Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Seeing only the seen
DairyLama
Veteran Veteran
in Philosophy
Thanks to taiyaki for posting the passage below recently in another thread, I thought it might be worth discussing.
A question which springs to mind is: How does one train oneself to see only the seen? And is this related to the teachings on not regarding the aggregates as self?
"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: 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, 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."[2]
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html
A question which springs to mind is: How does one train oneself to see only the seen? And is this related to the teachings on not regarding the aggregates as self?
"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: 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, 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."[2]
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html
0
Comments
Adding the what if's, or what not's, to the reality of the observation.
Accept them for what they are.
But that's just my take on it.
"I understand in detail, lord, the meaning of what the Blessed One has said in brief:
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."
So let me experientially kind of describe what is being implied and revealed.
In seeing just the seen, no seer.
Seeing the process or verb is due to conditions. What conditions? Working eye sense organ, sense object, contact and mental attention. These conditions are all in play when there is what we call seeing. But seeing is exactly the colors, shapes and forms.
We in our typical dualistic way of seeing the world view seeing like this: I am here seeing the world out there. So there is a contraction behind the eyes then the process or verb seeing or rather the eyes seeing the world out there. This is the subject/object duality proposed by ignorance of clinging onto reference points of the selfhood of the self and phenomenal world.
When we examine our perceptions we find that they are empty. For instance with practice we can recognize that there is in fact no distance between the seer and the seen. This is bringing the seen into the seer as a sense of oneness. But even this further can be penetrated with the wisdom the selflessness. The seer can be deconstructed.
What is left is no subjects and no objects. Just the visual consciousness as color not as a thing but as a flow or processes of conditions. And in fact seeing always this zero dimensional, flat, centerless colors, shapes, and forms. Completely hallow, yet appearing like a mirage. The self and objects were just inferences created by clinging to a form of attention and thoughts.
Another way we can approach this is the function of clinging. We can see with greed and aversion that we solidify the apparent forms and even the subject. We can solidify the apparent in here verse out there. Or the boundaries. Or the sense of time, location and assumed subjects and objects. Then we can let go of clinging and see how all these assumed things just drop away and what is left is emptiness. So there is a very important insight here. The insight is that the world is built by our perception which in turn are built by our clinging. The world fades if we drop clinging by seeing directly the voicelessness of phenomena and self.
But that is a more gradual insight and takes much time to digest because its implications are deep and profound.
The immediate insight is apparent regardless of how ignorant we are. If we pay attention in a moment there is only color. There is only these BLACK LETTERS appearing on the computer screen. It is all happening as a process of conditions. For instance there is attention, contact there is an eye sense organ and the object of eyes. Then bam we get the effect of eye consciousness or the knowing of the eye sense. So this color has nothing to do with us. Nothing to do with things. It is the very suchness the buddha talked about. When this appearances is grasped with ignorance we get suffering. When this appearance is seen with wisdom then it is liberation.
Another thing we can notice, which is getting more into depth but I'll throw it out there. Is the dislink between the sense themselves and even within the senses.
For instance thought has nothing to do with the color. Or the color has nothing to do with taste.
But then we go into the taste. The taste is always singular. Then another taste. Each taste is linked and chained through memory but it always just one instant of taste then the next. They have nothing to do with each other.
Even thought, etc.
When we look and examine the world is completely void, selfless, yet uninterrupted in its appearance. Arising due to conditions, passing due to conditions. Having nothing to do with things, thus who, where and when do not apply. Even notions of being and non being do not apply to this world of suchness.
Here is a fun quote for you:
"Whatever we see, it is not I, not me, nor a man, not a woman. In the eye, there is just color. It arises and passes away. So who is seeing the object? There is no seer in the object. Then how is the object seen? On account of certain causes. What are the causes? Eyes are one cause; they must be intact, in good order. Second, object or color must come in front of the eyes, must reflect on the retina of the eyes. Third, there must be light. Fourth, there must be attention, a mental factor. If those four causes are present, then there arises a knowing faculty called eye consciousness. If any one of the causes is missing, there will not be any seeing. If eyes are blind, no seeing. If there is no light, no seeing. If there is no attention, no seeing. But none of the causes can claim, "I am the seer." They're just constantly arising and passing.
