Fabrication

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Fabrication

Post by chownah »

Goofaholix wrote:
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.
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
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:Goofaholix strong in the Force is he.
Help you he can, yes, hhmmm...

:rofl:

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.
Goofaholix wrote: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. :thumbsup:

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
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Fabrication

Post by 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?

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Fabrication

Post by tiltbillings »

mikenz66 wrote: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?

:anjali:
Mike
Push it a little further and we get shunyata.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Fabrication

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote: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.
Phena Sutta wrote:"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.
mikenz66 wrote: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. :)
"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
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Fabrication

Post by mikenz66 »

Where did this reality stuff come from? As Tilt, says, it's all empty.

But I don't understand how you propose to understand that emptiness experientially unless you can discern the causation/fabrication/etc. The connection between intention and motion, for example.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Fabrication

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:As Tilt, says, it's all empty.
Indeed it is. The words that Tilt spoke were accurate and in accord with the Buddha's teachings on sunnata.
MN 122: Maha-sunnata Sutta wrote:So, Ananda, if a monk should wish, 'May I enter & remain in internal emptiness,' then he should get the mind steadied right within, settled, unified, & concentrated. And how…..? There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensual pleasures, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana... the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither-pleasure-nor-pain. That is how a monk gets the mind steadied right within, settled, unified, & concentrated.
"He attends to internal emptiness. While he is attending to internal emptiness, his mind does not take pleasure, find satisfaction, grow steady, or indulge in internal emptiness. When this is the case, he discerns, 'While I am attending to internal emptiness, my mind does not take pleasure, find satisfaction, grow steady, or indulge in internal emptiness.' In this way he is alert there.
"He attends to external emptiness...
"He attends to internal & external emptiness...
"He attends to the imperturbable. While he is attending to the imperturbable, his mind does not take pleasure, find satisfaction, grow steady, or indulge in the imperturbable. When this is the case, he discerns, 'While I am attending to the imperturbable, my mind does not take pleasure, find satisfaction, grow steady, or indulge in the imperturbable.' In this way he is alert there.
"When that is the case, he should get the mind steadied right within, settled, unified, & concentrated in his first theme of concentration.
"He then attends to internal emptiness. While he is attending to internal emptiness, his mind takes pleasure, finds satisfaction, grows steady, & indulges in internal emptiness. When this is the case, he discerns, 'While I am attending to internal emptiness, my mind takes pleasure, finds satisfaction, grows steady, & indulges in internal emptiness.' In this way he is alert there.
"He attends to external emptiness...
"He attends to internal & external emptiness...
"He attends to the imperturbable. While he is attending to the imperturbable, his mind takes pleasure, finds satisfaction, grows steady, & indulges in the imperturbable. When this is the case, he discerns, 'While I am attending to the imperturbable, my mind takes pleasure, finds satisfaction, grows steady, & indulges in the imperturbable.' In this way he is alert there.
"If, while the monk is dwelling by means of this dwelling, his mind inclines to walking back & forth, he walks back & forth [thinking,] 'While I am walking thus, no covetousness or sadness, no evil, unskillful qualities will take possession of me.' In this way he is alert there.
"If, while he is dwelling by means of this dwelling, his mind inclines to standing... to sitting... to lying down, he lies down, [thinking,] 'While I am lying down thus, no covetousness or sadness, no evil, unskillful qualities will take possession of me.' In this way he is alert there."
Furthermore, in the following sutta we see how the Buddha encourages an experience that is as direct as possible, and not filtered through subsequent layers of fabrication.
MN 1: Mulapariyaya Sutta wrote:"A monk who is a trainee — yearning for the unexcelled relief from bondage, his aspirations as yet unfulfilled — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, let him not conceive things about earth, let him not conceive things in earth, let him not conceive things coming out of earth, let him not conceive earth as 'mine,' let him not delight in earth. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you.

"He directly knows water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind... beings as beings... gods as gods... Pajapati as Pajapati... Brahma as Brahma... the luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods of refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant fruit... the Great Being as the Great Being... the dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... the seen as the seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as multiplicity... the All as the All...

