Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. A puzzle about saying “pot” twice opens this 46-minute Collected Topics session with Ven Jampa Gendun: are those two utterances the same or different? That question grounds the session’s central distinction — how conceptual consciousness, not direct perception, is what determines whether two things are different. Gendun walks students through four logical relationships: mutually inclusive, mutually exclusive, three possibilities (pervader and pervaded), and four possibilities, using local examples such as a Buddha House staff member’s job title and dogs versus animals. Along the way he introduces the Buddhist classification of colors: four primary colors (blue, yellow, white, red) and eight special secondary colors drawn from the sutras, a list that includes illumination, darkness, cloud, and smoke. Aimed at students new to Buddhist debate, the session is Socratic and unhurried.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 04 CT 1988 03 15.mp3
UUID: 3edc2053-faeb-4770-a9f0-58669f0e9ab0
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-03-15
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.4 minutes
Words: ~4,026
Are they different? Why? They’re the They’re the same. Wasn’t one first the first part and the second part? The first part I spoke and then the second part I spoke, are they the same?
Now if I say pot and pot, there’s the first part which I spoke and then there’s the second part which I spoke. So they’re different, aren’t they? So so pot they’re the same and different. Same word. Is pot a word?
Anyway, so for for things two things to be mutually inclusive, they must have different objects, and they must be different sounds. Different sound. Now what do we say how do we know that things are different? How do we know that a table and a chair are different? How do we know that Linda Kinnear and the first and the present first assistant okay.
Let’s ask. First, ask a question. Is Linda Kinnear and the present first assistant treasurer of Buddha House, are they same or different? They’re the same. And then they aren’t mutually inclusive.
Can can one thing can something be the same and different? No. Something can be the same and different. Is Linda Kinnear and the present first assistant treasurer of Buddha House same or different? Those are two people.
Right? Are those two people the same or different? Are they two different people or are they the same person? Two different different So so these are the same? Are these the same?
They’re different designations. Right? Are these the same person? Are these the same are are are a and b same or different? Is it is okay.
You argue. Judy says same. Kimball says different. Why do why do you say it’s same? You you you So what how do we how do we know that things are different?
How do you know a and b? By function. You can see if two things have the same function, then they’re the same. So By common By common If everyone agrees, what they agrees. Pardon?
By comparison of their qualities. Shouldn’t for exam for example? For example? When quality wishes in both? When is it a job?
First present first assistant treasurer of Buddha’s house is not a person. It’s a job. No. Present first assistant treasurer. She’s assistant treasurer of Buddha house.
Treasure of Buddha house. Treasurer. Treasurer. She’s not present. We we have we say present.
Present. At this moment. Is there anything is there any quality that this has a has that b doesn’t have or b has that a doesn’t have? Are they different? A and b, are they different?
I feel that Linda is more than that, but that is. For example? Example? Course. There are many other interests.
Give me one. One example. How about the how about the the tai chi practitioner? Okay. Is the present, first, assistant, treasurer, Buddha house not a tai chi practitioner?
Anything which is a must be if the two are mutually inclusive, anything which is a must be b, and anything which is b must be a. They’re identical, but they’re but they’re different. Why are they different? Different? They sound different.
They’re different. What sounds different? She is a person. Linda Kinnear is a person. She’s not a sound.
First, you know, is Linda Kinnear, is she a sound or a person? The name sounds different. So what what the name sound? The name? The name.
Name. Name. The definitions? Is this the definition? Which which one is the definition?
They’re both definitions. And what is the definition? What’s This is a definition? This is a definition? So, you know, when we think of Linda Kinnear, when we think of the present, first assistant, treasurer of Buddha House, something different appears to us in our minds.
Therefore, they’re different. It’s a you know, when we when I say, the Monk at Buddha House and Jampa Gendun, though they doesn’t they they apply to the same person, they appear to our conceptual consciousness consciousness differently. We have a different associations with them. So they they’re mutually inclusive, but because they appear to conception differently, we say they’re different. This is we say they’re different, they’re not the same.
If two things appear to conception identically, they’re the same. If they appear differently, then they’re different. So this is the you know, we talk about two things being of the same nature. Anyway, things can be the same, but be of They can be they can be the diff they can be different. Just to confuse you a little bit.
They can be different. They’d be the same nature. Same nature. Does any what’s an an ananimate give two things which are the same nature? Two things which are the same nature.
Talk about, for example, impermanence in this table and it’s and it’s impermanence of this table and the table, same nature. Why? Because to a direct perception they do not appear differently. So if if two things appear the same to direct perception, then they’re the same nature. If they appear to the same to conceptual consciousness, they’re the same.
If they appear different to direct perception, they’re different natures. If they appear different to conceptual consciousness, they’re different. So one so two things could be the same nature. For example, impermanence of the table and the table are the same nature because they they appear the same to a direct perception. But to a conception, impermanence and table appear different, therefore they’re different.
