[Christian]

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.095.than.html

One of Bahiya Sutta type with quick way to attaining Nibbana (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html)

Now we need to fix errors of English translation to be really effective. I’m trying to make better sense so I hope Lal can be helpful here.

“Malunkyaputta, when there is worthlessness(seeing that it will not make you happy or satisfy you long term) in connection with that. When there is worthlessness(seeing that it will not make you happy or satisfy you long term) in connection with that, there is ? there. When there is ? there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress.”

I kind off know what to put there (by my own words) but I will be nice to have correct Pali translation there.

[Lal]

Here is the original paragraph from the sutta link that Christian provided:

“Then, Malunkyaputta, with regard to phenomena to be seen, heard, sensed, or cognized: 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. That is how you should train yourself. 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, Malunkyaputta, 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.”

This is a very deep sutta that needs a lot of explanation. As Christian pointed out, those verses are also in the Bahiya Sutta.

“diṭṭhe diṭṭhamattaṃ bhavissati” needs a lot of explanation by itself. But it is translated as just one sentence in English: “In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen” (indicated in bold above).

If pressed into translating it to a single English sentence, I would say: “What is seen is only a picture (like that taken from a camera)”. But in practice, we “see” much more than that: We see ” an attractive person, a friend, an enemy, etc”. In other words, our gati are AUTOMATICALLY taken into account via our relationship with the object that we see.
– This is why two people may “see” the same object “differently”: one may “see” person X as “friend” and the other may “see” the same person X as “enemy”.

This is what is explained in the recent post: “Amazingly Fast Time Evolution of a Thought (Citta)“.

One really needs to think deep in order to grasp the meaning of this sutta.

If one is interested in looking deeper, the following posts could be helpful too:
First read: “Difference Between Rupa and Rupakkhandha“, and then

“Pancakkhandha or Five Aggregates – A Misinterpreted Concept“.
– One should especially watch the “Animation Video” section there.

When one gets rid of one’s defilements (lobha, dosa, moha), one’s gati will also go away, and then what one “sees” would really be “what one has seen”, i.e., there is no attachment, no revulsion (anger), no ignorance (avijja) involved.
– Of course, one cannot get there quickly, like Ven. Bahiya in the Bahiya Sutta was able to. Buddha said Ven. Bahiya was the quickest person to grasp Dhamma concepts.
– Rather, especially these days, it is a step-by-step process: “Is It Necessary for a Buddhist to Eliminate Sensual Desires?“.

Therefore, it is not easy to grasp the message embedded in that verse above. But if one can, then one would gain a deeper understanding.

[Christian]

Thank you for confirmation. It’s great to see that Dhamma is ONE (one understanding) and you just confirmed what I thought (which happen all the time).

What I practice now (and which works the most) is seeing things without craving or any allotment on that object while observing the process of Paticca Samupadda which can be actually seen.

Seeing things without unwholesome ideas and thoughts/perception towards the 6 senses.

I can tell that even if it’s not possible to see it for most people like Ven. Bahiya you can definitely train it as Buddha explained so when you encounter things you will not develop unwholesome qualities.

[y not]

“our gati are AUTOMATICALLY taken into account via our RELATIONSHIP with the object that we see.”

It does not even have to be a relationship with that person or object. That person or object may act only as a trigger. For instance, we may be attracted to an object because it resembles one we were in contact with or possessed before. Yes ,gati comes in just the same.

It becomes more complex when it comes to persons. We are attracted or repulsed by something about a person, and immediately a person we actually know in this life may come to mind. It may well turn out to be that person in fact. If a real person does not come to mind, then it will be that we knew some one with a like physical feature or characteristic in past lives.

I see this happening mostly in relationships. Speaking now as a man, we have this ‘dream girl’ image built over many lives. This is how I see it. But what normally happens is that when we meet a woman with something of that dream girl about her, we at once project ALL of the dream girl onto her. Now we expect the woman to live up to that dream girl image; but, of course, the woman is real, not a dream; she can never fulfill those expectations. You will try to ‘make adjustments’ to her to conform to that image; on her part, if she is intent on pursuing the relationship further, she will try to adjust. But it cannot work. The only way for it to work is for both to accept the reality of the other as he and she is and make the best of it.

Then there is the case of ‘recognition’ rather than of projection. We KNOW ‘at first sight’ that we know that person (“our gati are AUTOMATICALLY taken into account via our RELATIONSHIP with the object that we see.”). Here the gati of both are involved; in the case of projection, for the most part it is the gati of the one doing most of the projection. If now you ask me, how to tell one kind of attraction from the other: one can tell, but not to another.

I wonder how others see this.

[Author]

Posts