Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The Collected Topics curriculum opens with color — defined as “suitable to be a hue” — and in this 47-minute class Ven Jampa Gendun uses that deceptively plain starting point to introduce both debate mechanics and a genuine doctrinal puzzle. He first explains the curriculum’s purpose: training the mind toward correct thinking to dismantle belief in inherent existence and in self-cherishing. A prayer to Mañjuśrī, whose sword has two edges representing ultimate and conventional truth, frames his advice: any topic, pursued far enough, points toward emptiness. The session then becomes classroom debate practice — definition versus definiendum, why the two are mutually exclusive, how to identify genuinely mutually inclusive pairs — while Gendun connects the exercise to a live doctrinal contrast: the Sūtra School holds that a definition inheres objectively in its object; the Middle Way says even that is mental imputation. Aimed at beginners learning formal Buddhist debate.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 03 CT 1988 03 15.mp3
UUID: 5308a576-6a4a-455f-b432-9a43dbfe5090
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-03-15
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.8 minutes
Words: ~5,203
To exist truly or inherently. And the other one is the other epistemological error is the efficacy or the effectiveness of the self-cherishing thought. By overcoming these mistaken beliefs that we hold, we can go beyond our own suffering and develop the skillful means in order to benefit others. That is, we can actualize both of our potentials which in ultimate form are the truth body and the form body of a Buddha. So therefore, in order to achieve our goal, that is to fulfill our own purposes as well as to fulfill the purposes of others, we must begin to overcome overcome these mistaken beliefs that we have, these mistaken core assumptions or sets of ideals which are wrong, which are not in accordance with the reality.
And the way we can begin to do this is set a foundation of right thinking, thinking along correct lines which are in accord with reality. And therefore, it’s quite useful to begin to train our minds in such a way that eventually we begin to correct small subtle errors in the hopes that we can build up and begin to eliminate deeper, more subtle types of errors, you know, until basically we can transform ourselves out of these basic epistemological errors that we’re making. This is the ultimate purpose of the study of collected topics, to help us train our minds and to begin to develop thinking and which is in accordance with the way things actually are, both for ourselves and others benefit, and thereby achieve Buddhahood. So when we take the refuge in the Buddha, generation of motivation, and then we’ll recite the prayer to Mañjuśrī. So it’s associated with wisdom.
To the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, I go for refuge until I am enlightened. Through the merit I create by practicing giving any other perfections, may I attain Buddhahood for the sake of all beings. To the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, I go for refuge until I am enlightened. To the merit I create by practicing giving and the other perfections, may I attain Buddhahood for the sake of all beings. To the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, I go for refuge until I am enlightened.
Through the merit I create by practicing giving and the other perfections, may I attain Buddhahood for the sake of all beings. Obeisance to my guru and protector Mañjuśrī who holds to his heart a scriptural text symbolic of his seeing all things as they are, whose intelligence shines forth as the sun unclouded by delusions or traces of ignorance, Who teaches in sixty ways with the love and compassion of a father for his only son. All creatures caught in the prison, the same sorrow, confused in the darkness of their ignorance, overwhelmed by their suffering. You whose dragon thunder like proclamation of dharma arouses us from the stupor of our delusions and frees us from the iron chains of our karma. It wields the sword of wisdom hewing down suffering wherever its sprouts appear, clearing away the darkness and ignorance.
You whose princely body is adorned with one hundred and twelve marks of a Buddha, who has completed the stages achieving the highest perfection of a bodhisattva, who has been pure from the beginning. I bow to you, o Mañjuśrī, with the brilliance of your wisdom, o compassionate one. Illuminate the darkness enclosing my mind. Enlighten my intelligence and wisdom so that I may gain insight into the Buddhist words and the texts that explain them. So Mañjuśrī holds a scriptural text in a sword.