So the well, so if things are different, it’s because they appear to our conception different. The the co director sitting in this room presently at Kimball appear to our minds differently when we think, ah, Kimball, we have some ideas coming online. And then if we think, oh, the co director, the president the the co director is sitting here is really president. The different associations, a different generic image, different label mental image comes in our mind. Therefore, they’re different because they’re different mental images, different mental labels.
But they apply to the same person. They’re mutually inclusive. So in order for two things to be different, they must have different objects. That is generic labels, mental labels. That means they appear to conception differently.
They have different labels, different mental images arise when we hear those sounds. We hear their names when we think of them, and they must have different they must also be different in sound. Different meaning general or put it technically, different meaning generality or there is to say mental label and different sound generality. Pat and bumpa are not the same. When we hear the word bupa and when we hear pot, a different generic image will rise in our mind even though we know we know that they both are referring to the same thing.
Therefore, bumpa and pat are mutually inclusive because they’re different, and anything which is bumpa, it must be a pot, and anything which is pot must be a bumpa. Which which one? What’s your different? Pot and bumpa are different, aren’t they? Why why are pot and bumpa different?
Different sounds and different sounds. And what happens? So they’re different sounds. Why how do we know they’re different sounds? Maybe hear the different When you hear the word Bumpa?
Blank. I know that. No. It’s blank. It’s not blank.
Something something appears in your what is the hell is he talking about? Something appears in your mind in association with that word and it’s different than what appears in your mind in association with the word pot. So they’re different. Between what might appear in my mind and what might appear in my mind? We assuming that everybody everybody is accurately perceiving, directly perceiving?
So we’re talking about when we talk about difference, talking about conceptual consciousness. That which appears that which appears separate or distinct or different to a conceptual consciousness is is different. That which appears separate, distinct to a direct perceiving direct perception is different in nature, not necessarily different. That which appears the same to a direct perception is the same in nature but not necessarily different. They can be had the same nature but it but would be different.
Emptiness like the two truths. Ultimate truth and truths are the same nature, same entity. You know, we can use the word entity. Maybe that’s better to use. Rather than nature, it’s the entity.
The two truths are the same entity. To To object perception they appear that direct perception does not distinguish the two, but they appear differently to conceptual consciousness. But that’s confusing. Okay. So right.
Okay. Any questions about that so far? You don’t have this will come up again and again. So the the text actually just goes on to say, so it’s given that the definition for color suitable as a hue. And then it just says, okay, now color is has divided into root colors and branch colors.
Or in English we or normally we might say something like primary colors and secondary colors. Primary colors and secondary colors. And then the the if we divide primary colors, there are four. Blue four four primary colors. There are there’s blue, yellow, white, and red.
Blue, yellow, white, and red are the four primary colors. Yellow, white, and red are the four primary colors. Then there are the four there are in the there are the eight branch colors. Eight branch colors. And these these eight branch colors are specifically mentioned in in various sutras, discourses of the Buddha.
So the the this will seem very odd to you. The eight branch colors or eight secondary colors. First is illumination. Illumination. The second is darkness.
The third is cloud. The fourth is smoke. The fifth is dust. The sixth is shadow, the seventh is mist, and the eighth is sunlight. So these are just, you know, these are new students.
They’re getting they take these eight which are mentioned by into various different discourses and they call these the eight branch colors. Any other color aside from from the root colors or the primary colors would be a branch color, but it would not be one of these eight branch colors. So we have a list special list of eight branch colors and then which are which are secondary colors. Any other secondary any other color beside the root would be a secondary color, but is not included in these eight branch colors. So green, orange, these would be secondary colors, but not one of these eight branch colors.
These are these eight are special branch colors which were meant in mentioning various sutras. So then they would begin to debate. They would begin to use these these these colors as a basis for learning how to debate. So if we can go through the so we’ve gone through roughly the idea of what mutually inclusive means. mutually exclusive.
And, you know, if it’s a so, you know, as it says on this sheet, if it’s a, it must if necessary not b. If it’s b, it’s necessarily not a. What would be an example of mutually exclusive? Blue and red. How about purple?
Is is purple is not red, but it’s red and blue. It’s red it’s red and blue, isn’t it? It was when? Purple Is purple red and blue or No. It’s purple red and blue.
It’s not. So then these aren’t then red and blue aren’t mutually exclusive. Because there’s something which is if it if it’s it’s red, it can’t be blue. If it’s blue, it can’t be red. But purple is both red and blue.
Purple is not red and blue. Is purple red and blue? Anybody think purple is red and blue? No? If you mix red and blue together, don’t you get purple?
