Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Using a handout he compares to a nuclear reactor cooling system, Ven Jampa Gendun opens this 46-minute class by mapping the four Buddhist philosophical schools and the four seals of Buddhist doctrine. He then works through selflessness within the Sūtra School — first the coarse level (the absence of a singular, permanent, independent self, which he asks students to locate in their own emotional experience), then the subtler self-sufficient, substantially existent self. He explains how the Sūtra School reconciles asserting that tables and chairs truly exist with the third seal’s claim that all phenomena are empty. The session closes with lively student debate over the definition of existent as that which is the object of a valid cognition, illustrated by the jaundice-induced misperception of a white mountain as yellow. Suitable for students new to Buddhist epistemology and philosophical debate.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 05 CT 1988 03 22.mp3
UUID: a717c29d-b298-4314-8935-594682af5520
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-03-22
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.5 minutes
Words: ~5,883
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’m enlightened through 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. Obedience to my guru and protector Mañjuśrī, who holds to his heart a scriptural text symbolically 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 loving compassion of a father for his only son. All creatures caught in the prison of saṃsāra, 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 chain chains of our karma, who wields the sword of wisdom hewing down suffering wherever its sprouts appear, clearing away the darkness. His body is adorned with one hundred and twelve marks of a Buddha who has completed the stages achieving the highest perfection of 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 Buddha’s words in the text that explain them. So the text we’re going through is collected topics. Presentation of Collected Topics of Epistemology and Logic.
It has three divisions, three overall divisions. Anybody know what the three overall divisions are, Alphea? That’s good. Perhaps greater is better. Lesser, middling, and greater what?
Paths of reasoning. Yeah, paths of reasoning. And the the first overall division, the lesser path of reasoning has How many divisions? Eight divisions. What is the first?
On camera. And the second? Pardon? That’s right. So we’re going to go into We have more or less finished color.
That’s the introduction. Just to give as a basis of debate and give you an idea of how divisions are going to operate, how definitions are going to operate. And the subject of color will come up again but in a more elaborate manner. So here’s a handout for everyone. Looks like the chart for a nuclear reactor cooling system or something.
So this will give you an idea of the way the Buddhist view of breaking down reality. The largest overall category within Buddhism is selflessness. And that is starting on the left hand, upper side of this page. So it begins with selfless. Then below that’s a Sanskrit term for selfless and beneath that is the Tibetan.
So selfless, everything is selfless. That is selflessness. But what that means in every now we can’t even say that, can we? This is from the point of view of the higher schools. We always have to be the understanding that this book that we’re covering is written from the point of view of one particular school out of the four schools.
Does anyone happen to know what the four schools are? That’s right. The school we’re discussing is Sūtra School. That’s right. And the other three schools?
So there’s the Great Exposition and then these are getting more and more subtle as to their views, presentation, they all present a system whereby a person can go from an ordinary being up to their goal as they conceive. They’re all Buddhists because they all accept the four seals of Buddhist doctrine. Why don’t the four seals of the Buddhist doctrine? I mentioned that Friday night. All products are impermanent.
All product a product is something simply which arises from causes and conditions. Anything which arises from causes and conditions is a product. All products are impermanent. That’s the first seal of a Buddhist doctrine. All that is contaminated is dissatisfactory.
All that is contaminated is dissatisfactory. This word contaminated has many different usages. What do we mean by contaminated? And we can go into that at a later time. Perhaps Yeah, we’ll leave it at that for now.
Phenomena are but all phenomena no, we can’t say that. Yeah, we can. All phenomena are empty. All phenomena are empty. And the fourth is that nirvana is peace or beyond sorrow.
nirvana means beyond sorrow is peace. So any doctrine, any system, any philosophy which is in accordance with those four seals. You know, a seal is when the king approves something or a court or something, he would put a seal on it and say, I’ve checked it out and I accept this. So these are the four seals of Buddhism. Any system or philosophy which is in accord with these four seals is acceptable within Buddhism.
