Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Conversation with Empty Mirror

Soh
A conversation with Empty Mirror in Hall of Mirrors.

Empty Mirror Soh, I was dead keen to just kick you out for just preaching, and refusing to answer questions, rather than waste any more time on you, but one of the other admins says that she thinks perhaps you really don't understand what is meant by direct experience, and so you really do think that you are experiencing multiple separate experiences.

So I'm going to try to explain to you very carefully what I mean by direct experience, and give you another opportunity to answer my questions.

You say you can see that, even though thought says that experience can be spit into a "perceiving" and a "perceived", it can not be.

But you are unable to see that when thought says that this can be split into seen, heard, smelled, felt, and tasted.

Well in DIRECT EXPERIENCE it can NOT be divided into those things.

Here is an exercise for you to try:

Imagine for a moment that there is ZERO experience showing up, and never has been. Then suddenly all of this shows up in one big bang, but with ZERO thoughts or concepts in it.

What would there be to tell you that lots of individual appearances are showing up??? And what would tell you that there was such a thing as time?

All you would know is this one big "show" of vroomvroomyummyummouchouch. There would be no concepts to divide it up into multiple appearances.

Another way that you could look at it, is if you look at a "sleep dream". No matter what the dream **SEEMS* to appear as, it is not a multitude of things, it is one utterly indivisible dream.

If you subtracted any part of the dream, it would no longer be the dream. It would be a different dream - but it would still be just ONE dream.

Your confusion seems to stem from two beliefs. One is a belief in time, because you seem to have a fixation with the idea of "permanence" which is a concept PURELY based on a belief in time

And you also keep going on about "abiding" and "persisting" as if time really existed. "Abiding" and "persisting" DO NOT EXIST except as thought fluff.

And your other belief is that concepts have the power to REALLY divide this into separate things.

They don't.

You say: "YummVroomoOuch is DE but saying that YummVroomoOuch is only one thing is a pure abstraction"

And that is completely ridiculous. What is being abstracted?? Saying that there is only this YummVroomoOuch is pointing directly to this. Nothing is being divided/abstracted. Abstraction requires what YOU are doing, it requires dividing.

Look for yourself. Right now, there is *vroomouch* showing up. Thought says that there is sound and sensation showing up. NOTHING in DIRECT EXPERIENCE says that they are separate.

Where, IN DIRECT EXPERIENCE, is the dividing line?

What you are trying to say is that there are distinct appearances, all appearing separately. but at the same **TIME**.

But what you don't see is that there is no such thing as time, so they can't happens simultaneously. They can only show up as one indivisible "experience".

I have repeatedly asked you to to **DESCRIBE** the dividing line **IN DIRECT EXPERIENCE** between sound and sensation. That means that I am asking what it is that lies between the supposedly two experiences. I can not find anything that divides the experience of vroomouch into vroom, and ouch, apart from thought. So please tell me what it is if it isn't thought.

All that you have given me from the very beginning of this discussion is a lecture on how everything is separate, but you have not once explained what it is that lies between these separate things, that delineates the one thing from the other thing. You can't have separate things unless you are able to show that there is something that separates them.

For example, if you told me that there were two actually separate things called "perceiving" and "perceived", I would ask you how you where the dividing line is, between the two. And you would have to report that in DIRECT EXPERIENCE no such division can be found.

Similarly, I am asking you for the dividing line between these multiple things that you insist are here. I find completely undivided "experience" here, and thoughts which say that it is divisible.

You obviously can't say that it has to be a "special" experience in order to see that there are multiple things, because then you are saying that most of the time experience seems undivided, but when it is special, it suddenly turns into multiple things with definable edges.

It's only because **IN THE SHOW** sound seems to be associated with the ears of a dream character, and sensation seems to be associated with the body of the dream character, that thought says that those are two different types of stuff, and that one goes in though the ears, and one is felt by the body.

***BUT*** no such thing is happening, because the dream character is unaware of anything at all!!!

So that stuff is not coming in through ears, or being felt by a body.

ONLY thought says that is what is happening. And only thought says that it is different stuff being perceived through different senses.

And thought then names certain stuff sound and certain stuff sensation.

