Mapping query: Bahiya Sutta realization on-demand?

Is anyone on here able to access a clear realization of the Bahiya Sutta ("In the seeing, only the seen") on-demand from an unconcentrated state?

If so, I was thinking this might be an interesting mapping data point.

I am not able to access a clear realization of this on-demand, more like a soft imputed version of it that relies on the memory of past clear realization.

"Is anyone on here able to access a clear realization of the Bahiya Sutta ("In the seeing, only the seen") on-demand from an unconcentrated state?

"

If the translation is more like Thanissaro's and Ireland's translation of the passage in question (quotes from access to insight)

diṭṭhe diṭṭhamattaṃ bhavissati, sute sutamattaṃ bhavissati, mute mutamattaṃ bhavissati, viññāte viññātamattaṃ bhavissati

Thanissaro Bhikkhu:
'In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized.'

John Ireland:
'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.'

I see possible practice and experiential differences between 'in the seeing, only the seen' VS 'In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen' or 'In the seen will be merely what is seen '. I've heard others argue the former translation can lead to an eternally disembedded/equanimous witness like experience, whereas the latter avoids this completely. There is just seen, no seeing in seen, just seen. It may depend on how one reads and interpretes it.

Seeing + seen = ?
Just the seen=just the seen

The latter two translations are what I can experience when the mind intends to these days but it is not permanent shift yet. Access to the experience of just the seen, cognised, heard and sensed became much , much easier to access like jhanas did for 1st after the last shift in April.

Thank you for the clarification Nikolai. "Just the seen=just the seen" would be the experience I am talking about.

Was there any particular practice that you would point to bringing about the April shift? Did anything in particular disappear in April?

"Thank you for the clarification Nikolai. "Just the seen=just the seen" would be the experience I am talking about.

Was there any particular practice that you would point to bringing about the April shift? Did anything in particular disappear in April?"

A lack of ability to do so dropped away. Also the attention wave/bounce/flickering dropped away. No sublte sense of fluffy weird 'selfing' in the back of the head to jump to and give an impression of a subtle 'seer' residual (shadow). Now the difference is a sort of mental 'fog', but not quite as 'foggy' as one might imagine, but the difference when I think its 'only the seen' is that that sublte 'fog' or lack of clarity, is not there at all.

"Is anyone on here able to access a clear realization of the Bahiya Sutta ("In the seeing, only the seen") on-demand from an unconcentrated state?

If so, I was thinking this might be an interesting mapping data point.

I am not able to access a clear realization of this on-demand, more like a soft imputed version of it that relies on the memory of past clear realization."

I don't have an answer to this, but by coincidence, I read this sutta today and had a laugh-out-loud moment. The suttas are full of stories of people who hear the dhamma for the first time and attain instant, full enlightenment, so I naturally assumed that's where the story was going.

Nope! Killed by a cow.

Um...I really like the bahiya sutta. I had a major, lasting shift in perception while reciting the lines in my head. But, is "in the seeing, just the seen", just another perspective or is it absolute? I don't know that anyone will be able to answer that, but assuming that it's an absolute, and taking it at a practical level, why is there a variety of things that can be seen depending upon which body we inhabit. Why am I seeing this screen as I type while you are reading. I like the Buddha's supposed admonition to question everything, even the Buddha himself, so I offer this in that spirit, more out of my own desire to learn than to offer a point of view.

"Was there any particular practice that you would point to bringing about the April shift? "

Here is what I did:

I worked on juxtaposing the experience of being/me-ness with aspects of the field of experience that were not of such compositions, i.e. perceptions of space, nothingness and neutral sensations in the body. Doing this led to the dropping away of a major portion of 'being' as part of the ongoing experience. But a shadowy version remained. This then dropped in April after attending to the periphery of perception, learning how to drop the objectification of aspects of the field of experience (via floater practice), and more juxtaposing the shadow being with other aspects of the field of experience that were seen to not be a conditioning factor in the compounding of shadow being. When this juxtaposing was done, it interrupted the attention wave/flickering/bounce which seemed to be the main factor in the arising of a sense of 'me-ness'/being. Attention was being pulled to that which had weight. There were other aspects of experience that where being given weight, and this giving of weight within the mind, holding in a certain way, would be seen to be simultaneously co-arising with a sense of 'being'/exisiting/me-ness. When this weight was let go of, the holding let go of, via allowing such phenomena to be seen with other phenomena that was NOT being held onto nor given weight, this acted like an interference signal. Any weight dropped away and the underlying phenomena that now had no weight was 'just the seen'. The attention had nowhere then to bounce. Doing this continuously led to the bounce reducing and then apparently ceasing or at least to the point it appears very differently. The result of 'giving weight' has changed over the past few years. These changes occured all due to the same practice in hindsight. I was unwittingly juxtaposing when I got 1st path, 4th path, and subsequent shifts.

Self (very solid) > Self (seen as not solid, fluff, empty but still experienced as sort of solid) > Self now centreless presence/sense of being > Gross sticky-free sense of being collapses but leaves shadowy residual > Shadow drops but leave strange subtle mental fog which appears very clear and PCE-like but juxtaposed with seen in the seen, is seen to be the 'sublte mental fog'.

All born of the attention bounce. Even the subtle fog I mentioned is a very subtle and not so obvious movement of mind that moves away from seen in seen. But it isn't like the attention bounce was before. It is virtually not there and such things as refracted light becomes quite detailed as the ongoing perception is unflickering and unmoving. Rainbows within rainbows as there is now no automatic diverting from seeing non-stop unmovingly. Thus seen in the seen is uninterrupted by the bounce.

The mind gives weight to some aspect of experience if there is a sense of 'me-ness' or any of the residual manifestations of such compounding as described above. That is my experience. Something is not being seen i.e. the giving of weight or holding of some aspect of experience in a certain way mentally. A mental overlay condition by a belief/view (subtle mental holding thus giving 'shape/form' and 'name' to an aspect of experience i.e. objectification). This, depending on baseline, gives rise to a subjective like experience (even if it does not appear so) that establishes a relationship with a perceived 'object'. Thus the attention bounce, subjective-like composition bounce, object bounce, subject bounce, object bounce, bounce, bounce, bounce. If there is no relationship, holding, giving of weight in place, there is no bounce, no subjective-like experience to relate to the object, no being, no shadow being, no mental fog. Just the amazingly clear and freeing just the seen.

thehamiltonproject.blogspot.com.au/2011/...ualizing-jhanas.html
thehamiltonproject.blogspot.com.au/2012/...peripherycentre.html
thehamiltonproject.blogspot.com.au/2012/...oolbox-floaters.html
thehamiltonproject.blogspot.com.au/2012/...tion-atammayata.html

"Why am I seeing this screen as I type while you are reading. I like the Buddha's supposed admonition to question everything, even the Buddha himself, so I offer this in that spirit, more out of my own desire to learn than to offer a point of view. -WF566163"

Hey WF,
I don't mean to sound dismissive, and in one way I sometimes find such inquiries helpful, and in other ways, I really like the approach I understand from this sutta I really like called Sabbasava Sutta, specifically this part:

[cont]

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine '” the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions '” is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress."
www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html

"Um...I really like the bahiya sutta. I had a major, lasting shift in perception while reciting the lines in my head. But, is "in the seeing, just the seen", just another perspective or is it absolute? I don't know that anyone will be able to answer that, but assuming that it's an absolute, and taking it at a practical level, why is there a variety of things that can be seen depending upon which body we inhabit. Why am I seeing this screen as I type while you are reading. I like the Buddha's supposed admonition to question everything, even the Buddha himself, so I offer this in that spirit, more out of my own desire to learn than to offer a point of view. "

Absolute, absoshmoot. Does it lead to the end of all mental stress? Oh, absolute, does your recognition lead to the end of all mental stress? Does training the mind for in reference to the seen, only the seen lead to the end of stress?