So that when you mix them together, isn’t isn’t there red and blue in there? Colors are real. How about when how about when I designate you as the present co director of Buddha House? I don’t I no longer see Kimball? I didn’t usually mean to this.
Well, I’m saying I’m saying that I’m saying the same thing. How about you’re saying that because I designate Kimball, director, then I shouldn’t be able to keep seeing Kimball because once I designate Purple, I can I can no longer see Red and Blue? I shouldn’t be able to see Red and Blue any longer. How about purple? Is purple red?
Is purple blue? Is purple red and blue? If it’s not okay. Purple is red and blue. Yeah?
Okay. When when you see this when you see purple, does it eye consciousness seeing red arise? When you see purple, do you see red? When you see purple, do you see red? Yes.
You do actually. It’s red, please. How about this is purple? This this subject here. Let me take this subject.
You don’t see red? Isn’t purple red? Yes. Well, why don’t you see it? Is it black?
It’s mixed with blue. So you don’t see the red, but the red’s still there. I wanna look at you guys. Is so purple is red and blue. So when you see purple, you see red.
Not of the purple, I would think red or purple. But do you see red? Isn’t isn’t it But I actually see purple. But you don’t see red? No.
It’s if it’s If you’re if it’s pardon. If it’s red, why don’t you see it? Because it’s me. Then it’s not It’s nice, but it’s But I can’t So there’s a color which you can’t see. This is not obvious.
There’s not No. Color is an object of the eye consciousness. Yeah. So Yeah. Actually, see.
You don’t but you but you Yeah. I know. But it’s but it’s not red. You know, prob probably they can also be separated so that the eye consciousness can see constituent colors. Okay.
So But that would be so that would be so isn’t it? Is the color what is is the color white? Yep. Every color in rainbow? Yes.
Yes. Should be hot and cold. If they make it if they hot water and cold water put them in the same bucket and mix them. Well, don’t you have the hot and cold water there? Yes.
You do? Once they once they mix them, that’s fine. Nothing. But the original state was not the goal to make that. Things can’t change?
Okay. Let’s see. How about, okay, what an example of mutually exclusive? Anybody? Cats and dogs.
Cat That’s a good one. Okay. Cat and dog. Why why is a cat and dog why why is a cat and dog mutually exclusive? Are cat and dog different?
Why are they different? Dog are cats and dogs sounds? They appear to conception as being distinct. And when you think about cat and then you think about dog. About dog.
Yeah? Okay. Now this this third relationship, three possibilities. Such as man and human being. Man and human.
Why? So there’s we have a relationship of a and b. Anything with because some of you may not agree with this, anything with which is a man anything which is a man is necessarily a human being. Anything which is a human being is not necessarily a man. For example?
A woman. Okay. Is a a woman a human being? You don’t look at me that way. Okay.
Can can you give me another example of three possibilities? Animal dog. Dog. Okay. What is what is and when we when it says below, if in debate first that which is pervaded and that which pervades.
Okay. Do you know what? So anyway, we can use the word pervaded, that which has been invaded. Right? That which that which pervades that which pervades.
Right? That which pervades and that which is like if when Hitler invaded Austria, Austria, Austria, when Hitler invaded Austria, he was the invader. Austria was the invaded. He was the pervader. He he he pervaded.
Austria was the was the pervaded. Austria he pervaded. I have oh, I think it’s easier in Tibet. As Hitler pervaded pervaded, pervaded Austria. Austria was pervaded.
Austria was the the Hitler pervades Austria. Austria was pervaded by Hitler. Okay? So of these two, which is which is pervaded and which it pervades? Dog pervades.
Yeah. Why do we Anything which is Okay. We play we say this next statement. Anything which is a dog must be an animal? Yeah?
No. Is cat a dog? Dog. Anything which is a must be b. Anything which is a dog must be an animal.
How about how about now the other way? How about anything which is an animal doesn’t necessarily have to be a dog, for example? Why isn’t a cat a dog? It’s a different animal. How about how about the dog next door and the dog down the block?
Are those two are these aren’t they different animals? So when we give so if we have when we list something with which is of three possibilities, first, we we ask what is the pervasion? What is the pervasion? So we In this case, if it is first, we state the the we state the pervasion. If it is a dog, it is necessarily an animal.
Then we state the non pervasion. But if but if it’s an animal, it’s not necessarily or not pervaded by being a dog. Alright. So anybody another one another example? Third possibility?
The dog the dog no. humans human ah, humans. Animal pervades in in every little speck of dog. Every every animal every every every example of dog is pervaded is pervaded by being an animal by animal. It is pervaded by animal.
The class of dog is pervaded by animal. But if the class of animal is not pervaded or not pervaded by being dog. So dog is pervaded by animal, but animals are not pervaded by dog. Another example of three possibilities? Water and sea.
