Who experiences Nibanna?

No, the principle of Dhamma, and the Path, are always a potentiality for those not free from suffering. Once the principle has been established, it can be used to uproot the defilements.

And the “it” as you refer is not a thing or thought. The “it” is the mirror which operates twofold as the observer and the observed. When there is nothing to be observed the observation is reflected back onto “it”self. Which uproots or liberates from sufferings.

I disagree with your understanding of the verse. The mirror is simply an analogy to illustrate the fact that experience by way of eyes, ears, nose, taste, body and mind reflects the presence of defilements if the proper attention is developed. There is no actual mirror. It is the principle discernment available when one is confident that the source of suffering is internal, and a result of view, not circumstance. Only then would there be possible to have the realization that the presence of desire and lust is a reflection of the preference of the six sense base, and not inherent to things in the world.

And that is the only reason why restraint is even possible - knowing that it is the six sense base that is being guarded and restrained, as opposed to seeing freedom as getting rid of what the body prefers so the body isn’t bothered. No. The point is to be a mountain in the storm that is unmovable, not to control the weather.

[thepea]

No, the principle of Dhamma, and the Path, are always a potentiality for those not free from suffering. Once the principle has been established, it can be used to uproot the defilements.

And the “it” as you refer is not a thing or thought. The “it” is the mirror which operates twofold as the observer and the observed. When there is nothing to be observed the observation is reflected back onto “it”self. Which uproots or liberates from sufferings.

I disagree with your understanding of the verse. The mirror is simply an analogy to illustrate the fact that experience by way of eyes, ears, nose, taste, body and mind reflects the presence of defilements if the proper attention is developed. There is no actual mirror. It is the principle discernment available when one is confident that the source of suffering is internal, and a result of view, not circumstance. Only then would there be possible to have the realization that the presence of desire and lust is a reflection of the preference of the six sense base, and not inherent to things in the world.

And that is the only reason why restraint is even possible - knowing that it is the six sense base that is being guarded and restrained, as opposed to seeing freedom as getting rid of what the body prefers so the body isn’t bothered. No. The point is to be a mountain in the storm that is unmovable, not to control the weather.

We are discussing the same thing, we are simply using a different way of explaining “it”. “it” cannot be comprehended through the sense bases of body and mind.
The mirror reflects itself which is the triple gem. The mirror penetrated dividing and dissecting that which is reflected. View of not only craving but also aversion is reflected. Dividing and dissecting the reflection is refined, dividing and dissecting the reflection breaks apart. What was reflected and vied as aversion through refinement is viewed as craving. “It”s the gaps between the reflection that cut the roots. When there is only gaps reflected this is the eternal mirror seeing “it”self. It’s paradoxical and why impossible within the three dimensions of mind and body or the fourth dimension of mind. The mirror lies beyond nama and rupa.

[SDC]

We are discussing the same thing, we are simply using a different way of explaining “it”. “it” cannot be comprehended through the sense bases of body and mind.
The mirror reflects itself which is the triple gem. The mirror penetrated dividing and dissecting that which is reflected. View of not only craving but also aversion is reflected. Dividing and dissecting the reflection is refined, dividing and dissecting the reflection breaks apart. What was reflected and vied as aversion through refinement is viewed as craving. “It”s the gaps between the reflection that cut the roots. When there is only gaps reflected this is the eternal mirror seeing “it”self. It’s paradoxical and why impossible within the three dimensions of mind and body or the fourth dimension of mind. The mirror lies beyond nama and rupa.

The reason I think we are not on the same page is the emphasis you are placing on the imagery of the division between the reflection and that which is responsible for the reflection. It isn’t paradoxical because the intention is not to draw the duality out into the reflection - the reason for a reflection is available on account proper practice, which reveals where the mind would go with no principles, with no limits. That is how underlying tendencies can “appear” - by not doing what the six sense base prefers.

[thepea]

We are discussing the same thing, we are simply using a different way of explaining “it”. “it” cannot be comprehended through the sense bases of body and mind.
The mirror reflects itself which is the triple gem. The mirror penetrated dividing and dissecting that which is reflected. View of not only craving but also aversion is reflected. Dividing and dissecting the reflection is refined, dividing and dissecting the reflection breaks apart. What was reflected and vied as aversion through refinement is viewed as craving. “It”s the gaps between the reflection that cut the roots. When there is only gaps reflected this is the eternal mirror seeing “it”self. It’s paradoxical and why impossible within the three dimensions of mind and body or the fourth dimension of mind. The mirror lies beyond nama and rupa.

The reason I think we are not on the same page is the emphasis you are placing on the imagery of the division between the reflection and that which is responsible for the reflection. It isn’t paradoxical because the intention is not to draw the duality out into the reflection - the reason for a reflection is available on account proper practice, which reveals where the mind would go with no principles, with no limits. That is how underlying tendencies can “appear” - by not doing what the six sense base prefers.

