Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Kyabje Rinpoche uses the classical example of Devadatta—a fat person who doesn’t eat during daytime—to introduce the Buddhist logic of affirming negatives: statements that negate one thing while implying another. In this 46.9-minute talk, he builds from this concrete example to systematically unpack how Buddhist philosophers analyse reality through object and subject, the two truths, and the distinction between positive and negative phenomena. He then turns to a crucial doctrinal question: what constitutes a person, and what takes rebirth from life to life—the continuity of the five aggregates or mental consciousness itself? Different Buddhist schools answer differently. Throughout, he emphasises how karma and cause-and-effect function at different levels for practitioners of varying capacity. For those beginning serious study of Buddhist tenets.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 1994-06-02 – 9B – KR.mp3
UUID: 2a546452-870c-40f6-933b-86e9c0ec3756
Teacher: Kyabje Rinpoche
Collection: Tenets
Date: 1994-06-02
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~2,683
It would be good we look at it by way of an example. Now the example is in the classical period, there was the character of a person who was related with Buddha called Devadatta. So Devadatta is the example, and we can take any example, a male or female character of our own time, doesn’t matter. Now Devadatta, if we stick with that classical example, is a person and it was possible that sometimes he was fat and sometimes skinny, but the time when he was fat, if there is a state if there was a statement saying the fat Devadatta does not eat during daytime, what would happen? So let’s look at that example.
Now let’s look at that statement. What does it imply? Well, firstly, it says, in Tibetanan, it goes reverse. But in English, So already the statement mentioned it is a fat person, but then the next part of the sentence or statement says, does not eat during daytime. So obviously, although it negates the person eating during daytime, but it definitely implies the fact that he must be eating during nighttime because he is fat.
So generally conventionally speaking, one doesn’t one must definitely be eating much to be fat. I mean, especially in those classical time. So it is a fact that one must be eating very much to be fat. But if the statement says that the fat Devadatta does not eat during daytime, then although it negates that he doesn’t eat during daytime but it obviously does imply that he must be eating during nighttime so that is what is implied even though the statement negates something. And that’s how this this is this becomes an example of affirming negative.
Other similar examples of affirming negative negative are heelless plain, selfless existing phenomena, where the examples in the first case, it although negates the presence of heel, but it implies there’s still plain plain. So heelless plain. And then selfless existing phenomena, although it negates the existing phenomena as selfless, but it implies as existing phenomena. Although, at the same time, while something is being negated. So in brief, affirming sorry, affirming negative is where something something is negated.
But while something is being negated, something else is implied. And that’s brief. So the human part was there was an example which was withdrawn back. So negative is where when something is negated, nothing else is implied where as affirming one at one negating something something else is implied. And then on the other hand are the positive or the positive phenomena, which, to give examples, would be cup, flour, table, and all other things which when which to purse to understand or perceive them, one doesn’t have to negate something else.
For example, with flower, when someone calls, introduce you the object flower, but mere name being mentioned, you straight away perceive or understand it to be a flower. Nothing needs to be negated to understand it. Similarly, from your own side, the time you look at the object having the stem, the branch petals, you identify it as flower in the process of identification. You don’t need to negate anything. So that’s a positive or positive phenomena where for its understanding, nothing needs to be negated.
So the brief in brief, the difference between negative and positive is that in negative, one, to understand it, needs to negate something. Whereas in positive, one doesn’t have to negate. One would still perceive or understand the object to be perceived. And then other classification of phenomena are by way of looking it as one and many. One as one or separate.
So the word separate is also synonymous with many in this case. So one and separate. By one, it means some phenomena which does not which is not separate in its existence or entity. It is the one embodiment. Embodiment.
And separate or many separate is where, say, in the case of two fingers, the two are separate. So they are not in two they are not as one embodiment. So we can look at any phenomena in that way. Oh, and now going back in our previous classification, we when laid the format of looking into this tenet as base, part, and result, under the base, we classified into object and subject. Within object, we looked at two truths and then the positive and negative tonight and one and many.