Which which pervades which? Prescribe the pervasion. If it if if it is A stream. For example? Pond.
Pond. Okay. Then a pond is water? Is is is is a pond not sea? That’s good.
Anybody anybody else? Three possibility example. Rose and a flower. What is what is the pervasion? The pervasion.
Which pervades which? So you state the pervasion first. If it is, in it, for example, is a daisy a flower? Is a daisy not a rose? That’s good.
Okay. Four four possibilities. Woman in Australia. There’s a there’s a relationship which you’ve got four possibilities between these two. So when we when we are giving the when we’re debating and we we we say that the possibility is it’s a four possibility.
First, we give something which is both. And I’ll just go through this example that I wrote down. Olivia, Newton John. Okay. Something which is both.
Olivia Newton John is a woman and she’s also Australian. Yeah? I believe. I don’t know. I was asking someone who is a famous Australian.
They they told me. Don’t know if you knew you. Who is who is who could who is that famous woman Australian? It was, like, Don Fraser. Pardon?
Don Fraser. Okay. Don Fraser is a woman, and she’s a and she’s also Australian. Then Then we give something which is neither. For example, pot.
A pot is is neither a woman nor an Austrian. Is an Austrian pot a is an Australian. And that’s something which is okay. Then we give something which is a and not b, then b, then another. So a woman, Elizabeth Taylor is a woman, but not Australian.
And then Bob Hawke is Australian, but not a woman. Okay. So that’s the possibilities. So anybody give me an example of the four possibility? Four possibility.
Quadruped. Animal and quadruped. Is there something with Animals. Animals. Is there something which is both?
Okay. Is there something which is neither? Is there something which is an animal not a quadruped? Is there something which is a quadruped and not an animal? Pardon?
Is a baby not an animal? Table. Table or quadruped? Okay. Another example for possibility?
Dog and Labrador. Dog and Labrador. Anybody disagree with that? Why why what’s what’s why isn’t it a full possibility? More possibility.
Pardon? Bricks Bricks and houses. There’s something which is both? Is a brick house a brick? Is it bricks?
It brick house bricks? Is it brick house bricks? Is it stone house with stones? Is a wooden house wood? Is a wooden house wood?
Wooden house. Can you sit can you live inside can you can you live inside bricks? Okay. Is there something which is neither? That’s a very unimaginative.
Okay. A pot. Pot is pot is not a house. Pot is not a brick. Is that a pot a house for insects?
Okay. Is there something which is a house and not bricks? It’s in house. Is there something which is bricks and not a house? That’s good.
Alright. Very good. Okay. It’s not I mean, there’s not then it it works. It’s good to always present the clearest examples.
So, know, we’re trying anything which is which isn’t there’s an overlap between the two classes. So, you know, we can talk about okay. Well, we’ll we’ll take you. Clothes and dresses? How about how about Lisa and mother?
What’s the relationship? Lisa who’s sitting in his room. Okay. What’s the relationship between Lisa and Lisa sitting in his room and and mother? How about if we just say, we won’t say who?
Yeah. What is the there’s something which is both? Is there something which is neither? Brenton is not a mother, is not Lisa.
And is there something okay. Then what is the and there’s something which is Lisa, not a mother? A mother. Not a mother. And is there a mother who’s not Lisa?
Sure. So Is everybody getting an idea of getting a feeling for us? Is there something which is a is there something which is both? It’s bush. It’s bush leaves.
So if it’s a bush, it’s not leaves. If it leaves, it’s not bush, it’s not a bush. I won’t disagree. So maybe that’s some homework. Man.
Man, woman, American pot, Indian being, rock star, Australian, black in color, adult human female, impermanent thing. What is the relationship The man and rock star man, an Australian man in black in color, man and adult human, female, man and impermanent thing, woman and rock star. All the various combinations. Now there’s there’s one, which is quite exceptional. I thought I’d save it to laugh.
It was spoken of. I’ll just give it to you. It’s something which is black and white and red all over. Sorry about that. Yeah.
That’s it. You know, man rock star is that is that mostly exclusive, inclusive? Man in Australian, man in black and color, man in adult human female, man in impermanent thing. So we can get a feeling playing playing with the similarities and differences between two two classes. You know, class of man, the class of woman, the class of American, class of arhats.
Does anybody have any questions? Are you finding this beneficial? It’s a little bit slow maybe. I mean, you have to give me some feedback or I won’t I won’t know. Through these merits, may I soon attain the enlightened state of Guru, Deva, Dakini.
May I lead every migrating being without exception to that state. May the precious mind of awakening, not yet born, arise and grow. May that born have no decline, but increase forevermore. I hope we can get to the place where, know, we can discuss the text for, you know, half the time then, you know, can debate amongst yourselves for half the time. Something like that.
And I think you’ll find it interesting.