Bahiya Sutta

[Rick O'Shez]

I was looking again at this well-known passage from the Bahiya Sutta, and pondering the distinction between being "with that" and "in that". Is this describing different degrees of involvement and identification with sense-objects?


"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: '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.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.
"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."

Bahiya Sutta: About Bahiya

Alternate translations:
Bāhiya Sutta: Bāhiya
Ud 1.10: The Discourse about Bāhiya (English) - Udāna - SuttaCentral

 

[von bek]

I was looking again at this well-known passage from the Bahiya Sutta, and pondering the distinction between being "with that" and "in that". Is this describing different degrees of involvement and identification with sense-objects?


"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: '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.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.
"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."

Bahiya Sutta: About Bahiya

Alternate translations:
Bāhiya Sutta: Bāhiya
Ud 1.10: The Discourse about Bāhiya (English) - Udāna - SuttaCentral

Here is my view. I think both are relating to how we construct identity in reference to sense objects. "With that" is referring to grasping sense objects as belonging to self. "In that" is referring to grasping sense objects as the self.

 

[von bek]

To give an example of the distinction, look briefly at the mind sense-base. One could take her thoughts and view them as objects that belong to a self. Or, one could take his thoughts as being the self directly. Both views are erroneous to the Buddha's POV. He constantly warns us against both conceiving things as being self or as belonging to self. In the Mulapariyaya Sutta, the Buddha constantly repeats this idea to demonstrate that all the elements, aggregates, and sense-bases fail to qualify as having anything to do with a self or as a root source for phenomena.

"The Tathagata — a worthy one, rightly self-awakened — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you.

Mulapariyaya Sutta: The Root Sequence

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Here is my view. I think both are relating to how we construct identity in reference to sense objects. "With that" is referring to grasping sense objects as belonging to self. "In that" is referring to grasping sense objects as the self.

So basically the distinction between mine and me? Or perhaps drawing experiences close and then being "in" them?

 

[von bek]

So basically the distinction between mine and me? Or perhaps drawing experiences close and then being "in" them?

In my reading, the former.

 

[von bek]

In fact, I might go so far as to say that viewing things as "mine" may be even more harmful than viewing things as "me". It may be splitting hairs; but, almost all of the violence in this world can be traced back to someone, somewhere constructing an identity in reference to sense-objects as possessions. (i.e. MY land, MY money, MY resources, MY freedom...)

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In my reading, the former.

One of the alternate translations uses the phrasing below, which seems to imply that the subject ( "me" ) fades when there is an exclusive focus on the sense-object. Like an absorption into the object?

"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."
Bāhiya Sutta: Bāhiya

 

[Aupmanyav]

"not with that": the view that one is more than aggregate of of skandhas.
"not in that": holding that kind of view.

 

[von bek]

One of the alternate translations uses the phrasing below, which seems to imply that the subject ( "me" ) fades when there is an exclusive focus on the sense-object. Like an absorption into the object?

"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."
Bāhiya Sutta: Bāhiya

Personally, I still read that as saying the same thing. Saying, "there is no you in connection with that", is talking about mine. When there is no perception of mine anywhere, there is no me that can be constructed.

 

[sampuna]

I was looking again at this well-known passage from the Bahiya Sutta, and pondering the distinction between being "with that" and "in that". Is this describing different degrees of involvement and identification with sense-objects?

I believe it is. From "mine" to "me". A very interesting discussion

 

[sampuna]

When there is no perception of mine anywhere, there is no me that can be constructed.

true, I understand it as exactly just this

 

[von bek]

One of the alternate translations uses the phrasing below, which seems to imply that the subject ( "me" ) fades when there is an exclusive focus on the sense-object. Like an absorption into the object?

"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."
Bāhiya Sutta: Bāhiya

And to add to my earlier reply, I do not think that letting seeing simply be seeing in of itself constitutes absorption in the jhanic sense. Instead, it (letting seeing simply be seeing) is being mindful of the sense bases.