There is the habitual pattern of the mind, I agree with you, but this stanza is not about that. This is the invocation of the mirror, the cultivation of satthipatthana.

[SDC]

There is the habitual pattern of the mind, I agree with you, but this stanza is not about that. This is the invocation of the mirror, the cultivation of satthipatthana.

How do you figure? It starts with the five hindrances and culminates in insight. That is more than just mindfulness being described.

[thepea]

There is the habitual pattern of the mind, I agree with you, but this stanza is not about that. This is the invocation of the mirror, the cultivation of satthipatthana.

How do you figure? It starts with the five hindrances and culminates in insight. That is more than just mindfulness being described.

I see us going back and forth discussing the same “it”, I really don’t see what you find disagreeable?

[Radix]

What struck me was the positive lead it gives us in knowing ourselves. In western thought, we have the Delphic Maxim Know Thyself, which influences so much of our philosophy and culture. Self-knowledge is, apparently, a valuable mental asset in the west. But we are given no help in how this is to be done - how do we get started, and what should we actually be looking at? Is there a method?

How can you see _yourself_ with _someone else's_ method?

Taking someone else's method, you see what _they_ see as you. Which isn't necessarily what you think you are, or what, perhaps, you really are.

Here, though, we are given dhammādāsa: the mirror of the Dhamma. We are as the Buddha said we are, at least in terms of what needs to be known for our salvation.

Given that other religions propose different "mirrors" with different actual aims (even if all those religions promise salvation or at least advancement), then you end up being all kinds of things, unless you somehow decide to favor one religious method above others.

But this really brings it home in a compressed manner - this is us we are talking about.

No, this is us-as-seen-from-a-dhammic-perspective.

For example, what you are from a Christian perspective is quite different from what you are from a Buddhist perspective, and again, quite different from what you are from a Hindu perspective. So what are you really? Is there a real you that is independent of perspective?

[Radix]

In 1926 edited by Narada thero of sri lanka a book in english by name "Mirror of damma" was published by the buddhist publication society and is available to be down loaded on internet by addressing the name of the book Mirror of damma"

The term "mirror" goes back to the didactic genre of speculum or mirror literature.

Mirrors for princes (Latin: specula principum) or mirrors of princes, are an educational literary genre, in a loose sense of the word, of political writings during the Early Middle Ages, the High Middle Ages, the late middle ages and the Renaissance. They are part of the broader speculum or mirror literature genre.

The term itself is medieval, as it appears as early as the 12th century, under the words speculum regum, and may have been used earlier than that. The genre concept may have come from the popular speculum literature that was popular between the 12th through 16th centuries, which focused on knowledge of a particular subject matter.

These texts most frequently take the form of textbooks which directly instruct kings, princes or lesser rulers on certain aspects of governance and behaviour. But in a broader sense the term is also used to cover histories or literary works aimed at creating images of kings for imitation or avoidance. Authors often composed such "mirrors" at the accession of a new king, when a young and inexperienced ruler was about to come to power. One could view them as a species of prototypical self-help book or study of leadership before the concept of a "leader" became more generalised than the concept of a monarchical head-of-state.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrors_for_princes

[Radix]

What does it mean to take the Dhamma as a mirror?

To take for granted that the Dhamma as taught by the Buddha is true.

The poet says "I took Dhamma as a mirror for knowing and seeing myself". He could have also taken something else as a mirror for "knowing and seeing himself." There are many didactic texts that instruct people how to think of themselves, how to think of others, how to behave etc. The poet might have chosen some other text, perhaps a theistic text that would instruct him to see himself as an eternal servant of God. Or another that instructed him to see himself as fully defined and delineated by his body. But he chose not to. Why not? Why choose one mirror over another?

[Sam Vara]

What struck me was the positive lead it gives us in knowing ourselves. In western thought, we have the Delphic Maxim Know Thyself, which influences so much of our philosophy and culture. Self-knowledge is, apparently, a valuable mental asset in the west. But we are given no help in how this is to be done - how do we get started, and what should we actually be looking at? Is there a method?

How can you see _yourself_ with _someone else's_ method?

Taking someone else's method, you see what _they_ see as you. Which isn't necessarily what you think you are, or what, perhaps, you really are.

Here, though, we are given dhammādāsa: the mirror of the Dhamma. We are as the Buddha said we are, at least in terms of what needs to be known for our salvation.

Given that other religions propose different "mirrors" with different actual aims (even if all those religions promise salvation or at least advancement), then you end up being all kinds of things, unless you somehow decide to favor one religious method above others.

But this really brings it home in a compressed manner - this is us we are talking about.

No, this is us-as-seen-from-a-dhammic-perspective.

For example, what you are from a Christian perspective is quite different from what you are from a Buddhist perspective, and again, quite different from what you are from a Hindu perspective. So what are you really? Is there a real you that is independent of perspective?

There might be western "methods", but I don't see the Dhamma in that light. It's more something to reflect upon, to ask oneself whether what is being said actually fits with one's experience.