So all the four schools accept the four seals, but they all have a different presentation. They’re what are called the bases, paths, fruits. The basis are usually the two truths. The paths are the various paths and stages that one passes through from an ordinary being up to the goal of that particular system or tenant, and then the goal or the fruit is whatever they may conceive of the final end of their particular vehicle. So there’s always and as you go up through these four tenets, there’s a more and more subtle presentation.
For example, the two truths, lower one being a step ladder, another rung on the ladder up to the higher one. The Buddha gave different teachings according to the various dispositions and capacities of the students, of his disciples. So then the presentation of the great exposition school, and then a slightly more refined view is the presentation of sūtra school, which is what we’re studying. Above that is the mind only school, and above that is the middle way school. So as it’s been explained in the tenets, when last year Lama Lodrö taught the tenets, the four tenets, and it’s important to have an idea of each of the tenet systems so that you can begin to understand the coarser views.
So in as if because this will facilitate understanding the more subtle views. You know, if you don’t know arithmetic it’s very difficult to understand calculus. Though you could start with calculus but it would be quite difficult. So we’re working with the Sūtra School because the Sūtra School presents a complete system, almost all of which is accepted by the upper schools. And I’m going to point out some of differences as we go along.
Now when I point out differences, some of you have There’s various levels of familiarity with the Buddhist doctrine amongst you people. Some of you perhaps aren’t very familiar others are more familiar. I’m going to try to you know, you’re each going to get something out of what I say, hopefully. Some of the things, you know, I mean I’ve studied for a number of years. Some of the things even though I don’t know very much, you will not understand partly because of my inability to explain them clearly, partly because of my lack of understanding, my lack of merit perhaps, but also because you have to understand the more basics before you can understand the more subtle aspects of the doctrine.
And so you should not feel frustrated or in any way self defeated because you cannot understand the more subtle points. There’s going to be something hopefully for everyone to learn at what particular level they’re at in their understanding. And you should try to understand and be satisfied, not in the sense of being complacent, satisfied. You know, I learned something and next time I hear the same teaching or similar teaching, I’ll be able to that will be a foundational platform where I’ll be able to go into a more subtle understanding a more profound understanding perhaps. Yeah.
So some of the things I don’t expect everyone to understand. I don’t understand what I say. Okay, so we’re going to begin the second of the subdivision, of the eight subdivisions of the lesser path of reasoning. The first subdivision was color, and that was more or less just to get you acquainted with the idea of definitions and divisions. And then we’re actually going to begin some more perhaps more profound presentation.
Again, this is being presented to ten year olds, twelve year olds students who have had very little schooling. This is the way they learn to read, way they learn to understand the vocabulary. So the text itself is very terse, and by terse I mean they just present divisions and definitions. So it’s very much up to the teacher in accordance with what he thinks is the ability of the students, how far he will lead them in this particular subject because all these subjects are coming, you know, the source of this text, the collected topics, is coming mainly from Dharmakīrti’s commentary to Dignāgā’s Compendium of Prime Cognition, which is probably one of the most profound logic texts that was ever written in India and also from Vasubandhu’s Treasury of Knowledge, which is another one of the most profound texts that was ever written. So, you know, we have like little bits and pieces taken from these very profound texts just as like tips of icebergs.
So the teacher, he could take them very deeply into any one of these according to the student’s abilities or he could just leave it at a very superficial level. So the text just presents the raw material just like this chart. It just gives you divisions. But you could begin to interpret these divisions in a very profound manner depending upon the teacher. So we won’t be able to do that because of this teacher, but we’ll do the best we can.
So we’re going to begin the second subdivision of the lesser path of reasoning which is called established base. That’s merely a name. You’ll understand what that name means as we go along. Going to actually begin the presentation of this the Buddhist view of the way the world is set up. So we begin with selflessness or selfless.
This upper left hand here. So that’s the most overall pervasive category, selfless. Now obviously what the Sūtra School calls selfless, what the Mind Only School calls selfless, and what the Middle Way School calls selfless is going to be quite different. They’re actually they’re going to have many conflicting views of what it means. This will come out as we go along.
And as I said, understanding of the lower schools view will facilitate, help you understand the view of the higher schools. So selflessness within the sūtra school, now we’re talking about the sūtra school. It posits Now this is additional information. When I studied this, I would not get this information because it would not be pertinent at that time. The idea of actually presenting the view of selflessness, this would come much later.