And the scriptural text is the perfection of wisdom sutras in eight thousand verses. And the sword, which cuts away the root of ignorance, has two edges. One is the understanding of the ultimate truth and the other is the understanding of the conventional truth. I think, you know, it’s very important in our Dharma practice to always be thinking as best we can of the two levels of truth, both these ultimate level of truth, the conventional level of truth. You know, it’s only when a bodhisattva has direct perception of emptiness, once he has direct perception of ultimate truth, that is, he attains the path of seeing, that he actually is said to be practicing the surpassing perfections.
Up to that point, he is practicing the perfections, but not surpassing perfections. That is to say he practiced, for example, generosity. But he still has the conception that these that the object given, that the person receiving, and the giver are truly existing. So as long as there’s this conception, these even though these are perfections, even though these are unimaginable acts of a bodhisattva, they do not serve as the direct cause of Buddhahood. They do not serve as the direct cause of liberation.
It’s only by having direct insight into emptiness, ultimate truth, can can we gain the causes for for liberation and ultimately for Buddhahood. So in what whatever we do, whatever we’re studying, how does it relate to ultimate truth? How does karma relate to ultimate truth? How does our various mind trainings relate to ultimate truth? How is ultimate truth relating to the conventional truth?
We should always be trying to see the two levels of truth working simultaneously at the same time. This is one of the key advices that one of my teachers gave me. They said most Westerners and most people in general, they think about ultimate truth, they think about selflessness, and they set aside the conventional truth or conventionalities, whatever subject they might be conceiving of, whether it’s various subjects on the Lam Rim. And then they say, well, now I’m going to meditate on Lam Rim. And they start to meditate on the perfect human rebirth or death or whatever.
And they sort of find the ultimate truth. And therefore, they they always see them as separate. They don’t see them how they how they are working together. And it’s very important in our practice to see how we can relate ultimate truth and conventionalities. It’s it’s not easy, but it’s very quite worthwhile.
And I think in our studies, even in these extremely simple studies that we’re beginning with, I I began to note that anytime I pursued any of these points very deeply, and I just kept pursuing, pursuing why is that? Why is that? Why is that? Why is that? Generally beyond unusual limits that we would normally go.
Generally, we don’t go we don’t go into things very deeply. We we reach a point where you are with that level. But if you keep on why is that? Why is that? You always come to some ultimate truth.
You always come to some emptiness. And this will come up all the time in our study, even in the very simple subjects that we’re going to study, even tonight, perhaps, even, you know, even though we’re just beginning. They can, if we go deep enough it’s always pointing the way to ultimate truth and that way we can understand conventional truth that much better. And we build up an understanding of ultimate truth from hundreds of different view points. And if we’re only studying the ultimate truth in isolation, we only understand it from one or two directions.
We don’t understand all its myriad facets, all its all its tonal qualities, all its flavors. Everything that we do, we can somehow start seeing how the ultimate truth is working with it. Hopefully, will become apparent as we go along and pursue things very deeply, logically. So we’re discussing the collective topics. And we the initial text that’s studied by the monks and nuns.
As I said, it’s it’s usually studied as an introduction to very young students to get them acquainted with the various terminology, divisions, the topics that they will later on take up and study much more deeply when they when they take up the major, five treatises which are which, explain all of the, Sūtra School of Buddhism, the broader Mahāyāna. So as far as information, for example, we’ll take up the first division of the first text of the first Collective topics was divided into how many parts? How many how many divisions does Collective topics have? Three. No.
Anybody else? Two. How many? That’s fine. What are you?
Three. lesser path of reasoning, three, seven, three, and four. Okay. Good. And then the the first division of the lesser path of reasoning has how many divisions?
That’s right. Has eight divisions. So we’re gonna take up the first, which is color. This is quite simple. It’s not gonna give you very much information at all, but this was serves as a basis for learning how to debate.
So it’s not meant to be at all complex, profound. That that would actually get in the way of simply learning the mechanics of debate. So it’s simply a listing of colors. But it can be gone into quite profoundly, you know, if if we desire to. We must remember one thing that through this entire text, we’re studying from one point of view, one school.
It is Svatāntrika or the Sūtra School out of the four schools. And all of Buddhism can be divide can be systematized into four schools. It’s not to say that one person would fit very neatly into one school. He might have some beliefs which are associated with a higher school, a lower school, and then a middle his own school in particular. But in general, we can say that if we take all the various doctrines that the Buddha taught in accordance with what they’re called basis paths and fruits.
