Can you provide an example?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.
Metta,
Retro.
Can you provide an example?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.
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.retrofuturist wrote:Can you provide an example?
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.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."
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.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)
If it is doing so under my floorboards it might fall within my conditioned experience, but I take your point.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.
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,retrofuturist wrote:Thus, it is neither sankhata dhamma (formed dhamma) or asankhata dhamma (unformed dhamma).... it isn't a dhamma/phenomenon at 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.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".
I would regard such knowledges as objects of mind-consciousness, at the time they're brought to mind.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.
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.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.
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.retrofuturist wrote:I would regard such knowledges as objects of mind-consciousness, at the time they're brought to mind.
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: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.
Yes, that works. I quite like this approach from the Satipatthana Sutta (applicable to all media regardless of sensory channel)...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.
(n.b. Thanissaro Bhikkhu translates "dhamma" here as "mental qualities", whereas I would be more inclined to translate it as "phenomena")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.)
It applies to both. According to the Khajjaniya Sutta, fabrications are so called because they "fabricate the fabricated".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.
But what else could it be based on other than sankhata or asankhata dhamma?Goofaholix wrote:obviously the content of thought is not sankhata-dhammaif the content is not based on the all
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?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:But what else could it be based on other than sankhata or asankhata dhamma?Goofaholix wrote:obviously the content of thought is not sankhata-dhammaif the content is not based on 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).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?
No, no... it's individual. My all is different to your 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.
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).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
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; ...").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 strong in the Force is he.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; ...").
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).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
Yes you're right, phenomena is more correct that objects.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
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.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)