So perhaps this much would be sufficient to go on to have gone on the object part topic. Now next is the subject, which literally is called the object endowed, one which possesses the object. Subject. And subject is classified into three topics, being, sound, and consciousness. Of course, earlier with the lowest school specific exponents, we did find similar classification of subject being divided into being sound and consciousness.
And there with specific exponent, when it comes to defining what a being or a person, being and person is similar, what a being or person is, they define a being as composite of the aggregates or to interpret composite of the five aggregates. So they defined a being or person as composite of aggregates. Now what is different here with this school’s group, the sūtra followers is here and being our person is defined as the continuity of the five aggregates. That five aggregates flows continuously in continuity. That continuity is what a personal being is.
But at the same time, some of the Sautrāntika, another camp of discourse group present the definition or description of person as the mental consciousness. In their view, mental consciousness is the being of person. So in that way, we find, according to discourse groups, person can be described in two ways, as a continuity of the five aggregates or as the mental consciousness itself. According to the description that being a person is the continuity of aggregates, it is maintained maintained that after dying from previous life, the aggregates or the five aggregates flowed or existed in continuity and in this life the continuity of the aggregate is acquired, is retained. And when one dies in this life, the continuity of the aggregates will flow.
And in next life, that continuity of aggregates will be there. So that’s how it is explained. And by way of that description, we can say according to discourse groups who maintain this theory that personal being is the continue to aggregate aggregate that they say the one which takes rebirth. What is that? As an answer, they would say it is the continuity of the five aggregates which takes three Anyway, Anyway, that that is the assertion by the discourse groups who follow the scriptures, who follow the strict literal wording of the teachings.
Whereas the discourse groups who follow reasoning, they explain in straight that it is the mental consciousness which gets reborn from one rebirth to next rebirth, and it is not the continuity of the five aggregates. And by way of that explanation, discourse groups who follow reasoning explains that it is the mental consciousness itself which takes rebirth from one rebirth to the next rebirth. Here, the reason why a being or person is classified as subject is because it perceives it knows or perceives object. For example, the being or person can perceive perceive or know what is good, what is bad, and as well can perceive different colors, white, red, blue, so forth. Forth.
So in a way, it is subject very rightly because it perceives and knows objects. And that’s why it is literally called the object endowed subject. Subject. Next, within the classification of subject is sound. And sound are considered as subject.
For example, sound of the sound of the mentioned cup, flower, light, room, and so forth. They are classified as subject and being sound. For example, let’s look at particular example amongst them, the flower. The very mentioned flower has has its as its object, the flower itself. As And also the very mention of the sound flower gives the expression flower, which is the object of expression.
So in that way, it has flower as object and the sound is the subject. Similarly, look at the book when it’s described that this very sound is the subject. Like that all other cases of name and expressions of name are subject. Sound represented as name are what’s called the subject. And then we look at other examples, say, the sound mentioning Dawa, that is a subject having an object.
Similarly, the sound mentioning Tenzin, that’s also a subject having an object of its mention. So again, like that, going back to other examples, book, light, room, so forth. So these are all examples of sound being a subject where it has its object of reference. So here, for those who are studying the language, I’m sure not confuse this. So those who are studying the language should not confuse confuse the sound da in Tibetan being referred to sound, whereas similar sound naming similar sounding word is the case of word for for enemy where the sound also is da, but the spelling is different.
I think it’s only for those who are serious about Tibetan that they should not be confused because in the original Sanskrit language as well as in Tibetan, the two words are spelled differently. Here’s the word refers to sound. And by sound, we would describe as that which is to be listened to by ear. For example, the sound of waterfall, sound of wind, sound of sound of different objects cracking, and so forth. So that is the what’s called meant by word here in Tibet.
The third category of subject is consciousness. And by consciousness, one can have examples such as mind, awareness, and affection, loving-kindness, compassion, wisdom realizing emptiness, and so forth, where the consciousness perceives its object, can understand, can know, can cognize, can perceive the objects. Similarly, the sense consciousnesses such as eye consciousness, ear consciousness, they also are consciousness and subject because they have their objects of objects to be cognized. So these are all instances, examples of that third category of subject. And then with consciousness itself, it can be classified from one point into two types, valid knowledge and non valid knowledge, which in popular translation you would find as valid cognition and non valid cognition.