But I think you’re intelligent and you’re highly motivated and most of you have exposure to this idea of selflessness and it’s extremely important that we come to an understanding of selflessness. It’s like the mind of Buddhism. The heart is compassion and the mind is the view of selflessness. So it’s important that we keep working at it, even our limited understanding of intelligence perhaps. We still have to work with it, whatever we have.
So within the Sūtra school, the conception of selflessness now I’m not going to present a teaching on selflessness, just to give you a rough idea. Now there are two levels of selflessness within the Sūtra School. They are both concerned persons, So selflessness is the selflessness of persons. And within this selflessness of persons there are two levels. They’re coarse and subtle.
Now the coarse level of personal selflessness is a person’s lack of being a singular, all right, yeah, permanent independent self. This is a singular or a unitary, partless. Some more synonyms. Singular, unitary, partless, indivisible, permanent, unchanging, static, independent, unrelated. Separate?
Self? Ignorance, so the coarsest type of selflessness within the Sūtra school is so it has two levels. First we have to begin to overcome ignorance at the coarser level before we can begin to overcome ignorance at a more subtle level. So we have to begin to understand what this coarser, this more gross type of ignorance is grasping at. Ignorance is grasping at a particular type of object, a particular type of self.
When I say, you Can you get away from me? I can’t stand you. I can’t in this emotional moment. It could be happiness. You just won the sweet you just won the lotto.
You know, Wow, I’m so happy. There’s a feeling of a very concrete, solid self. You know, maybe in here somewhere, you know? You could point to it. There’s a feeling quality.
It’s not intellectual. It’s not rational. It’s not logical. It’s an emotional quality. At this moment, ignorance is grasping at a type of self.
What is the nature of this type of self? It is a type of self which is singular or that is unitary, having no parts. It’s unchanging as if it was permanent, static, and it’s independent of everything else, of mind and body, independent of conditions, your surrounding situations, other people. Something like that. That’s what it’s grasping for at that particular moment.
We have to identify this within our own experience and then to analysis understand that such a type of self cannot in fact exist in reality, that this is a mistake. Over and over again we must come in contact, get a feeling for it. This is the most important. You know, we talk about the four point there’s a certain meditation called the four point analysis, which takes up this very examination. But the most important is the first step, identifying the object of a negation, identifying the object which in fact doesn’t exist but we think it does.
By identifying, it means not intellectually but emotionally from your own feelings. How does it how does the I feel when I’m upset, when I’m happy, when I’m in an emotional state, very undergoing a great emotional experience? How does it actually feel? Not to how I think it feels, because we can, you know, intellectually we can talk about, all the words, but we have to actually identify it within our own experience. This is the most difficult part of overcoming ignorance.
This is the course. As I said, I’m not giving a talk on selflessness. A subtle selflessness. This is a little more difficult to identify and therefore it’s more difficult to overcome ignorance which is grasping, which is conceiving of such a type of self. So the subtle selflessness is a person’s lack.
It’s selflessness, so it’s a lack or an absence of a self sufficient and substantially existent self. A person’s lack of self sufficient and substantially existent self. This is more subtle. It’s more difficult to identify. Self sufficient again has the idea of being independent, but here it seems as if the I or the self is mixed in with the body and the mind or more appropriately we usually say the aggregates, the five aggregates.
Sometimes we break up the body and mind into five aggregates. Aggregate just means bundles. You know, we break up into form aggregate, aggregate of forms, aggregate of feelings pleasurable, unpleasurable, neutral aggregate of discriminations aggregate of compositional factors that is, this is many different, it’s like a catch all for all different parts that are left over, we throw them into aggregate of compositional factors. But we have to identify each one of them. And if we were to actually involve ourselves in this examination we’d have to know these five aggregates in very great detail, and then the aggregate of consciousnesses.
So what we would do, we have a feeling that the self is like a head salesman. The head salesman is like a head salesman. That he’s a salesman. A head salesman is a salesman, but he’s in charge. So we have this feeling there’s somebody in charge, that within this body and mind it’s kind of mixed in with the body and mind, but still we have a feeling there’s somebody who’s running the show.