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, let him not conceive things about Unbinding, let him not conceive things in Unbinding, let him not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, let him not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' let him not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you.
mikenz66 wrote:But I don't understand how you propose to understand that emptiness experientially unless you can discern the causation/fabrication/etc. The connection between intention and motion, for example.
Well, the above suttas provide such details, but more generally I apply the classifications used by Bhikkhuni Dhammadinna.
MN 44: Culavedalla Sutta wrote:"Now, lady, what are fabrications?"

"These three fabrications, friend Visakha: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, & mental fabrications."

"But what are bodily fabrications? What are verbal fabrications? What are mental fabrications?"

"In-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications."

"But why are in-&-out breaths bodily fabrications? Why are directed thought & evaluation verbal fabrications? Why are perceptions & feelings mental fabrications?"

"In-&-out breaths are bodily; these are things tied up with the body. That's why in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Having first directed one's thoughts and made an evaluation, one then breaks out into speech. That's why directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental; these are things tied up with the mind. That's why perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications."
MN 44 later goes on to give details as to how each classification of sankhara are tranquilized.

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
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Fabrication

Post by mikenz66 »

So you observe how those things arise?
That's what I said, I thought.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Fabrication

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:So you observe how those things arise?
Yes, I observe how those sankharas listed by Ayya Dhammadinna arise.

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
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Fabrication

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote:... the Buddha encourages an experience that is as direct as possible, and not filtered through subsequent layers of fabrication.
Which is precisely the point I've always tried to make in various interminable discussions that usually get derailed by that silly "reality" straw person.

So, no disagreement here... :hug:

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Fabrication

Post by retrofuturist »

:thumbsup:

:meditate:

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 »

chownah wrote: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?
I was just trying to check whether I understood what Retro was saying, I'm not suggesting it's necessary the best description. Obviously the reference to objects is my meditation instruction talking.

While the idea of objects coming in and out of ones 'sphere" of awareness may seem like self at the centre of the universe, that's just one perspective and one only need recognise it as such.
chownah wrote: 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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... .html#fn-3
Notice that consciouness is clearly indicated to be a fabrication....
That's a crazy ass scripture if ever there was.

Actually not only does it talk about fabrication of conciousness but the fabrication of each of the 5 aggregates, in addition to this each of the 5 aggregates has it's own paragraph.

This appears to be supporting what I'm talking about, that there is form, and there is also the fabrication of form, there that there is feeling, and there is also the fabrication of feeling. I may be wrong and interpreting it to support my point but what it appears to be saying is that on top of these aggregates fabrication creates extra layers of fabrication of each the aggregates, ie the mind adds all it's extra categorisation, agendas, and interpretation to the primary experience.
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:Yes, I observe how those sankharas listed by Ayya Dhammadinna arise.
The really cool thing is one doesn't need the list in order to observe them. Sometimes lists help but sometimes insight just works the way it's supposed to, and sometimes lists just get in the way.
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 »

mikenz66 wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:... the Buddha encourages an experience that is as direct as possible, and not filtered through subsequent layers of fabrication.
Which is precisely the point I've always tried to make in various interminable discussions that usually get derailed by that silly "reality" straw person.
Amen to that too, that was my point right at the beginning, the Buddha encourages an experience that is as direct as possible, and not filtered through subsequent layers of fabrication... so in order to do that one must be able to discern the difference between direct experience and fabrication.

So why did I get phooied with "everything is Fabrication?'"
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:the Buddha encourages an experience that is as direct as possible, and not filtered through subsequent layers of fabrication... so in order to do that one must be able to discern the difference between direct experience and fabrication.
Precisely so.
Goofaholix wrote:So why did I get phooied with "everything is Fabrication?'"
Because it is. :sage:
Nanananda wrote:"At the end, all is empty. We are not will­ing to accept that exis­tence is a per­ver­sion. Exis­tence is suf­fer­ing pre­cisely because it is a perversion.”
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."
Post Reply