And then people like you say that sound is completely separate from sensation.

But really there is just this vroomouchyumm exactly as it is, and utterly undivided, until thought comes along.

So now that you understand just how DEEEEEPLY entrenched the idea of separation is, and you understand how thought ALONE is making those abstractions, and you know that, as I have said before, "direct experience" is experience with AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE of the thought story subtracted from it, I'll give you one last opportunity to explain to me where the dividing lines are in direct experience, and what it is that delineates them.

And do not just tell me that "they show up separately", because for them to do that, time would have to exist. So since they turn up together, I would like to know what it is IN DIRECT EXPERIENCE that separates *vroomouch* into *vroom* and *ouch*.
23 hours ago · Like · 2
Empty Mirror Kyle, please tell me what you mean by liberation, because you obviously are not using the word in the way that it is defined as.
23 hours ago · Like · 1
Soh First of all - thank you for taking time to write that detailed post.

EM: "You say you can see that, even though thought says that experience can be spit into a "perceiving" and a "perceived", it can not be.

But you are unable to see that when thought says that this can be split into seen, heard, smelled, felt, and tasted."

It seems that you haven't been following or somehow not understood what I was saying. Seen, heard, smell etc as separated categories are purely conventional designations, imputed labels, they have no independent existence/reality. I am not saying there exists many divided things. You are accusing me of holding views that I do not hold because of misunderstanding. Lots of your questions are asked based on assuming that I hold a position which I do not hold. e.g. "What would there be to tell you that lots of individual appearances are showing up??? " - I never said that there are lots of individual appearances

Em: "All you would know is this one big "show" of vroomvroomyummyummouchouch."

It's a seamless flow/display/experience. But I wouldn't go on to establish it as a "one thing" - just as "many things" are conventional designations and abstractions of thought, to say it is one thing is also a conventional designation and abstraction on vroomvroomyummyummouchouch. It's like seeing the flow of everchanging clouds, wind, rain etc and saying "it's all just one indivisible weather" - well, certainly, divisions of that weather into various parts and things are simply conventional, thought-constructed designations and abstractions so I won't argue with the fact that divisions are mind-made constructions, yet to say that it is "all just one entity - weather" is also another kind of abstraction, that "one weather" or the label "Weather" is itself a conventional designation on the flow of clouds-lightning-rain etc, an abstraction, that form of conventional designation and abstraction is useful perhaps for communication purposes but also could be misunderstood in a false, inherent way as if there is truly "one thing there" existing in itself. And likewise to establish many multiple things each having its own independent and separate existence is also another form of clinging and false view. I am ok with negative terms (terms that negate duality and inherent existence) - "indivisible", "seamless", "non-dual", "empty", etc - I am ok with experiential descriptions - "vroomyumouch", but I don't see "one/many/universal/individual" as anything other than mere thought-constructed abstractions or conventional descriptions.

Likewise to say seen-heard-sound etc or "vroomvroomyummyummouchouch" is actually a 'one thing' is also merely conventional description, and saying seen is a different object from heard etc are also conventional descriptions. There is no one thing, there is no many things... except as thought-constructed conventional designation on that pure manifest experience "vroomvroomyummyummouchouch"/"...."

In the direct, vivid-cognizant experience of "vroomvroomyummyummouchouch" - there is only "vroomvroomyummyummouchouch" - without establishing multiple objects, a singular object or subject, or any kind of knower or known/subject-object. That is how "I" see "vroomvroomyummyummouchouch"

EM: "Your confusion seems to stem from two beliefs. One is a belief in time, because you seem to have a fixation with the idea of "permanence" which is a concept PURELY based on a belief in time

And you also keep going on about "abiding" and "persisting" as if time really existed. "Abiding" and "persisting" DO NOT EXIST except as thought fluff."

