Spiny Norman wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:12 pm
I'm not sure how to respond to the rest of your comments which mostly seem like
and not much to do with the previous discussion, or indeed what I have actually said.
I am not a strawman. I don't see why I should be. I am not responsible of what you are doing. It's your kamma; not mine. I won't be judgmental on what you think or do. Just having a fellow feeling.
However, some things have to be reinstated, so some people can really understand what echt (early) Buddhism is all about. And discern the original message, from the later added dubious nonsense.
I am therefore glad that you mentioned the Bāhiya sutta (ud.1.10); to which I prefer the Māluṅkyaputta sutta (Māluṅkyaputta SN 35.95 and its // SA 312) - in which the terms are identical.
And, moreover, with a quite reliable parallel in the Āgama; in which [for what I can discern from my very poor knowledge of Chinese,] there is far more emphasis on the "judgmental". It is all about not having the citta defiled by letting wrong things in. Being always mindful of not letting wrong things in, etc. (much more in line with the way the Buddha defines mindfulness in SN 35.245 - https://suttacentral.net/en/sn35.245/14-15
And all this being judgmental in SA, comes before Buddha's utters his remark in both the sutta and the sutra:
You will not be ‘by that.’
When, Maluṅkyaputta, you are not ‘by that,’ then you will not be ‘in that.’
When, Maluṅkyaputta, you are not in that,’ then you will be neither here nor there, nor in between the two.
tato tvaṃ, mālukyaputta, na tena.
Yato tvaṃ, mālukyaputta, na tena; tato tvaṃ, mālukyaputta, na tattha.
Yato tvaṃ, mālukyaputta, na tattha; tato tvaṃ, mālukyaputta, nevidha, na huraṃ, na ubhayamantarena.
The "by that" and the "in that", is the universal concept in philosophy about the "Being" of things.
Aristotle has talked about that lengthily in his "Categories".
In our (Buddhist) case, the "being" is one of the four categories of being, viz. an "accidental*" universal". A "said-of" ("by that") and "present-in" ("in that").
"Said-of" nāmarūpa & "present-in" saḷāyatana (more particularly, in satta).
*(Accidental = non-substantial)
Asmi, the "am" in "I am" (aham asmi), is "said-of" the khandhas (that are not ours) >> ["by that]; yet "present-in" the living being (satta) as clinging-kandhas >> ["in-that"].
Transcending that, is being neither there (in the khandhas), nor being here, (that is to say appropriating the khandhas (aka clinging khandhas)).
To put it simply:
"In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen", just means that what is seen should not be considered as "yours".
Neither "I am this", nor "this is mine".
It does not mean (as some believe,) that you should let "the seen" in; "non-judgmentally".
Where, in the suttas/sutras is the rationale of the latter?
How could this be "non-judgmental"?
And what "non-judgmental" has to do with it, anyway? (bloody problem).
What "judgmental" or "non-judgmental", has to do with realizing that the khandhas are not yours?
The only "judgment" in all this, is to say: "I am not this, and this is not mine".
We should not even have to talk about this "non-judgmental" buncombe, coming out of nowhere - whatever that could probably mean. Another free ticket to ride on the nonsense merry-go-round.
What would be "non-judgmental" in this case, anyway?
Saying that: "I am this, and this is mine"; when talking about the khandhas? - Letting them in with no restraint of the indriyani?
That's ludicrous! - This is just sheer nonsense.
Restraining the indriya ("keeping guard over the doors of the powers (faculties) > Indriyesu guttadvārā"), can't eradicate them totally.
In AN 6.55, (https://justpaste.it/194u1
), Buddha states that nonetheless, they can be brought to their plain, flat, regular, viz. "normal" level.
Again, this is what is meant by "in the seen, only the seen".
That is to say, looking at something, knowing that it is not "yours" - and restraining the indriyani; so that the effect of these indriyani on the āyatanani, will not trigger sensory experiences that could make you crave and cling.
You just have to look at something as not "yours" (not "by that") - knowing that your ignorance have you making it "yours" ("in that").
The transcendence, is first to realize that you are, in reality, neither not "by that" (said-of/"by that"), "nor not "in that" ("present-in"/"in that").
For instance, you have first to realize that you are neither "in form", nor "apart from" form.
However, you have also to realize that this form, that you are experiencing there & here, is "not yours". So you can transcend that non-substantial (accidental) being of yours.
Like the Tathāgata (तथागत) - lit. the "that has become in such a state" - becoming the Buddha.
Our reality is, that we are (viz. our asmi/being is) both in the external and the internal.
And we must transcend that, knowing that it is not "ours".
Neither what is external (khandhas - see SN 22.33 https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.33/1.138-
& SN 22.59 https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.59/7-8
), nor what is internal (āyatanas - see https://suttacentral.net/en/sn35.138/1.128-
) is "ours"
And particularly, what is meant by the (Bāhiya/Māluṅkyaputta) suttas, is that the khandhas are not "ours".
"Non-judgmental" means absolutely nothing in the Teaching.
Just an added dubious nonsense.
Then SN 35.87 becomes more meaningful:
Therefore, friend Channa, this teaching of the Blessed One is to be constantly striven after with the mano:
"For one who is clinging, there is the wish to act; for one who is not clinging, there is no wish to act. When there is no wish to act, there is tranquility (confidence); when there is tranquility, there is turning away; when there is turning away, there is no obtaining & non-obtaining; when there is no obtaining & non-obtaining, there is no removing from (namarūpa), and coming forth (in satta) [as in appropriating form, feeling, etc.]; when there is no removing from (namarūpa), and coming forth (in satta), there is neither here, nor there, nor in between the two."
Tasmātiha, āvuso channa, idampi tassa bhagavato sāsanaṃ niccakappaṃ sādhukaṃ manasi kātabbaṃ:
"Nissitassa calitaṃ, anissitassa calitaṃ natthi. Calite asati passaddhi hoti. Passaddhiyā sati nati na hoti. Natiyā asati āgatigati na hoti. Āgatigatiyā asati cutūpapāto na hoti. Cutūpapāte asati nevidha na huraṃ na ubhayamantarena."
Also, may I add this:
I am not a Pudgalavadin, but the above has quite the flavor of what the Pudgalavadins were thinking about.
It shows that there is some similarity with the Theravadin Teaching. At least, strictly on the issue of "by that" and "in that".
What the pudgalavadins are saying is that, beyond the mere "world," as defined by Buddha, the pudgala is neither the aggregates, nor is it different from them. Pudgala kind of transcends that.
On one hand, if I am identical to the aggregates, then I should be annihilated; because the khandhas are intrinsically impermanent (anicca), says the pudgalavadin.
On the other hand, if I am different from the aggregates, then I should be eternal.
For the pudgalavadins, the pudgala/puggala (person, individual / kind of satta) transcends this.