Posts
中文翻译：《婆希耶经》必须从“悟”的角度来理解
Conversation — 19 May 2020
John Tan: The purpose is actually to trigger thinking about
the Bahiya Sutta. Unfortunately, the Chinese sutta may not be able to translate
the Bahiya Sutta properly. Many translate "in the seen just the seen"
as a form of total concentration into a state of no mind. Like Vipassana into
no mind. Therefore, the Bahiya Sutta can be seen from the perspective of 修 (practice) or can be understood from
the perspective of 悟
(realization). All these depend on the caliber of the person.
Soh Wei Yu: Bahiya Sutta in the new Chinese translation of
the Small Boat Great Mountain by Ajahn Amaro:
佛說：在所見中，只有所見。在所聞中，只有所聞。在所感中，只有所感。在所知中，只有所知。如此會看到，的確無物在此；婆醯迦，該如此修習。婆醯迦，你應該依此：在所見中，只有所見。在所聞中，只有所聞。在所感中，只有所感。在所知中，只有所知。如此你會看到，的確無物在這裡；如此，的確無物。什麼都沒有時，您將看到，你不在此處，不在彼處，也不在兩者之間。此即苦的止息。（自說經1.10）
(In the seen, there is only the seen, in the heard, there is
only the heard, in the sensed, there is only the sensed, in the cognized, there
is only the cognized. Thus you should see that indeed there is no thing here;
this, Bahiya, is how you should train yourself. Since, Bahiya, there is for you
in the seen, only the seen, in the heard, only the heard, in the sensed, only
the sensed, in the cognized, only the cognized, and you see that there is no
thing here, you will therefore see that indeed there is no thing there. As you
see that there is no thing there, you will see that you are therefore located
neither in the world of this, nor in the world of that, nor in any place
betwixt the two. This alone is the end of suffering.” (Ud. 1.10)
John Tan: But it should be understood from the perspective
of 悟
(realization). Why?
Soh Wei Yu: Realization of Anatta as a Dharma Seal is
different from a state of no mind.
John Tan: No, from the text, why should it be viewed from
the perspective of 悟
(realization)?
Soh Wei Yu: In seeing, always only the seen, or seeing is
none other than seen. No you. This is truth, not training into a state of only
the seen.
John Tan: It says:
如此你會看到，的確無物在這裡；如此，的確無物。什麼都沒有時，您將看到，你不在此處，不在彼處，也不在兩者之間。此即苦的止息。（自說經1.10）
(As you see that there is no thing there, you will see that
you are therefore located neither in the world of this, nor in the world of
that, nor in any place betwixt the two. This alone is the end of suffering.”
(Ud. 1.10)
It says therefore you should see this truth. Therefore, it
is for 悟
(realization). This is the purpose of the second and third line.
深入观行, 婆酰迦经。 了悟经旨, 直指无心。 无执能所, 忘却身心。
(Deeply contemplating, Bahiya Sutta. Realizing the essence
of the sutta, directly pointing to No Mind. No grasping at subject and object,
forgotten mind and body.)
If without the above, then it can be interpreted as just a
state of no mind samadhi. There is no insight involved. But it is stated,
therefore you will see from "in seeing, just the seen," you will
realize there is no object here, there is no subject here, no subject there
either, nor any in between.
Soh Wei Yu: I see. I’m glad they recently released that
translation and Ajahn Amaro’s book in Chinese. Otherwise, I can't find a good
one that distinguishes that. I see other Chinese explanations of Bahiya also
more on no mind.
John Tan: Oh, just recently released?
Soh Wei Yu: Ajahn Amaro’s old book but recently translated
to Chinese. He also has a new book but in English, called The Breakthrough.
He also reiterated Bahiya Sutta in that.
(Comments by Soh: Later I found out that Ajahn Amaro still has a tendency towards substantialist nondual and subsuming, even though his explanations on Bahiya Sutta was quite clear.)
John Tan: I heard he went into Dzogchen?
Soh Wei Yu: Nope but he was discussing Dzogchen with his
friend Tsoknyi Rinpoche and found it similar to his Thai Forest practice.