I wonder where you get the notion that I'm fixated on permanence - instead I have always been deconstructing the false notion of permanence - of any kind at all. I speak of "thoroughgoing impermanence" - impermanence that is so complete, so thorough, that nothing is formed in the first place to be impermanent (or have an existence arising, abiding, and subsiding - which is a form of permanence disguised as impermanence). I no longer hold the view of a changeless atman-brahman, buddha-nature, god, awareness, etc etc for years. Zen Patriarch/Master Hui-Neng and Dogen says "Impermanence is Buddha-Nature", and I agree completely - though it is not "impermanence" in the way most people usually think (in terms of things transforming from one state to another which would imply an entity, time, arising/abiding/subsiding etc).

If it wasn't clear enough and I have been repeating this many times: there is no permanence, there is no abiding and no persisting nor anything being born for that matter. If you agree with this, good.

EM: "And your other belief is that concepts have the power to REALLY divide this into separate things.

They don't."

Yet another strawman accusation. The view and belief of inherent existence can be a magical and blinding perceptual spell that blinds and distorts one's vision of experience, like someone on drugs having hallucinations. But it cannot create anything actually existing. I never said concepts (actually more particularly: ignorance, false views) have power to divide or create actual things. They can certainly lead to delusions, grasping, mental afflictions, suffering, etc though.

EM: "Where, IN DIRECT EXPERIENCE, is the dividing line?"

Again, another question that falsely assumes that I hold views which I do not. I do not establish any sort of dividing line nor conceive of truly existing multiple objects (though I may use the conventions for pragmatic communication purpose just like the word "I") nor do I abstract experience into a single or universal entity. Direct experience is just direct experience or "vroomvroomyummyummouchouch".

EM: "And Soh, rain does need a "rainer".

No rain cloud = no rain."

When walking, scenery is totally exerted in seamless interdependence with my legs conventionally speaking, this total exertion being just a seamless activity/experience... yet it does not mean "my legs" are the controller of scenery.

Do you posit that seeing requires a seer, hearing requires a hearer etc? As I see it, in DE there is just seeing-seen without seer, knowing-known without knower.
18 hours ago · Edited · Like · 2
Vivi Bruun Jespersen Killing me softly ........
12 hours ago · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon Empty you do seem to be misunderstanding Soh. .
11 hours ago via mobile · Unlike · 2
Empty Mirror Soh, In your last reply, you are suddenly saying that there are no individual things that need linking, but in previous posts you were saying stuff like: "In DE I do not find any sort of persisting linkage, there is no linking or abiding or persisting self/Self/Here/Now and everything (vivid thought-vroom-ouch) just happens spontaneously, bubble-like, disjoint without any sort of linking ground"

So CLEARLY you were saying that DE had stuff that was "bubble-like and disjointed".

So naturally I was asking you how the "disjoint bubbles" were delineated.

You say: "I speak of 'thoroughgoing impermanence' - impermanence that is so complete, so thorough, that nothing is formed in the first place to be impermanent"

And AGAIN, "impermanence" immediately assumes that time really exists.

You yourself have said that there is only "experience".

"Experience" is neither permanent, nor impermanent, because for it to be EITHER of those, time would have to really exist.

Can you not see that?

And to say that "nothing is formed" is to deny "experience", but you have already sad that there is nothing but experience.

Then you ask: "Do you posit that seeing requires a seer, hearing requires a hearer etc?

My answer is, "no, of course not".

You then say: "As I see it, in DE there is just seeing-seen without seer, knowing-known without knower."

And I agree completely, that is why I continually say there is only knowingknown.

So my point is that since there is only knowingknown, if you know of this, "you" (that knows of this sentence and whatever else "experience"/"knowingknown" shows up as), can not possibly be other than, different to, or separate from "experience".

That doesn't mean that there is an individual, or anything separate here that knows anything - it simply means that experience is the knowing off itself (or if you prefer, that there is only knowing-known).

It seems that what you want to do is point out that the "you that knows of this" is an abstraction", and of course it is, but it is an abstraction that points DIRECTLY to the 'intimacy' of knowingknown. It points to the utter indivisibility of this that is the knowing of itself.

The term "knowing-known" or "perceiving-perceived" is JUST as much of an abstraction as saying "you that knows of this", but both point directly to the indivisibility of knowing and known.

And yes, all concepts are utterly empty abstractions. Concepts can only ever point. And they only ever point to DE or else to other thoughts.

