Fabrication

[Goofaholix]

I would regard such knowledges as objects of mind-consciousness, at the time they're brought to mind.

Absolutely they are mind-consciousness, however the mind-consciousness sometimes contains information about things that haven't been experienced that could be experienced and mayhave influence ones decision making.

If I were mediatating I would just note "thinking", and distinguish between the process of thought and the story line or content of the thought, this is a very effective way of gaining objectivity over ones thoughts.

So I would call these sankhara, or concepts, or conventions, however i'm not sure if the term sankhara applies to the process of thought or the content of thought or both (obviously the content of thought is not sankhata-dhammaif the content is not based on the all).

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Absolutely they are mind-consciousness, however the mind-consciousness sometimes contains information about things that haven't been experienced that could be experienced and mayhave influence ones decision making.

Yep - concepts, visual and auditory hallucinations, false memories, dreams, synaesthesia, all manner of non-material things may be objects of consciousness.... irrespective of how "real" or otherwise someone deems them to be.

If I were mediatating I would just note "thinking", and distinguish between the process of thought and the story line or content of the thought, this is a very effective way of gaining objectivity over ones thoughts.

Yes, that works. I quite like this approach from the Satipatthana Sutta (applicable to all media regardless of sensory channel)...

"Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the sixfold internal & external sense media. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the sixfold internal & external sense media? There is the case where he discerns the eye, he discerns forms, he discerns the fetter that arises dependent on both. He discerns how there is the arising of an unarisen fetter. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of a fetter once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no future arising of a fetter that has been abandoned. (The same formula is repeated for the remaining sense media: ear, nose, tongue, body, & intellect.)

(n.b. Thanissaro Bhikkhu translates "dhamma" here as "mental qualities", whereas I would be more inclined to translate it as "phenomena")

So I would call these sankhara, or concepts, or conventions, however i'm not sure if the term sankhara applies to the process of thought or the content of thought or both.

It applies to both. According to the Khajjaniya Sutta, fabrications are so called because they "fabricate the fabricated".

obviously the content of thought is not sankhata-dhammaif the content is not based on the all

But what else could it be based on other than sankhata or asankhata dhamma?

Metta,
Retro.

[Goofaholix]

It applies to both. According to the Khajjaniya Sutta, fabrications are so called because they "fabricate the fabricated".

So we're back to the fabrications word again.

obviously the content of thought is not sankhata-dhammaif the content is not based on the all

But what else could it be based on other than sankhata or asankhata dhamma?

Obviously the fact that thought has arisen is part of "the All", but if the content of the thought is not based on the all then then how can it be considered sankhata dhamma by your definition?

For example someone may have a thought about what it must be like to be transgendered based on speculation and imagination and because of this decide it's not for him. If he has never experienced what it is like to be transgendered how can it be considered part of the all?

However skimming back through your posts it appears your definition of "the All" has changed from what has been experienced by the individual sentient being to what can be experienced by sentient beings in general, so perhaps the point is moot.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Goof,

For example someone may have a thought about what it must be like to be transgendered based on speculation and imagination and because of this decide it's not for him. If he has never experienced what it is like to be transgendered how can it be considered part of the all?

The thought might involve some mental images in one's mind's eye (which, depending on your definition of 'eye', could be mind-consciousness or eye-consciousness).

The thought might also give rise to the formation of psychosomatic vedana in the region of the skin, in the form of body-consciousness.

It's those fabricated consciousnesses that are actually experienced that fall within the all.

However skimming back through your posts it appears your definition of "the All" has changed from what has been experienced by the individual sentient being to what can be experienced by sentient beings in general, so perhaps the point is moot.

No, no... it's individual. My all is different to your all.

The above transgender example shows how you might experience certain phenomena within your all, without ever being transgendered.

Either way, I think you've got the idea. I might leave it there, lest I be advised I'm a lost cause, mired in philosophical papanca etc. because I'm not personally satisfied with noting "thinking, thinking", "seeing, seeing" as a method for dealing with sankharas. (I prefer the approach extracted from MN 10, above)

Metta,
Retro.

