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.

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.

Perhaps I am stumbling here due to conflating your recent commentary on the bahiya sutta with your last blog post and the mention you made of thanissaro bhikku's "right mindfulness."

He criticizes bhante g's 'bare attention' in lots of ways and seems to imply that such an equanimous watcher type thing would be created through his methods. It seems to me though that when i non-judgementally observe i am practicing right effort, right concentration, and right mindfulness. I am being non-judgemental - no desire or aversion (right effort) I am watching, minimizing distraction by "coming back" over and over (right concentration) and I am remembering to do it all (right mindfulness.) Thus bhante G calling it mindfulness is just a linguistic issue.

Then again, maybe I am wrong, is this what you meant by "staring at the senses" in your last blog post (which you implied wouldn't lead to liberation in itself)?

When i do the bare attention thing it is clearly liberating, there is just a flow of consciousness, just that, nothing else. Non-judgement seems to basically be the same as not fabricating a self, not giving weight. In the experience just the experience, could this still be an equanimous watcher thing?

Not impassioned with forms
— seeing a form with mindfulness firm —
dispassioned in mind,
one knows
and doesn't remain fastened there.
While one is seeing a form
— and even experiencing feeling —
it falls away and doesn't accumulate.
Thus one fares mindfully.
Thus not amassing stress,
one is said to be
in the presence of Unbinding.

Not impassioned with sounds...
Not impassioned with aromas...
Not impassioned with flavors...
Not impassioned with tactile sensations...

Not impassioned with ideas
— knowing an idea with mindfulness firm —
dispassioned in mind,
one knows
and doesn't remain fastened there.
While one is knowing an idea
— and even experiencing feeling —
it falls away and doesn't accumulate.
Thus one fares mindfully.
Thus not amassing stress,
one is said to be
in the presence of Unbinding.
"It's in this way, lord, that I understand in detail the meaning of what the Blessed One said in brief."

"Good, Malunkyaputta. Very good. It's good that you understand in detail this way the meaning of what I said in brief."

he move from equanimity to non-fashioning is briefly described in a famous 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's no you in that. When there's no you in that, there's no you there. When there's no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

— Ud 1.10

On the surface, these instructions might seem to be describing bare attention, but a closer look shows that something more is going on. To begin with, the instructions come in two parts: advice on how to train attention, and a promise of the results that will come from training attention in that way. In other words, the training is still operating on the conditioned level of cause and effect. It's something to be done. This means it's shaped by an intention, which in turn is shaped by a view. The intention and view are informed by the "result" part of the passage: The meditator wants to attain the end of stress and suffering, and so is willing to follow the path to that end. Thus, as with every other level of appropriate attention, the attention developed here is conditioned by right view — the knowledge that your present intentions are ultimately the source of stress — and motivated by the desire to put an end to that stress. This is why you make the effort not to add anything at all to the potentials coming from the past.

Thus, as with every other level of appropriate attention, the attention developed here is conditioned by right view — the knowledge that your present intentions are ultimately the source of stress — and motivated by the desire to put an end to that stress. This is why you make the effort not to add anything at all to the potentials coming from the past.