Depends on ones objective I guess and concept of 'absolute'. To experience some 'absolute' or the end of stress? I think the Buddha (at least the one that may have given instructions to Bahiya) was quite explicit in what the instructions where aimed at.

"When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress." END OF QUOTE

Doesn't seem fussed to mention an 'absolute'....absoshmoot.

Nick

Edit: i can personally vouch for the efficacy of such a training of mind if the end of stress is the objective. If an 'absolute' is the objective, I do not know.

"The suttas are full of stories of people who hear the dhamma for the first time and attain instant, full enlightenment, so I naturally assumed that's where the story was going.

Nope! Killed by a cow. - apperception"

apperpcetion: Actually I think this sutta matches the standard you described:
"Through hearing this brief explanation of the Dhamma from the Blessed One, the mind of Bāhiya of the Bark-cloth right then and there was released from effluents through lack of clinging/sustenance. Having exhorted Bāhiya of the Bark-cloth with this brief explanation of the Dhamma, the Blessed One left. "

The cow came after the release

@ Yadid: Not dismissive. Thank you.
@ Nikolai: Thank you. I like the singleness of aim.

Bill: There is also something...unavoidable...about "just the seen = just the seen". It is just raw experience happening. The only other thing that I have "experienced" was the seeming lack of or gap in experience. I have not read any descriptions of anyone having an experience outside of the experience/non-experience set. Within this raw experience, we can of course have infinitely complex information and objects that appear, but even when experience is completely unintelligible nonsense, it still seems to be experience.

When I have had my most clear experiences of "just the seen = just the seen", it is unfathomable that there is any "deeper" to go, other than possibly the total non-experience that I anticipate occurs at death.

It seems to be a very useful "lens" or perspective on the basic functioning of this human experience.

Bill: Can you access this on-demand?

Justin: i Gave it a shot. Yeah, I can access it on demand, but not for prolongued periods. I don't think. Maybe I'll try. I haven't tried to access anything for a while. It seemed like the mind just knew/knows even now as I type how to get there. I don't know of anything to offer beyond that in the way of methods. There's no "wow" to it anymore, whereas upon first discovering it felt like stepping into an alien land or the lifting of the veil. And it certainly is useful!
I understand what you mean about there seeming to be not any deeper to go and perhaps when it comes to having an unadulterated objective experience there isn't. Maybe there is and we'll stumble deeper into something else. It certainly does feel like the height of purity, but if I talk about it and say this is the truth, then it becomes just another perspective. I've grown tired of perspectives and anytime I (I wish I could capitalize I to express this is only my experience) have found a place that seems to be "IT" in my practice, I create a division that turns into a sort of inner turmoil. Lately I like to just relax, allow the self to arise, allow it to quickly dissipate and allow the experience of non-self. I have not perfected this, but it feels most natural to me now. #****

Bill: I completely understand your sentiment.

My guess is that many of the quite awake people can access this on-demand, so it feels like there might be some mapping value in this.

"I understand what you mean about there seeming to be not any deeper to go and perhaps when it comes to having an unadulterated objective experience there isn't. "

I've been wondering about this lately. Perhaps there is a blind-spot in this extreme focus on objectification? When we focus so much on observing, what happens to doing and creating?

" Perhaps there is a blind-spot in this extreme focus on objectification? When we focus so much on observing, what happens to doing and creating?"

Yes. I am grateful that I was as goal-oriented as I was, but at this point I can't ignore the feeling that setting up an ideal will inevitably lead to a "blind spot" as you aptly put it. In a recent conversation with Antero he asked about where I felt this movement was headed and the path for me is becoming more about naturalness. Simply showing up as a human being and allowing myself to be moved by whatever is occuring rather than working towards anything. It feels like a big relief. And utterly unspecial or spiritual. Just alive.

"Simply showing up as a human being and allowing myself to be moved by whatever is occuring rather than working towards anything. It feels like a big relief. And utterly unspecial or spiritual. Just alive.
- WF566163
"

Well put, Bill! This is exactly how it feels for me too. So much striving and manipulation to realize that there is no need to do anything, except to pay attention.

Thanks, Antero. Hope things are well:)