Basis basis basis are usually called the two truths. Paths are the various stages and levels that one passes through up to Buddhahood, and then the fruit is Buddhahood, the nature of nirvana, the nature of our foe destroyers, the nature of the various truth of the bodies of a Buddha. So these are the the way they systematize these three these three basis paths and fruits, they were able to see commonalities, certain distinguishing factors between them, and they and they divided up into four. And there was a graduation of subtlety between the lower school and the higher school. Subtlety from the point of view of gaining was closer and closer in accordance with the Buddhist real view of the actual nature of reality.
It was final thought. The Buddha taught in accordance with the capacities and disposition of his disciples. He didn’t he didn’t present one doctrine. Otherwise, he could have only, been a benefit to a limited number of students. Whatever that particular person’s capacity was, he taught them in such a way that he benefited them as much as they were able to be benefited at that present time in order to lead them to a higher understanding.
So therefore, there became about various systems or graduated presentation which culminated in his final thought which he had nothing higher to give which is according to Buddhism, the actual nature of reality. It describes the way things actually are. So all of what we’re studying is going to be in accordance with the point of view or the system of the Sūtra School. Many of things that come up will not be in accordance with what you have heard, especially with respect to emptiness. So we have to keep that in mind because there seems to be some contradiction.
Generally, most everything that is said wouldn’t be in accordance with with, with the Middle Way School, which is, you know, the ultimate view of the Buddha as far as the systems of teachings. So the first division of the lesser path of reasoning is color. This won’t be very difficult. Is there any question about that? The four scores.
You know, we we taught the tenets that when he was here, the four tenet schools, and we went through the four tenets. So it’s four systems of philosophy. Yeah? And they all teach the basis, paths, and fruits. They have slightly different presentations of these.
Slightly different presentations of the two truths, which are the basins, slightly different presentations of the paths, the levels and stages, how one progresses, and then the fruit. Two lower tenets are usually lesser vehicle. The two higher tenets are usually associated with the greater vehicle, the Mahāyāna, but it’s not necessary. So so the first division of the lesser path of reasoning is color. So first, the author so this is the this is the teacher.
He’s beginning he says, new students. Some perhaps these students are are nine years old. So it’s very much he’s going to present things very simply in order to help them first to start thinking and to help them them some information, some material to learn the mechanics of debate. So much of what is presented will be dependent upon the commentary of the teacher in this first especially in this first section. It’s it’s very it’s very short.
There’s just the definition of color and definition of color and and some short divisions of color. So first, he gives the the definition of color. The definition of color. So the definition of color is suitable as a hue. Suitable as a hue.
Or that which is or you can say another word, that which is suitable to be a hue. I looked up the word hue in the dictionary. And you will find that quite often when you come down to basic the basic elements, the basic nitty gritty of words, the dictionary doesn’t know. They use other words to to define words, but when you want to know what does that word mean, they start getting circular and it becomes a tautology. The definition of hue is color tint, and this is a good one.
Attribute by virtue of which a color is red, green, etcetera. So there’s something by virtue of which a color is red or green. Now what that thing is, there’s a hue, now what that hue is. So it doesn’t help as much, but it gives us some idea. It’s something which some characteristic of red, green, and blue, some of a of a color by which that particular color is altered or determined.
Anyway, it’s not important that we know the the definition of color. It’s just something we have to work with. So the definition of color is we can just use the abbreviated form. It’s suitable as a hue, that or that which is that which is suitable to be a a hue. Now what is a color?
Anything that is suitable to be shown or pointed at pointed out, to an eye consciousness as a hue. This is what this is what we’re meaning. So colors are objects of the eye consciousness. You know, eye consciousness has two objects, color and shape. We’ll we’ll get to this later on.
We’ll get well, this will come up in the next next division. So by color, just mean anything that is suitable to be shown or pointed out to the eye consciousness as a hue. So this what we’re doing is appealing to obvious experience, you know, our obvious, to sensory experience. Just saying this is a color. This is a color.