This is about sati instead of samadhi. In both cases the sense of self is gone. In the case of samadhi, it is suppressed due to jhana. In sati, it is exposed as false because all phenomena are recognized as void of self. That is my take, at least.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Personally, I still read that as saying the same thing. Saying, "there is no you in connection with that", is talking about mine. When there is no perception of mine anywhere, there is no me that can be constructed.

Yes, well put. Though it seems chicken and egg, because doesn't the perception of mine arise as a result of self-view ( "me" )?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

This is about sati instead of samadhi. In both cases the sense of self is gone. In the case of samadhi, it is suppressed due to jhana. In sati, it is exposed as false because all phenomena are recognized as void of self. That is my take, at least.

Yes, I think you're right. I was looking at the verses which follow the same passage in SN35:
Malunkyaputta Sutta: To Malunkyaputta

"Seeing a form — mindfulness lapsed — attending to the theme of 'endearing,' impassioned in mind, one feels and remains fastened there.
One's feelings, born of the form, grow numerous,
Greed & annoyance injure one's mind. Thus amassing stress, one is said to be far from Unbinding."

 

[von bek]

Yes, well put. Though it seems chicken and egg, because doesn't the perception of mine arise as a result of self-view ( "me" )?

Yes, the two are mutually dependent. This is one of the things the Buddha tries to drive home throughout the discourses, what we call a self is in fact a dynamic process that arises in relationship with sense objects. Because there is self-view, sense objects are viewed as possessions. On the flip side, one of the foundations of this sense of self lies in a belief that there is a possessor of what the senses reveal. (i.e., Who is it that thinks, if not a Thinker?) In this way, "mine-making" produces "I-making." Because seeing is only possible when objects are seen, and thinking is only possible when ideas are being thought, self-view will always arise in dependence upon sense objects of some kind. This means that "I-making" will always come about in dependence upon asserting certain physical or mental phenomena as belonging to it. And, the very reason this ignorant assertion of ownership comes about is because these objects are viewed without mindfulness, meaning, what is impermanent is viewed wrongly as permanent, what is unsatisfactory is wrongly viewed as satisfactory, and what is not-self is wrongly viewed as self or as belonging to self. So, "me" and "mine" travel together and give each other encouragement.

 

[von bek]

More simply put, when hearing is simply hearing, it is revealed that there is no Hearer separate from the experience itself. There is the internal ear-base, the sound, and the auditory consciousness arising from the contact of the other two.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

More simply put, when hearing is simply hearing, it is revealed that there is no Hearer separate from the experience itself. There is the internal ear-base, the sound, and the auditory consciousness arising from the contact of the other two.

Yes, and I think that's why the sense-bases are included in the fourth frame of mindfulness, focussing attention on the actual experience of seeing, hearing, and so on.

 

[atanu]

I was looking again at this well-known passage from the Bahiya Sutta, and pondering the distinction between being "with that" and "in that". Is this describing different degrees of involvement and identification with sense-objects?


"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: '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.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.
"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."

Bahiya Sutta: About Bahiya

Alternate translations:
Bāhiya Sutta: Bāhiya
Ud 1.10: The Discourse about Bāhiya (English) - Udāna - SuttaCentral

I think the following metaphor approximates the situation the best. Moon is not one with its many reflections seen in a puddle, nor is it in a reflected moon seen in the puddle.

 

[atanu]

Where neither water nor yet earth Nor fire nor air gain a foothold, There gleam no stars, no sun sheds light, There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns. When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this For himself through his own wisdom, Then he is freed from form and formless. Freed from pleasure and from pain.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Where neither water nor yet earth Nor fire nor air gain a foothold, There gleam no stars, no sun sheds light, There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns. When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this For himself through his own wisdom, Then he is freed from form and formless. Freed from pleasure and from pain.

So what do you think that means?