You say: "The view and belief of inherent existence can be a magical and blinding perceptual spell "

And yes, a dream could be said to be complete illusion, and be said to have no "inherent reality", but that is utterly irrelevant.

Whether knowingknown is described as "dream" or "reality" is irrelevant.

It is irrelevant what descriptions it is given, because regardless of the description, it remains knowingknown.

And yes to say that it is "one" or "oneness" is also just a label, but it is a label that points directly to the indivisible nature of this "knowingknown".

You say: "Direct experience is just direct experience or "vroomvroomyummyummouchouch"

Yes, and it is the knowing of itself, or knowingknown if you prefer.
9 hours ago · Like · 2
Soh EM: "So naturally I was asking you how the "disjoint bubbles" were delineated."

Does the traceless drawing on a pond with finger needs delineation? Bubble-like is just a pointer to that - ephemeral, non-staying, traceless nature of everything, it doesn't imply arbitrary delineation. Or "Stainless" as this Zen teacher puts it - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2010/04/stainlessness.html (I like her other article as well which is more on the aspect of "Suchness" of manifestation without knower-known - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2010/04/tada.html - when complemented with 'Stainlessness' it is quite complete)

Disjoint bubble is just this spontaneous thought/sight/sound/etc, vividly clear yet traceless. If there were anything other than experience, persisting through time then there would be a basis for linking, but this is not the case.

EM: "And AGAIN, "impermanence" immediately assumes that time really exists.

You yourself have said that there is only "experience"."

My "impermanence" is not how "impermanence" is usually understood which assumes time as a container of things. That would be the dualistic kind of impermanence - as there needs to be entities being born in time, staying a bit in time, and then passing away in time. This kind of impermanence assumes that there are things are "passing away in time" and also implied is that "I" and "time" and "things" are different things. That is not the kind of impermanence I'm talking about.

The impermanence I'm talking about has no self-thing-time dichotomy, there is no birth/abiding/cessation, no duration, no time, i.e. nothing born as an entity, no entity having some duration/abiding and there is nothing "passing away in time". In the true experience of impermanence, timelessness is experienced in that complete and whole instant, there is no movement and no changing 'thing' (that is impermanence without 'changing thing' or 'things changing in time') and no "thing transforming from this to that" like firewood transforming into ashes. This does not contradict 'there is only experience'.

EM: "And to say that "nothing is formed" is to deny "experience", but you have already sad that there is nothing but experience."

What I meant by "nothing is formed" isn't a denial of natural formation/manifestation of experience but rejecting any birth of something truly existing, that could endure in time, then pass away, etc.

EM: "So my point is that since there is only knowingknown, if you know of this, "you" (that knows of this sentence and whatever else "experience"/"knowingknown" shows up as), can not possibly be other than, different to, or separate from "experience".

That doesn't mean that there is an individual, or anything separate here that knows anything - it simply means that experience is the knowing off itself (or if you prefer, that there is only knowing-known)."

Yes indeed.

EM: "It seems that what you want to do is point out that the "you that knows of this" is an abstraction", and of course it is, but it is an abstraction that points DIRECTLY to the 'intimacy' of knowingknown. It points to the utter indivisibility of this that is the knowing of itself."

As a conventional pointer to experience it is fine like the word "weather" is a convenient conventional designation. I agree there is complete intimacy - or a better word, gaplessness (as there is no you being intimate with something else - but intimacy is also a word I used sometimes).

The problem is that "You that knows of this" is often understood as or associated with any of those deluded notions of 1) inherent, independent existence 2) permanence 3) separateness 4) agency (controller/perceiver/etc). However seeing through all inherent and dualistic notions of self does not mean we can no longer make use of conventional designations of words like "I".

On the other hand, when telling my friends I meet in real life about non-duality, sometimes I just casually say things like "you aren't seeing the table, you are the table which is the seeing". That's just a very crude way of using conventions to describe non-duality in a rather dualistic manner and not really accurate in an ultimate sense but sometimes it's difficult to point any deeper unless they want to go deeper into it, which often isn't the case.