So valid knowledge and non valid knowledge. Knowledge. And these are also by themselves a detailed topic extending into great details, elaboration, so forth, and which also have direct direct relevance under the course of study under the course of study with the topic called logic, mind, and Buddhist study about mind and logic. And we definitely will go through these two types of consciousnesses in our next sessions onward. And for tonight, we’ll stop here.
And if you have any questions, yeah, please put forward. The whole study and explanation about consciousness are extremely important because through that, we understand how the consciousness and mind works, how it perceives its objects correctly, incorrectly, and what sort of right wholesome avenues a right state of consciousness or consciousness engages into, and what sort of wrong avenues a non valid consciousness engages into, and as well this absorbing topic to think about. So definitely, while going through this second tenet discourse groups, we shall go in considerable detail about the valid cognition, valid knowledge, and about consciousness in general. Earlier during specific exponent explanation, we did not go into details because in that tenet, they themselves did not indulge much into into the details, whereas this course group specializes on such topics. So we shall go into detail on this topic in the next sessions onward.
And that’s why they’re dealt with the small scale teachings rather than the the higher scale teachings. Yeah. They include within the advice type teachings. Preciousness and difficulty of acquiring human rebirth, death impermanence, and karma cause and effect, they include within advice type. If you don’t mind, I will interpret advice should not be lightly seen as a derogative type of teaching.
The word actually in Tibetan means, as I said earlier, show or guide. Show or guide. Show or guide. So it would be more better translated as instruction because advice, people think that’s just an advice for temporary and doesn’t seriously tell about mental development. In the case of those who were a recipient of tenet teaching, they already would have trained on the precious human rebirth, that imprint and so forth.
So it is talking on the basis that they definitely have trained on those. And in the context of the three persons or three practitioners, we might say that they have trained on renunciation renunciation and have gone above the intermediate person, intermediate practitioner. Because for those to receive tenets, the explanation goes through the two truths being the basis, method and wisdom being the part, two Buddha bodies being the result. Already it is a instruction or format of instruction by which one is to be liberated from saṃsāra. So we would say then that they have already reached the intermediate practitioner’s level.
With all three practitioners, small practitioner, intermediate practitioner, and great practitioner, they all their path through observing karma, cause and effect. In the case of a small practitioner, their observance their observance of karma is very gross and brief. Whereas in the case of intermediate, it’s medium. And in the case of great person, it’s extensive and like a precise detail following of karma. So we do find in all three cases or in all three levels of practice that karma is still observed and it’s still relevant.
But the difference is in the matter of briefness and For example, in the case of small practitioner, with small thought, small practice is done. Intermediate practitioner with intermediate thought, intermediate practice is done. Great practitioner with great thought, great practice is done. So great thought, small intermediate thought in the sense mental capacity. But what they actually practice whether it’s small, intermediate, or big is basically karma.
That it is karma what they are practicing. It is law of corresponding corresponding cause cause and effect that they are practicing. And there is nothing separate and different apart from practice or karma they are doing. Understanding of karma cause and effect is of various degree of levels, various levels. The gross working of karma or very rough belief and convinceability of cause effect can be acquired even by watching conventional things functioning.
So by observing the conventional working of things, for example, if one looks at how effects or results are produced by certain gathering of causes and conditions even with external plants and so forth that as well would give a brief gross convince ability about how one’s actions would correspond in bringing results and so forth. So one would be able to understand rough karma or approximate karma through observing the working of things around. And then the little difficult to understand about karma can be understood by applying reasoning. If that and then when it comes to a very very subtle, extremely difficult to comprehend workings and complexity of karma, then it is only Buddha Śākyamūni who would know and perceive exactly as they are. So only an enlightened being would observe and know so forth.
And then on the other hand, we can perhaps put it differently by saying that karma can be, say, looked at as external karma and internal karma. So external karma being the working of how external things matters and so forth, plant life and beings, how gathering of causes produces result. There’s infallibility of the result coming when the causes and conditions are gathered and through that way gain convince through that way gain gain conviction that same must be with the workings of our own inner activities motivated by mind and so forth. And so that can be like a gross one. And then there will be a little bit more difficult to understand.