This is a color. Anything which I point to which is, can be shown as a hue to the eye consciousness, we call color. And we’re pointing out to the sense consciousness to our our own obvious experience. All reasoning must eventually come down to obvious experience. We cannot endlessly keep giving reasons for reasons for reasons for reason.
Ultimately, all reasoning must come down to sensory experience, to direct experience, to obvious experience. Not necessarily sensory experience, but to direct experience of obvious experience. So in that sense, we have to have some common basis of experiences in order to, come to some parallel understanding of an object. If you and I do not have any common basis for our for our communication, we cannot understand each other. You know, it’s like trying to explain somebody what the taste of, you know, brown sugar is, for example.
It’s, you can only approximate it. You can’t can never generate an exact understanding of what the taste of brown sugar is. He doesn’t have that obvious experience within his, you know, within his file in order to something referred to. So all reasoning must eventually come down to obvious experience, even emptiness. In order to develop an understanding of emptiness, we cannot just jump there.
We have to build up to it. Therefore, in order to understand emptiness, the various levels of emptiness, the various subtleties of emptiness, near from the highest school, the middle way school, we can develop understand by referring to the lower school. In order to understand the lower school, we can refer to a lower school. In order to understand lower school, we have to understand subtle impermanence, the the moment by moment change of an object. Know, it’s it’s a it’s a creation, abidance, and disintegration moment by moment.
In order to understand that subtle impermanence, we rely on our understanding of gross impermanence. There are many levels of gross impermanence. For example, you know, mountains over billions of years, slowly, they’re being over millions of years, they’re slowly being worn down. It’s not obvious to the eye consciousness, but it is a type of gross impermanence that extends over a great long period of time. In order in order to understand that type of impermanent, we have to understand that even grosser impermanence, for example, death.
You know, that something is born, it lives for eighty years, and then it dies. In order to understand that, we can look at things around us. You know, the houses fall down, you know, a bomb blowing up a building. Just in a matter of moments, there’s a building. It it exists and it disintegrates in a matter of moments.
So we rely on our we can actually see this, this type of very gross impermanence. You know, in in reliance upon seeing a very gross impermanence, we can understand a slightly less gross impermanence, we can gross impermanence, then we can understand the subtle impermanence, then we can understand the lower school’s understanding of emptiness and the higher school of emptiness. So even emptiness is ultimately based in our own relying on our own obvious experiences. You know, for example, seeing buildings collapse, seeing people die. This is where we can begin to generate and build up understandings, where eventually understanding things which now are totally unobvious to us.
So suitable as a hue is the definition of color. Suitable as hue is the definition of color. Now there’s another word. Just the definition. Anybody else?
Alright. So definition is that is that what’s defined? Definition is that which is defined. Definition. Definiendum.
Knee. Definiendum. Anyway, isn’t that it’s a useful word. We’ll use it from time to time. Yeah?
It’s just it it’s comp it’s the complement to the definition. That which is being defined is the definite that which defines is the definition. So color is the definiendum. I really need to spell it like a strand there. Yeah?
Okay. And, Suitable to be a hue is a definition. Okay? So there’s a relationship between definiendum and definition.
So suitable to be a hue is the actual object. Suitable to be here is the actual object itself. Definition is the nature is the nature of the object, the actual object itself. Definiendum is the is the name which designates the actual object. The definiendum is not the object itself.
It is the name we give for convenience to the object. The object itself is suitable to be in you. That which is suitable to be a hue, you know. Definiendum is a name designated or given to the object for convenience so we can talk about it. It is not the object itself.
The actual object itself is the definition, or in this case that which is suitable to be a hue. So, you know, we’re talking about the four ways four possible ways that, things relate with one another, the relationships of two class objects. You know, we talked about similarities and differences using this this chart here, a and b. And the very first one, we call mutually inclusive. Does everybody have this?
Just So the so the definition or or, you know, this word also means nature. The nature of the object, the definition of the object is the actual object itself. So it will be the definiendum. And what is the relationship between the the the the and the definition? That’s right.