I also think it's better to say, there is no seer, just seeing-seen. In this way one isn't reinforcing the idea or notion of a Self on top of "everything" and even saying things like "I am Everything" is still a very crude way of talking when that there truly never was an "I" other than experience to begin with, imputing an "I" is truly seen as extraneous and unnecessary. If we are extremely clear about no-self and we are using "self" as mere conventions it is ok, but very often it is still associated with a sense of inherently existing I, resulting in a strong attachment and reification of a metaphysical essence - an absolute non-dual Self - something absolute and changeless being "inseparable from everything" despite recognizing nondual and if one interpretes non-dual experience in terms of "I" and a dualistic paradigm it can strengthen the seed/imprint of an "I" in an endless loop.

If we understand that there is no knower or you-that-knows what is, and ever just knowing which is what's known, or vroomyumouch, then it would be unnecessary to even relate back to a "you/that which knows" and try to bridge the gap or link it to vroomyumouch. Even to speak of "inseparability" would be unnecessary at that point. A dualistic paradigm to understand non-duality isn't necessary when no-self and emptiness insight replaces all our false dualistic/inherent paradigm and view. This leads to release, complete effortlessness, no attempt to re-confirm a "Self" (like seeing something and then subtly reconfirming "I am that, I am everything" etc - another form of delusion, clinging and contrivance - and I speak from experience because I have faced this problem before), and natural vivid and self-luminous experience (vroomyumouch) clean of any traces of "self/Self" holding.
Like · · August 10, 2013 at 7:02pm

    Sage Lee One, Arthur Deller, Kyle Dixon and 6 others like this.
    Viorica Doina Neacsu OMG! OMFG! When happened ? hahahahha! I haven't yet read your post but i can imagine.... omg!
    August 10, 2013 at 7:15pm · Edited · Like
    Soh It's still an ongoing discussion
    August 10, 2013 at 7:15pm · Like · 1
    Soh Almost got kicked out, lol
    August 10, 2013 at 7:15pm · Like · 1
    Viorica Doina Neacsu hahahahahha! I come there to see! hahahaha
    August 10, 2013 at 7:16pm · Like
    Soh Hi Torsten H. J√łns, not sure what are you saying here. Proof of what?
    August 10, 2013 at 7:44pm · Like
    Soh Ah think I know what you mean.
    August 10, 2013 at 7:48pm · Like
    Soh Yes indeed.. and not only experienced as a lack of proof. The drop of a belief through clear seeing eliminates the need for proof when it is seen that a separate, inherently existing self is baseless and conjured illusions like rabbits with horns. Once you see through those illusions, you no longer need proof for their existence (e.g. proof of rabbits with horns, proof of santa claus, proof of "a self", etc)
    August 10, 2013 at 7:51pm · Edited · Like · 1
    Viorica Doina Neacsu Soh... i have a honest question... why are you doing that? ... he can't hear you... he can't hear even himself.... when i read his comments, involuntary i am doubting impermanence... hahahahaha! ... it is possible to read again and again the same comments/story ? ... for three years? ... or is just my imagination....
    August 10, 2013 at 8:52pm · Edited · Like
    Soh lol
    August 10, 2013 at 9:01pm · Like
    Soh Was just spontaneous response to his questions and statements..
    August 10, 2013 at 9:02pm · Edited · Like · 4
    Viorica Doina Neacsu Well, what about some compassion? ... let him be.... look how many people are happy because HoM.... for me HoM was an interesting phenomenon... i was curious to see what "direction" will take, because being against Ilona couldn't work forever... I am sad to say that it looks like a "cult".... If you don't have the right words, the right answers, they kick you out... i stopped long time ago reading threads or commenting in HoM because there is too much aggressivity and i am shocked that people are accepting this kind of treatment... otherwise, outside that group, he is a great guy...
    August 10, 2013 at 9:17pm · Unlike · 2
    Soh House of Mirrors - its a group by Empty Mirror (but has many admins who supposedly realized what he realized and are actively guiding others), a sort of neo-advaita kind of group focused on these few points:

    1. There is nothing but experience. Do you find anything other than experience here????

    2. There is no division between "knowing" and "known". They are one and the same thing. This that IS, is the knowingknown. Are you able to separate a thought from the knowing of it? If so, where is the dividing line?