[chownah]

I'm only talking about what is included in "the All". However objects move in and out of "the All" all the time

I believe you are mistaken. There are no "objects" 'in "the All"'. Thinking in terms of "objects" is the application of a doctrine of self. Phenomena arise and pass away....from this arising and passing away of pheomena we construct (fabricate) constructions (fabrications).
It seems that you are of the view that there is a "real" world "out there" and that when "you" experience "something" that exists "out there" that it moves into "your" "the All" and when "you" are not experiencing a "thing" then it moves out of "your" "the All". It seems to me that the Buddha never talked about anything this way or even hinted that this kind of scenerio was what he was suggesting as a helpful view of things. On the contrary, it seems to me that there is a lot of doctrine of self going on here both as applied to the individual and as applied to objects. I think it is better to develop the perspective that phenomena arise and pass away and from this continuous change we fabricate our experience....I guess....
chownah

[mikenz66]

Either way, I think you've got the idea. I might leave it there, lest I be advised I'm a lost cause, mired in philosophical papanca etc. because I'm not personally satisfied with noting "thinking, thinking", "seeing, seeing" as a method for dealing with sankharas. (I prefer the approach extracted from MN 10, above)

Goofaholix is, of course, practising exactly the advice in the Satipatthana Sutta: developing an understanding of the process of sense impressions, etc. One can't "understand how the arising of the non-arisen fetter comes to be; ..." without first "understanding consciousness and mental objects" (to use a different translator for variety...). Goofaholix is talking about developing a clear focus on conciousness and mental objects (thinking, etc). Once one has that focus, then one can "deal with them" as you put it (as the Buddha says: "understand how the arising of the non-arisen fetter comes to be; ...").


Mike

[Goofaholix]

Goofaholix is, of course, practising exactly the advice in the Satipatthana Sutta: developing an understanding of the process of sense impressions, etc. One can't "understand how the arising of the non-arisen fetter comes to be; ..." without first "understanding consciousness and mental objects" (to use a different translator for variety...). Goofaholix is talking about developing a clear focus on conciousness and mental objects (thinking, etc). Once one has that focus, then one can "deal with them" as you put it (as the Buddha says: "understand how the arising of the non-arisen fetter comes to be; ...").

Goofaholix strong in the Force is he.

[chownah]

I'm only talking about what is included in "the All". However objects move in and out of "the All" all the time

I believe you are mistaken. There are no "objects" 'in "the All"'. Thinking in terms of "objects" is the application of a doctrine of self. Phenomena arise and pass away....from this arising and passing away of pheomena we construct (fabricate) constructions (fabrications).
It seems that you are of the view that there is a "real" world "out there" and that when "you" experience "something" that exists "out there" that it moves into "your" "the All" and when "you" are not experiencing a "thing" then it moves out of "your" "the All". It seems to me that the Buddha never talked about anything this way or even hinted that this kind of scenerio was what he was suggesting as a helpful view of things. On the contrary, it seems to me that there is a lot of doctrine of self going on here both as applied to the individual and as applied to objects. I think it is better to develop the perspective that phenomena arise and pass away and from this continuous change we fabricate our experience....I guess....
You might not agree with me but you have to admit it is in English!!!
chownah

[Goofaholix]

It seems that you are of the view that there is a "real" world "out there" and that when "you" experience "something" that exists "out there" that it moves into "your" "the All" and when "you" are not experiencing a "thing" then it moves out of "your" "the All". It seems to me that the Buddha never talked about anything this way or even hinted that this kind of scenerio was what he was suggesting as a helpful view of things. On the contrary, it seems to me that there is a lot of doctrine of self going on here both as applied to the individual and as applied to objects. I think it is better to develop the perspective that phenomena arise and pass away and from this continuous change we fabricate our experience....I guess....
chownah

Yes you're right, phenomena is more correct that objects.

[Goofaholix]

Either way, I think you've got the idea. I might leave it there, lest I be advised I'm a lost cause, mired in philosophical papanca etc. because I'm not personally satisfied with noting "thinking, thinking", "seeing, seeing" as a method for dealing with sankharas. (I prefer the approach extracted from MN 10, above)

No worries, I note that while I've learned a lot in this exchange I'm not sure I've learned anything that I can use in my day to day practise.