As soon as it passes away, we say, "I am seeing." You are not seeing; you are just thinking, "I am seeing." This is called conditioning. Because our mind is conditioned, when we hear the sound, we say, "I am hearing." But there is no hearer waiting in the car to hear the sound. Sound creates a wave, and, when it strikes against the eardrum, ear consciousness is the effect. Sound is not a man, nor a woman; it is just a sound that arises and passes away. But, according to our conditioning, we say, "That woman is singing and I am hearing." But you're not hearing, you are thinking, "I am hearing." Sound is already heard and gone. There is no "I" who heard the sound; it is the world of concept. Buddha discovered this in the physical level, in the mental level: how everything is happening without an actor, without a doer - empty phenomenon go rolling on."
-Munindra.
He would say "so your car got towed and you have worries". Sort of cutting out the neurosis to the actual status of the problem.
I think that may be a part of that quote.
Smell affects taste also by the way and mind sense affects all of the senses. The Buddha did not know the modern scientific advances. Nonetheless buddhism is about relief of suffering and even an inaccurate, scientifically, point of view could possibly help liberate a person.
That doesn't deny function but it really makes things magical.
We should all have our jaws dropped on the floor of we intuit what dependent origination is implying.
In the Maha Sattipatthana Sutta it is said that after a week of practice (in line with the instructions of that Sutta) one can become a stream-enterer.
It doesn’t say that after a week of ”in the seen only the seen” it is exactly the same as it was on day one and we wasted a precious week.
Apparently after a week there is (or can be) an opening or an awakening.
As far as we can tell our universe is a self-supporting illusion?
Context is key. Not everything is apparent in all its depth . . . it may appear as nonsense, false, or incomprehensible initially and for years . . . but hopefully less . . .
The dharma is a rich template. We may require time, experiences and insight to unravel or realise its true nature . . .
I like the guy who goes for the steak regardless of how unreal it is. That's a metaphor for tantra or the non duality of samsara and nirvana.
The world is an illusion but its all we have. So relax and let go because really we're let losing anything lol because there was nothing really there in the first place.
Listen and let the sound kill you. Smell and let the smell kill you!
. . . but . . . the principle is right . . . it is all illusion, no metta how juicy . . .
Be kind to the delusions . . . :wave:
For example, if my teenage daughter comes to speak to me, inside I may groan and think, 'I bet she's after more money from me!', so I'm adding a conceptual layer of understanding on just seeing my daughter approach me; it's already put me in a negative state of mind - I'm feeling tense inside, expecting her to just be after yet more cash.
But the reality is, she's just come to talk to me; so I should drop the additional layers of conceptual baggage before they start.
Just my take on it.
So if we just stop clinging/aversion we would be free. Sounds simple enough.
However easier said than done.
Reason is because we like to to belief that there is a separate and permanent thing - me. Although this belief defies all reality, it is still a deeply held. The stronger the belief in inherent self existence one has, the stronger will be clinging and aversion, as the assertion of I, me, mine becomes the subject for the objects of clinging/aversion. Only through closer examination is the truth revealed. In fact this inherent self is a fabrication of the mind.
In order to develop right view and realize the emptiness of self we pay attention and come to understand that "In seeing there is only the seen, no see'er..."
We do this to help break the grand attachment of all attachments - the attachment to the idea of me.
Best Wishes
"Is feeling permanent or impermanent? . . . Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness? . . . Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine. This I am. This is my self'?" (SN 22.59)
AN 4.24
PTS: A ii 23
Kalaka Sutta: At Kalaka's Park
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
© 2002–2012
On one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Saketa at Kalaka's park. There he addressed the monks: "Monks!"
"Yes, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said: "Monks, whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & brahmans royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That do I know. Whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & brahmans, their royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That I directly know. That has been realized by the Tathagata, but in the Tathagata[1] it has not been established.[2]
"If I were to say, 'I don't know whatever in the cosmos... is seen, heard, sensed, cognized... pondered by the intellect,' that would be a falsehood in me. If I were to say, 'I both know and don't know whatever in the cosmos... is seen, heard, sensed, cognized... pondered by the intellect,' that would be just the same. If I were to say, 'I neither know nor don't know whatever in the cosmos... is seen, heard, sensed, cognized... pondered by the intellect,' that would be a fault in me.
"Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer.
"When hearing...
"When sensing...
"When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer.
Thus, monks, the Tathagata — being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime.
"Whatever is seen or heard or sensed and fastened onto as true by others, One who is Such — among the self-fettered — wouldn't further claim to be true or even false. "Having seen well in advance that arrow where generations are fastened & hung — 'I know, I see, that's just how it is!' — there's nothing of the Tathagata fastened."
Notes
1.
Reading tathagate with the Thai edition.
2.
I.e., the Tathagata hasn't taken a stance on it.
http://www.nibbanam.com/MagicOfMind.pdf