    3. You are this knowingknown. Are you aware of this sentence? If you are, then how could you be anything other than this knowingknown?
    August 10, 2013 at 10:32pm · Edited · Like · 1
    Soh It is where the discussion I had with EM took place.
    August 10, 2013 at 10:33pm · Like
    Viorica Doina Neacsu Hi Andrew! Empty Mirror has been a LU member (not for long time) and he was kicked out from LU by Ilona for many reasons... Because Ilona is a kind person she created the group HoM as a gift for Empty and his followers. If LU target is direct enquiry into illusion of the "I", HoM is about DE (direct experience which means five senses) and the illusion of "others".
    August 10, 2013 at 10:59pm · Unlike · 1
    Viorica Doina Neacsu I just read that thread, Soh... looks like you are exposing an orange in french language and he is exposing the same orange in german language... and the orange is not the same orange... Well, you are talking in "emptiness" language and he is talking i...See More
    August 10, 2013 at 11:15pm · Unlike · 2
    Neony Karby I was in HoM and got kicked because I answered questions honestly. Weird.
    August 10, 2013 at 11:40pm · Like · 2
    Louis Pettit I read through the post. This material has to be realized in meditation before it seems relevant. You can explain this stuff until you're blue in the face, but only when you meditate regularly and directly perceive this stuff does it hold merit to the person being indoctrinated.
    August 11, 2013 at 12:40am · Like · 2
    Mason Spransy That thread gave me a headache. Those folks have a pretty big grudge against thinking. I would ask them: what are the conditions that make thought possible? If all experience is just One knowing-known "This", and has always been so, what is the origin of thought?

    My answer: (deluded) thought arises due to attachment to either equality or differentiation, both of which are completely unified in actual experience. The people on that group are strongly attached to the equality aspect of experience though, and have therefore created the "thought-story" that is Hall of Mirrors. Emptiness and DO is precisely the medicine they need - but that medicine, also, is nothing but a useful thought.
    August 11, 2013 at 1:08am · Like · 1
    Louis Pettit Non-dualism vs. Qualified Dualism. This argument has been going on for centuries.
    August 11, 2013 at 1:20am · Like · 2
    Arthur Deller Soh, I did get kicked out, but left before the shoe hit my ass. I was actually very clear on what EM is saying, but as I went deeper, and insight through inquiry revealed that nothing is ever happening, and direct experience is tied to supposed eventing that is then filtered through a cognizer of the events.

    You are only there for conversion processing. Enjoy the ride. I applaud your fortitude.
    August 11, 2013 at 1:48am · Like · 3
    Soh Yeah exactly..

    Neony: I answered his questions too, but it wasn't to his liking earlier and he doesn't seem to get what I meant
    August 11, 2013 at 11:31am · Like
    Arthur Deller He doesn't get what you meant, because its filtered through what he means for you to hear.
    August 11, 2013 at 11:41am · Unlike · 3
    Menno Wendy Baks always confusion in the human realm
    August 11, 2013 at 12:23pm · Like
    Menno Wendy Baks relying on words is never the route to take ... mantra is another issue ... i always try to give humans the benefit of the doubt ... in other words thousands if chances
    August 11, 2013 at 12:27pm · Like
    Menno Wendy Baks each human like snowflakes are unique but together a snowfall
    just a metaphor ... mmmmmm
    August 11, 2013 at 12:29pm · Like
    Menno Wendy Baks i am wondering if any of you know what " gossip " is from a dharmic point of view ...l
    August 11, 2013 at 12:37pm · Like · 1
    Sage Lee One Very good explanations Soh
    August 11, 2013 at 10:34pm · Like
    Viorica Doina Neacsu Torsten, you have delete your comments ? ... interesting....
    August 12, 2013 at 2:06am · Edited · Like · 1
    Viorica Doina Neacsu Menno, i don't know what "gossip" is from a dharmic point of view... would be kind of you to tell us, please don't let us in ignorance Thank you.
    August 12, 2013 at 2:08am · Like · 1

No comments:

Post a Comment