Adam . .:
There has been some talk lately of wrong interpretations of the bahiya sutta. When the sutta says something like: "in reference to the seeing there is only the seen" does that mean that there are no concepts attached to the seeing? Does it mean that there is no sense of someone who sees the seen? Does it mean that there is no other sense-world to compare this sense-world to, i.e. that there is no good/bad - only that which exists?
In my own practice I try to pay attention such that it seems that there is nothing other than sensations arising and ceasing moment by moment, which includes all 3 interpretations. Practically this is the same as asking HAIETMOBA wordlessly, paying attention to all of experience at once.
Id say the translation that fuels your query may be off:
Thanissaro's and John Ireland's translation of the passage in question (quotes from access to insight):
diṭṭhe diṭṭhamattaṃ bhavissati, sute sutamattaṃ bhavissati, mute mutamattaṃ bhavissati, viññāte viññātamattaṃ bhavissati
Thanissaro Bhikkhu:
'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.'
John Ireland:
'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.'
I see possible practice and experiential differences between 'in the seeing, only the seen' VS 'In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen' or 'In the seen will be merely what is seen '. I've heard others argue the former translation can lead to an eternally disembedded/equanimous witness like experience and have experienced this myself, whereas the latter avoids this completely. There is just seen, no seeing in seen, just seen. It may depend on how one reads and interpretes it.
Seeing + seen = ?
Just the seen=just the seen
There is no experience of 'seer' nor 'seeing' nor concepts of 'seeing'. It's just the seen. There is no sense of 'me-ness' whatsoever, simply the experience of the seen, no mental overlays, just the seen, no attention bounce from some airy fairy 'selfing' experience to object, just the seen, no attention wave flickering, only the seen, sensed, heard and cognised.
My 2 cents.