[chownah]

It seems that you are of the view that there is a "real" world "out there" and that when "you" experience "something" that exists "out there" that it moves into "your" "the All" and when "you" are not experiencing a "thing" then it moves out of "your" "the All". It seems to me that the Buddha never talked about anything this way or even hinted that this kind of scenerio was what he was suggesting as a helpful view of things. On the contrary, it seems to me that there is a lot of doctrine of self going on here both as applied to the individual and as applied to objects. I think it is better to develop the perspective that phenomena arise and pass away and from this continuous change we fabricate our experience....I guess....
chownah

Yes you're right, phenomena is more correct that objects.

Yes, phenomena is probaby better but I think an important point is that you seem to have these phenomena moving into and out of "your" "the All". You can call them "phenomena" so as to be politically (or should it be spiritually?) correct but it does seem that you are treating them as objects.....does "object" by any other name stink much less?

Also...I thought a sutta reference might be appropo:
"And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they fabricate as a fabricated thing? For the sake of form-ness, they fabricate form as a fabricated thing. For the sake of feeling-ness, they fabricate feeling as a fabricated thing. For the sake of perception-hood... For the sake of fabrication-hood... For the sake of consciousness-hood, they fabricate consciousness as a fabricated thing. Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called fabrications. "
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .html#fn-3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Notice that consciouness is clearly indicated to be a fabrication....
chownah

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Goofaholix strong in the Force is he.

Help you he can, yes, hhmmm...



I'm sure Goof knows his practice, and I've enjoyed sharing my thoughts on the subject of sankhara/fabrication with him, to do with as he sees fit. Furthermore, I'm sure he doesn't need defending, and I'm sure he doesn't feel attacked, so the light-sabers can safely be set to one side.

No worries, I note that while I've learned a lot in this exchange I'm not sure I've learned anything that I can use in my day to day practise.

Goof ~ I was having a look at the Satipatthana Sutta the other day and the word "discern" appeared over 50 times... the clearer you are on what sankharas are, and the extent of the fabrication that is taking place may well contribute to clearer discernment in this regard. As Chownah has pointed out too, it may help avoid a false subject/object dichotomy in relation to how you regard the phenomena that arise, in and outside of formal meditation practice.

Either way, it's an interesting subject, particularly if you're inclined to make reference to paticcasamuppada in your practice (some do, some don't, I do). If you have a meditation teacher you seek advice from, it might be worth asking them about fabrication, to see what implication/application they feel it might have in relation to your meditation practice. I like to believe that the Buddha taught what he did for a reason.

Good luck.

Metta,
Retro.

[mikenz66]

Hi Retro,

Sorry, I'm lost now. If (almost) everything in sankhara, what is the use of the concept if there is no distinction between phenomena? Take walking, for example. What labels would you use to describe the difference between intention to lift the foot and the motion of the foot?


Mike

[tiltbillings]

Hi Retro,

Sorry, I'm lost now. If (almost) everything in sankhara, what is the use of the concept if there is no distinction between phenomena? Take walking, for example. What labels would you use to describe the difference between intention to lift the foot and the motion of the foot?


Mike

Push it a little further and we get shunyata.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

Sorry, I'm lost now. If (almost) everything in sankhara, what is the use of the concept if there is no distinction between phenomena?

The point is that the distinctions themselves are fabrications, not absolutes. The act of making distinctions between phenomena is the act of fabricating. If I were to falsely take these fabricated distinctions as indicative of reality, I would be inferring there was actual substance behind these mental concoctions, whereas the Phena Sutta makes clear there is not.

"Now suppose that a man desiring heartwood, in quest of heartwood, seeking heartwood, were to go into a forest carrying a sharp ax. There he would see a large banana tree: straight, young, of enormous height. He would cut it at the root and, having cut it at the root, would chop off the top. Having chopped off the top, he would peel away the outer skin. Peeling away the outer skin, he wouldn't even find sapwood, to say nothing of heartwood. Then a man with good eyesight would see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a banana tree? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any fabrications that are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing them, observing them, & appropriately examining them — they would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in fabrications?

I observe them in accordance with the Buddha's instructions as detailed here.

Take walking, for example. What labels would you use to describe the difference between intention to lift the foot and the motion of the foot?

There being no substance in any designation I could attach, I would see no benefit in superimposing it upon the direct experience. It would be like wrapping what was being experienced in the skin of a banana tree.

Metta,
Retro.