Richard. It says Okay. What is it? Okay. Anything which is a color?
Anything which is a color? Call this a. And that’s b. Anything which is a color is suitable to be a hue. Anything which is suitable to be a hue is a color.
Is the color. Yeah. All colors are suitable to be hues. All suitable to be humans. All that all those things which are suitable to be here are humans are colors.
They’re mutually inclusive. Usually inclusive. Yeah. But what you define definite definite definite definitions have definite. You know, like, yeah, definitums have definitions.
Definitions do not have definition. Definitions do not have definition. Definitions. Definitions definitums. Definite definite definitions do not have definition.
Once you once you you know, like, suitable to be does not have a definition. It is the actual thing itself. Names, which are designated to have definition, they are not the thing itself. We’re no. We’re we’re we’re we’re we’re we’re keep playing with this.
So we can you know, as we’re talking about the two levels of truth, within within the Sūtra School, impermanent phenomena are truly existing, inherently existing. That means their natures abide in the objects themselves. They exist objectively within from their own side. Their natures. That which is suitably hue, this property’s quality of being of suitableness to be a hue is inherent in that object itself.
The name, color, is just being designated to that. That’s what we mean by truly existing. That this this nature, this quality of being suitable to be a hue is the actual object itself. It doesn’t depend upon the mind. It doesn’t depend upon being and given that quality or that name.
So we can begin to tie it in a little bit with with the ultimate with what we are talking about when we talk about inherent existence, ultimate truth. I don’t know if you know, I don’t want to confuse you by tying it in. I’m afraid. Yeah? No.
I won’t. Because if we go to the middle way school, they said even this is not the actual object, but this is also being designated. You see the difference? Here in in the Sūtra School, this is the actual object. This is the inherent quality of that object coming objectively coming from the side of the object.
This is what is imputed, the name of the object. But the the middle way school, and most most more specifically, the Consequentialist Middle Way school says even this is just being given by conception. Even this is being really designated. There’s nothing coming from the side of the object. There is no inherent nature.
So this is a bit more difficult. But we have to we can begin to understand that the names that we assign things are not the objects themselves. That the definition that definitums are not the thing themselves. They are merely convenient names, designations that we give objects. Color is the name we give to that which is suitable to be a hue.
Okay. Now now okay. We’re going to begin to play with this a little bit. First off, you know, in this, you know, we’re going to try to go through this these four ways of relating similarities and differences. So what is the relationship between definiendum and definition?
Which is inclusive? Okay. You’re saying what are you saying when you say mutually inclusive? Pardon? So he says inclusive instead.
So if it’s inclusive in if a if it if it if it is a, it is necessarily b, or is let’s say it’s pervaded by. If it is a, it’s pervaded by b. If it is b, it’s pervaded by a or necessary. So what is the relationship between definiendum and definition? Exclusive.
But didn’t we say that color and suitable to be hue are are mutually inclusive? You don’t think they are? Good. Okay. That’s good.
So if it is color, it doesn’t have to be suitable to be hue? Guess. What? Are they if it’s a color, does it have to be suitable to be you? If it’s suitable to be you, does it have to be a color?
So would you are those mutually inclusive? How about defining them in the thin definition? Definitum and definition. Anything which which is a definitum must be a definition. If it if it’s a definite, then it’s necessarily a definite definition.
It isn’t. It isn’t. No. What is the relationship between diff between diff definiendum and definition? You see, anything which is a definition must not be a deaf anything which is a definiendum must not be a definition, and anything which is a definition must not be a diffinium.
Anybody disagree with that? Didn’t you? You need to disagree. Let’s take something else. Does can it you know, besides the relationship between definite definitum and definition, can anyone give an example of two things which are mutually inclusive mutually inclusive?
Or are only definitions and definitions of virtually inclusive? Are there are there other things? These are mutually inclusive. If it’s water, it’s gonna see. And necessarily see.
If it’s water, it’s gonna see. See. Okay. Then they aren’t. Anybody else?
