[Nupbeaupeteew]

Bahiya Sutta: About Bahiya. Ud 1.10


I wonder if any one would like to comment on this sutta and on this passage:


"Then, Bahiya, 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, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of 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."
URL

[gSjQEEmq]

One of my favourite passages in any sutta. Experiential and delicious. This gets it in one without dogma or metaphysical overlay. It's actually very very simple. Just as Buddha says - the end of stress.

[KneefeZes]

I see it as describing an end to subjectivity:

Nanavira's Note on Sakkāya[/url]: ]
An arahat (while alive—that is, if we can speak of a 'living arahat') continues to be individual in the sense that 'he' is a sequence of states (Theragāthā v. 716) distinguishable from other arahanto (and a fortiori from individuals other than arahanto). Every set of pañcakkhandhā—not pañc'upādānakkhandhā in the arahat's case—is unique, and individuality in this sense ceases only with the final cessation of the pañcakkhandhā at the breaking up of the arahat's body. But a living arahat is no longer somebody or a person, since the notion or conceit '(I) am' has already ceased. Individuality must therefore be carefully distinguished from personality, which is: being a person, being somebody, being a subject (to whom objects are present), selfhood, the mirage 'I am', and so on. The puthujjana is not able to distinguish them—for him individuality is not conceivable apart from personality, which he takes as selfhood. The sotāpanna is able to distinguish them—he sees that personality or 'selfhood' is a deception dependent upon avijjā, a deception dependent upon not seeing the deception, which is not the case with individuality—, though he is not yet free from an aroma of subjectivity, asmimāna. The arahat not only distinguishes them but also has entirely got rid of all taint of subjectivity—'he' is individual but in no way personal.

[enentique]

I found that during sati arising, the mind follows :-

"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"

I heard the story of the past life of Phra Bahiya at the time of Gassapa Buddha but I can not find the reference in English. The story told that he was a bhikku going to do meditation with 6 bhikku's friends on the mountain and destroy the stair for claim up to the mountain and could not claim down. There was a bhikku could be arahun. Another one could anagami. But another 5 bhikku could not to be any stream enterer and dead in 7 days.

The devata who the sutta refer to (Then a devata who had once been a blood relative of Bahiya) was the past life bhikku who was anagami.

[sbrthrds]

I heard that during one of his previous lives, the Flying Spaghetti Monster met up with the Buddha Ahnsdydfkserfio8u7ywserwlkhjsd. He Touched the Buddha Ahnsdydfkserfio8u7ywserwlkhjsd with His Noodly Appendage, and the Buddha had lunch. This was the inspiration for the entire 4 Noble Truths.

[L8fGLM4d]

....during one of his previous lives, the Flying Spaghetti Monster....

Long, long ago, in a previous kalpa, the bodhisattva FSM and his seven brothers, unselfishly sacrificed themselves for a hungry person's supper.... so that in the future all sentient beings might have happiness and spaghetti twirls for afternoon tea.





Really sorry,... back to the sutta again.

[wonceinee]

The beauty of the Buddha's liberative teachings is that, once one sees them, there is no longer clinging to self-clinging speculations:

"Bhikkhus, you who know thus and see thus, would your mind run to the past: 'Was I in the past or was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become?'" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, would you who know and see thus, run to the future: 'Will I be in the future, or will I not be in the future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? Having been what, what will I become?'" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, would you who know and see thus have doubts about the present: 'Am I, or am I not? What am I? How am I? Where did this being come from? Where will it go?'" "No, venerable sir."

Indeed -- having seen the Dhamma, why would one ever want to crawl into the cesspool of superstition again?

[idertedype]

from post #7

Which sutta is that, Stuka? MN 38 ?

[wbondarmunw]

Which sutta is that, Stuka? MN 38 ?

Mmmmm hmmmm...

[Fainnamoony]

Personally, I do not accept Bahiya's mind attained arahantship.

That he was careless enough to be killed by a cow attests to this.

Good instruction for stream-entry.

I know the sutta states Bahiya was an arahant but I disagree here.

If vipassana did not occur to his mind there is not arahantship.

[Hpdovoxm]

If vipassana did not occur to his mind there is not arahantship.

Hi element,
What makes you think it didn't? Was it the business with the cow? Would an arahant have been able to avoid it by knowledge of the future or some such?

[desmond001]

from post #10

I ever discuss with Thai webboard, why Phra Bahiya could be arahantship very fast or why vipassana occured very fast.
Someone thaugt that :-
1. He did a lot of vipassana from his previous live. (See. #4) He was willing to die for meditation.
2. Before he knew there was Buddha, he understood that he was arahant. But the moment he knew there was Buddha, he suddently beleive devata and put many effort to see Buddha. This mean he 100% beleiving Buddha.
3. Buddha did not teach him the first met. May Buddha needed to claim down something in Bahiya mind, waited and seen when Bahiya mind was ready to know dhamma.

Just someone's view. Nobody knew the fact.
IMO. The stream enterer also need vipassana.

[tiereenny]

from post #12

....but that is all just conjecture, based on story-telling, made-up to fit the "rules" of the myth and perpetuate it.

[SashaLionx]

from post #13

Yes.. Many people like to talk , think. But not much like to proof. You can see many paticipate in rebirth question even through Buddha said it was not wholesome.

[Nikitka]

"Then, Bahiya, 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, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of 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."

Bahiya is being urged to fully develop the Four Foundations of Mindfulness

[zoneouddy]

Bahiya is being urged to fully develop the Four Foundations of Mindfulness

Thank you Craig.



The Foundations of Mindfulness : Satipatthana Sutta

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a.../wheel019.html