Fabrication

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Fabrication

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Goof,
Goofaholix wrote:I certainly agree that the mind creates much of what we experience, but I don't believe it creates that out of thin air, it needs raw material to work with.
Can you provide an example?

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Fabrication

Post by Goofaholix »

retrofuturist wrote:Can you provide an example?
I've already provided a couple. The sensations in the knee and all of the interpretations and reactions that the mind adds to this. Being injured but not reacting in any way until the mind realises it.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Fabrication

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Goof,

The reason I ask is so as to differentiate between experienced phenomena and matters of biology.

If physical matter changes form in some way, it doesn't necessarily follow that this change in matter is experienced by a sentient being, and if it is not experienced, it falls about what it known in the suttas as "the all" (sabba)
SN 35.23 wrote:"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
A decomposing corpse would be a good example. It is deteriorating, but there is no experience of the deterioration, so it falls outside the scope of conditioned experience.

Alternatively, if you are asleep and someone lightly touches your hair, but there is no cognition by you of this shift in matter, then for you, it is outside range/sabba, even though there was some biological impact on the sentient being commonly known as Goofaholix. Individual blood-cells whooshing around inside you is biologically happening to you too, but unless you actually discern it by means of body-consciousness, it actually falls outside your sentient experience. Thus, it is neither sankhata dhamma (formed dhamma) nor asankhata dhamma (unformed dhamma).... it isn't a dhamma/phenomenon at all.

By my understanding, I maintain that the Dhamma is about sentient experience - not biology or physics. By way of transparency, I will admit that this puts me squarely at odds with the Abhidhammic (and subsequent commentarial) interpretation of rupa as objective physical matter.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Fabrication

Post by Goofaholix »

retrofuturist wrote: If physical matter changes form in some way, it doesn't necessarily follow that this change in matter is experienced by a sentient being, and if it is not experienced, it falls about what it known in the suttas as "the all" (sabba)
I'm only talking about what is included in "the All". However objects move in and out of "the All" all the time so it's important to be aware of that without getting caught up with Mahayana like metaphysics.

So if a tree falls to the ground and there is no-one there to hear it then it's not part of "the All", however if next day Retro is there having a picnic and another tree falls to the ground and ruins said picnic it is part of "the All".
retrofuturist wrote: A decomposing corpse would be a good example. It is deteriorating, but there is no experience of the deterioration, so it falls outside the scope of conditioned experience.
If it is doing so under my floorboards it might fall within my conditioned experience, but I take your point.
retrofuturist wrote:Thus, it is neither sankhata dhamma (formed dhamma) or asankhata dhamma (unformed dhamma).... it isn't a dhamma/phenomenon at all.
This is a very important distinction and I wasn't aware of it, thanks for that. I wasn't aware the terms sankhata dhamma and asankhata dhamma only applied to what is experienced by a sentient being,

As I say I wasn't really thinking outside of "the All" but I do think applying principles that one learns from direct experience of "the All" is just part and parcel of the conceptual framework that we live with. If this is not sankhata dhamma do we have a word for this?

For example I've never been swimming in the Sunshine Coast, but I have been swimming at many other places, so I've learned that water is wet, sea water is salty, the temperature is dependant on the weather etc. So based on data I've collected from experiences within "my All", (and I can reinforce this from accounts of experiences other sentient beings such as yourself have had), I can make assumptions that may or may not be accurate but will at least help prepare me for such an experience. A drawback is it is also likely to mean I will lose some of the ability to fully appreciate the experience in a new and fresh way, something our meditation practise helps to set right.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Fabrication

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Goof,
Goofaholix wrote:So if a tree falls to the ground and there is no-one there to hear it then it's not part of "the All", however if next day Retro is there having a picnic and another tree falls to the ground and ruins said picnic it is part of "the All".
Sight of tree, sound of tree, touch of tree, smell of tree, thought of tree and (if we're getting really intimate) taste of tree... yep, these may all fall within the all.
As I say I wasn't really thinking outside of "the All" but I do think applying principles that one learns from direct experience of "the All" is just part and parcel of the conceptual framework that we live with. If this is not sankhata dhamma do we have a word for this?

For example I've never been swimming in the Sunshine Coast, but I have been swimming at many other places, so I've learned that water is wet, sea water is salty, the temperature is dependant on the weather etc. So based on data I've collected from experiences within "my All", (and I can reinforce this from accounts of experiences other sentient beings such as yourself have had), I can make assumptions that may or may not be accurate but will at least help prepare me for such an experience. A drawback is it is also likely to mean I will lose some of the ability to fully appreciate the experience in a new and fresh way, something our meditation practise helps to set right.
I would regard such knowledges as objects of mind-consciousness, at the time they're brought to mind.

Thus - sankhata dhamma, and part of the all.
Goofaholix wrote:However objects move in and out of "the All" all the time so it's important to be aware of that without getting caught up with Mahayana like metaphysics.
Yeah, no need for metaphysics at all in my opinion. As it pertains to matters outside experienceable phenomena, it falls outside the dominion of dukkha and nirodha, which is fairly and squarely where the Buddha's teaching resides - he says as much in the Simsapa Sutta.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Fabrication

Post by Goofaholix »

retrofuturist wrote: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).
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Fabrication

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Goofaholix wrote: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.
Goofaholix wrote: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)...
MN 10 wrote:"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")
Goofaholix wrote: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".
Goofaholix wrote: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. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Fabrication

Post by Goofaholix »

retrofuturist wrote: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.
retrofuturist wrote:
Goofaholix wrote: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.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Fabrication

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Goof,
Goofaholix wrote: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.
Goofaholix wrote: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. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Fabrication

Post by chownah »

Goofaholix wrote: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
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Fabrication

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote: 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; ...").

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Fabrication

Post by Goofaholix »

mikenz66 wrote: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.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Fabrication

Post by chownah »

Goofaholix wrote: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
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Fabrication

Post by Goofaholix »

chownah wrote: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.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Fabrication

Post by Goofaholix »

retrofuturist wrote: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.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
Post Reply