[Pulsar]

Radix wrote

To take for granted that the Dhamma as taught by the Buddha is true.

interesting concept. Thanks for the description of mirror "Mirror of doctrine" and information on Speculum Literature.
You also wrote
"Why choose one mirror over another?' This lead me to think "What did Buddha Teach?" What mirror do we use for the doctrine? The Mirror of Abhidhamma? or the mirror of Buddha Dhamma?
Do we take for granted that Buddha taught Abhidhamma? or even suttas such as DN 22 as they have come down to us? were they taught by the Buddha?
With love

[justindesilva]

Radix wrote

To take for granted that the Dhamma as taught by the Buddha is true.

interesting concept. Thanks for the description of mirror "Mirror of doctrine" and information on Speculum Literature.
You also wrote
"Why choose one mirror over another?' This lead me to think "What did Buddha Teach?" What mirror do we use for the doctrine? The Mirror of Abhidhamma? or the mirror of Buddha Dhamma?
Do we take for granted that Buddha taught Abhidhamma? or even suttas such as DN 22 as they have come down to us? were they taught by the Buddha?
With love

If we read Mahasathipattana sutta we can see that that itself shows how to use your own self or image as a mirror
Kayanupassana being contemplation on the five senses , vedananupassana being contemplation on impression or phassa , cittanupassana being on mind and dhammanupassana finally is overcoming hindrances by contemplation . All here are within oneself and are reflections from rupa , vedana , sangna , sankara vingnana to arrive at an insight and create gnanadassana .
Hence satipattanasutta is the best mirror for one to find understand ones own inside to be relieved of suffering .

[Pulsar]

justindesilva wrote

Hence satipattanasutta is the best mirror for one to find understand ones own inside to be relieved of suffering .

I enjoy reading your comments, since you must be the most gentlemanly person on DW. You are never rude, never sarcastic, always using the apt words for the occasion. In a way you mirror the dhamma well. This statement of yours I copied above is correct.
Perhaps I can bring you a better mirror of Satipatthana from the Pali canon but I need time to frame my answer with clarity and with a certain degree of gentlemanly-ness.
I am at the Mojave Desert. Give me time to formulate my thoughts. The night sky here, is so clear, and I thought when the layers of dust (defilements) are removed one sees with greater clarity. There is a million layers of other stars that sits amidst Orion, and surrounds it, which we never see in the polluted night sky.
It is a nice metaphor for our understanding of Dhamma. As the defilements evaporate we see Sammasambuddha's teachings with greater clarity. And with greater clarity our sufferings also diminish. No need to wait for another life.
This Dhamma is immediate, and provides great consolation right now, when properly understood.
With love

[Mahabrahma]

Fully immersed in the Dhamma, one will find the Dhamma as a mirror:

DN 16 From… Mahāparinibbānasutta: The Great Discourse on the Buddha’s Extinguishment—The Mirror of the Dhamma
[NOTE: This teaching was given by the Buddha after the Venerable Ānanda asked about the rebirth of various disciples.]

“It’s hardly surprising that a human being should pass away. But if you should come and ask me about it each and every time someone passes away, that would be a bother for me.

“So Ānanda, I will teach you the explanation of the Dhamma called ‘the mirror of the teaching’. A noble disciple who has this may declare of themselves: ‘I’ve finished with rebirth in hell, the animal realm, and the ghost realm. I’ve finished with all places of loss, bad places, the underworld. I am a stream-enterer! I’m not liable to be reborn in the underworld, and am bound for awakening.’

“And what is that mirror of the teaching?

“It’s when a noble disciple has experiential confidence in the Buddha: ‘That Blessed One is perfected, a fully awakened Buddha, accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide for those who wish to train, teacher of gods and humans, awakened, blessed.’

“They have experiential confidence in the teaching: ‘The teaching is well explained by the Buddha—visible in this very life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves.’

They have experiential confidence in the Saṅgha: ‘The Saṅgha of the Buddha’s disciples is practicing the way that’s good, direct, methodical, and proper. It consists of the four pairs, the eight individuals. This is the Saṅgha of the Buddha’s disciples that is worthy of offerings dedicated to the gods, worthy of hospitality, worthy of a religious donation, worthy of greeting with joined palms, and is the supreme field of merit for the world.’

“And a noble disciple’s ethical conduct is loved by the noble ones, unbroken, impeccable, spotless, and unmarred, liberating, praised by sensible people, not mistaken, and leading to immersion.

“This is that mirror of the teaching.”

And while staying there in Nādika the Buddha often gave this Dhamma talk to the mendicants:

“Such is ethics, such is immersion, such is wisdom. When immersion is imbued with ethics it’s very fruitful and beneficial. When wisdom is imbued with immersion it’s very fruitful and beneficial. When the mind is imbued with wisdom it is rightly freed from the defilements, namely, the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, and ignorance.”

When the Buddha had stayed in Nādika as long as he wished, he addressed Venerable Ānanda, “Come, Ānanda, let’s go to Vesālī.”