Tsoknyi Rinpoche is the one I went to his retreat last year.
John Tan: Most important breakthrough post-that is not to go
into subsuming but into Dependent Origination and Emptiness. Many can still
turn into non-dual awareness teaching. Or one can move into [total] exertion
and emptiness like Dōgen... Like 洪文亮
(Zen Master Hong Wenliang).
…
John Tan: What is important to know in Bahiya, Buddha actually
included the path, experience and the realization in such a short teaching.
The bahiya's 'in the seen just seen ' is just some form of disidentification and 'blended ' into scenery ....it is just an intermediate state ....instead , we should reach a state of 'descend of the Supermind ( Aurobindo )' ....
“According to Sri Aurobindo, full yogic development consists of two parts: the standard yogic goal of ascent into a formless and timeless self, and the descent and establishment of the supramental consciousness into Earthly life. Through integral yoga, one actualises the Supermind. The supramental consciousness transforms the entire being and leads to the divinisation of the material world.
This supramental transformation gives rise to a new individual, the Gnostic being,[1] which is fully formed by the supramental power. Division and ignorance are overcome, and replaced with a unity of consciousness. The physical body will be transformed and divinised. The gnostic being sees the spirit everywhere in the world, and in every other person. This awareness eliminates the usual separation between man and life, and between people. One sees that all existences are various forms of the divine reality. Every individual existence in life plays a role in the unfolding of existence. The Gnostic beings can work together to create a new common life. This new life is superior to the present way of being. A critical mass of such "gnostic individuals" can create the foundation of a new social life and order. This will lead to a greater unity, mutuality, and harmony.”
This means Aurobindo’s journey is from I AM to substantialist nondual (one mind), aka Thusness Stage 1 to 4.
Anatta is a unique realization, Thusness Stage 5.
https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html
Also, you misunderstood the anatman realisation. It is not “merging” subject and object. It is realising both poles never existed in and of itself, consciousness is empty.
As I shares before:
“To someone transitioning from I AM to nondual (only begun talking with him yesterday), I pointed out anatta to him a few moments ago, I have a feeling he will breakthrough to anatta soon:
Mr. C:
“The transience itself rolls and knows”…that is awesome. It pulled me into a more clear state when I first read it and again just now. This was the right thing to resend:)
Soh:
yes and its always already so! like when we say.. fire is burning... its totally an illusion if you imagine fire is something 'behind' burning, or fire is the 'agent' or 'watcher' of burning. thats ridiculous isnt it?
and yet we imagine 'awareness' was something behind 'transience'
its the same
fire is just the burning, fire is not 'doing' the burning
lightning flash -- lightning is the flasher? no. lightning is just another word for flash. lightning is flashing is just another way of saying 'flashing is happening'.
thunder roars -- thunder is the agent of roaring? no. thunder is just roar. wind blows? wind is just blowing. seeing sees scenery? seeing is just colors, no seer. hearing hears sounds? actually, hearing is only ever sound, never been a hearer. always already so.
thats why realisation is so important, you must see through the delusion that it never was like that
its not that you merge fire and burning, its not that you are trying to merge lightning with the flash, its not that you are trying to merge wind with the blowing. it is not that we are trying to merge knower and known. its to realise both are never valid in themselves in the first place, both poles are non-arisen.
as i sent someone a few moments ago:
"like how krodha/kyle dixon described:
"'Self luminous' and 'self knowing' are concepts which are used to convey the absence of a subjective reference point which is mediating the manifestation of appearance. Instead of a subjective cognition or knower which is 'illuminating' objective appearances, it is realized that the sheer exertion of our cognition has always and only been the sheer exertion of appearance itself. Or rather that cognition and appearance are not valid as anything in themselves. Since both are merely fabricated qualities neither can be validated or found when sought. This is not a union of subject and object, but is the recognition that the subject and object never arose in the first place [advaya]. ", "The cognition is empty. That is what it means to recognize the nature of mind [sems nyid]. The clarity [cognition] of mind is recognized to be empty, which is sometimes parsed as the inseparability of clarity and emptiness, or nondual clarity and emptiness.""”