Person. human being. Person, human being. Person, human being. Person, being.
Anybody disagree? Everybody agree more? What’s the difference? What’s the difference in a human being? Almost safe?
What do you think? Anybody everybody agree with that? No? Definition of a person is a human being. Well, I was asking for something other than defending on them in definition.
And would you say these are are not mutually inclusive? So if it’s a if it’s a person, it’s necessarily a human being. If it’s a human being, it’s necessarily a person. Yeah. That’s fine.
I think I I think I agree. Does everybody see that? Okay. Let’s take another example. How about maybe I give another example.
Raise your hand. Two things which are usually inclusive. No? Why? Heat doesn’t have to be fine.
For example, an heater. An oil heater heat. An oil heater’s heat, or does it give off heat? Heat. But it’s not heat.
So what’s the heat heat and that’s fine? Energy. Heat not fire. Anybody? Iron clean.
How about throwing heat? Fire and flame? Is that a plane? Is a is a picture of a flame a flame? Is a picture of a person a person?
Is a picture of a piece of chocolate cake chocolate cake? So what about fire and flame? Interesting, isn’t it? Fire and flame. Okay.
Anything else? How about something like in the cave and the the co-treasurer. Oh, no. Co-treasurer. Co-treasurer of Buddha House.
What do you think of what’s the co treasurer of Buddha the present co treasurer of Buddha House? How about how what what is the first assistant? First assistant. Present first assistant treasurer of Buddha House is Linda Kennis. Are those interesting, Krishna?
What whatever’s Linda Canoes. Must be the first must be the present first first assistant treasurer, Buddha, whatever whatever it is. Yes. But what part of them is that? Yeah.
Yeah. No. Okay. No. Okay.
Whatever. Whatever is Linda Kennis. What I’m sure. Does it have to be referred to that at that moment? Does does the car have to be running for it to be a car?
If it’s parked in the driveway with an engine turned off, is it still a car? No. Does something have to be functioning in its capacity in order to be that thing? It does. So so then you’re not the treasure of Buddha house.
Then you’re then then there’s no there’s Buddha house has no treasure. I see. Kath Davis. Well, Kath Davis is the treasurer of Buddha House. Is Kath Davis the treasurer of Buddha House? Okay. Does some does some time does a room not exist when there’s no one in it using it?
Yeah. Just no. We we are not personal. There are times right? Down there.
Not for you. Not wait. I didn’t say for you. I don’t know. No.
But it does exist even when it’s not being used, even when no one’s in here. So something that doesn’t have to be fulfilling the function in order for it to be that thing. Alright. Okay. So are we getting some idea of what we mean by mutually inclusive?
It it can be it doesn’t necessarily have to be defending in them in a definition, fire and flame, person, human, person, human being, and the present first assistant treasurer. If it’s a, it necessarily has to be b. If it’s b, it necessarily has to be a. Okay. We can ask, how about how about pot and pot?
Are they mutually what are they mutually inclusive? Is pot and pot mutually inclusive? Are they the same? Is pot a word?
You don’t cook with it? You don’t put soup in it? You don’t put vegetables in it? What is this up here? There’s marks on the board, aren’t there?
That’s not a pot, is it? Okay. Yeah? So our pot and pot, are they mostly inclusive? Two two separate parts.
A part and a pot. Are they mutually inclusive? Yeah. Yeah? So there’s no reason so in order for things to be two things to be mutually inclusive, they must be different.
Okay? That’s we just have to say that’s a rule of thumb. They have to be different. A and b must be different. And if we’re then mutually inclusive, they must first be different.
There must first be two things. Now how do we know how do we how how do we determine whether things are different? How do we determine whether a and b are different? Can I have guess? Different name.
If two things have different names, they’re different. How about how about bumpa, which is the Tibetan word for pot, and pot? Are they different, or just are they same? This is this is the Tibetan word for pot. It’s English word for pot.
It’s bumpa and pot. Are they the same or different? They’re the same. So they but the aren’t they different names? And one in the same in the same language.
Why do they have to be different for things for for two things to be mutually inclusive?