There’s an agent who’s controlling the whole. When I lift my arm up, there’s somebody willing for myself to lift my arm up. It’s just not a matter of cause and effect. Certain mental states arise causing electrical currents and muscles moving. That there’s actually somebody in there who’s thinking, I better raise my arm up.
This is more difficult to recognize that this type of self which we feel to be in charge of our thinking, the thinker of our thoughts, the taster of our foods, all these, the experiences of our experiences, this type of self actually doesn’t exist, but it’s very subtle. So we have to get in contact with this coarser, this singular, unchanging, permanent, independent self. We have to be able to identify that in our own experience before we can begin to identify even this more subtle type. So, sūtra school. Persons are selfless.
Yeah? And what did I say? What was the third of the of the four seals of the Buddhist doctrine? All phenomena are empty. So, by empty, we can say selfless or empty.
Same thing, okay? No different. Empty of self or selfless. Okay, I said in Sūtra School that they assert selflessness of persons. Do they assert selflessness of phenomena other than persons tables, chairs, cushions?
How can they be held to hold the four seals of a Buddhist doctrine if in fact they don’t hold that all phenomena are selfless? Do they hold that all phenomena are selfless? Yeah, I’ll answer you. Okay. Within Sūtra School, they said all phenomena other than persons have a self, are truly existent.
They actually in fact have a self. They have some entity which is them. This table is not empty. It is truly existent. It ultimately exists.
What else other than this? Have a self. Have a self. Now, of course, when you get up to the Middle Way school, say everything is empty. Know, tables, chairs, people, it doesn’t matter what it is.
If it exists, it’s empty. So they, you know, so we’re getting in So there’s beginning to show a difference in the doctrines of, for example, the Sūtra School and the Middle Way School. The Sūtra School said, Some things are selfless. Persons are selfless. By persons I mean I’m going to use the word persons, but what I mean is all sentient beings.
It’s just easier to say persons, but dogs, cats, hell beings, whatever. Anything that has a mind which is able to conceive, which has ignorance. We are selfless. So persons are selfless, but phenomena other than persons are not selfless. And how can we be a Buddhist?
How can it be one of the four seals? How can it be in accord with all the four seals if it’s if it if it went the third of the fourth of the fourth seals says all phenomena are selfless or empty? Wouldn’t appear the way we’re normally making skepticism. In other words, that would be concrete. You’re saying that here, when it says all phenomena are selfish, what they’re meaning is that all phenomena are permanent?
I’m just saying if yeah, well, That’s the only thing I can suggest to them to surpass that particular criteria. Then there would be no permanent phenomenon. This is a difficult point. The way they interpret this would be that all phenomena other than persons are selfless from the point of view of not being an object of use or understanding of a person with a self. Okay?
All phenomena like tables, chairs, cushions are empty of being objects of use or understanding of a person with a self. This is the way they interpret this. All phenomena are selfless. That is to say, all phenomena are empty of being a use of use or an understanding of a person with a self. That’s the way they’re interpreting it.
Object of use or understanding? Or empty of an object of use? Object of use or understanding by a self, by a person with a self. So this is the way they get around. Really, this they get into corporate they make very good corporate lawyers.
They have all the fine detailed subclauses and everything. So this is why they interpret this third seal of Buddhist doctrine. They accept it, but they say, Ah, we have a special way of explaining it. But that’s not Yeah. Okay.
All Buddhism, all the various schools, they all say, you know, we accept the four seals of the Buddhist doctrine. So the third one is, All phenomena are selfless or empty. So they say, Well, we accept this. Well then, how can you accept this when you say, This table has a self? Oh, it’s okay.
We say, This table, even though it has a self, this table is not an object of use by a person with a self. And they were thinking, That’s enough for us. Is that something that came about? Was that a way of the middle way school explaining them still being Buddhist? Or was that something that was held by the sūtra school before the Buddha I think there was a sūtra where the Buddhist said, you know, someone I think his grandmother, you know, his aunt said, How can I know your doctrine?
And he went forth and he explained these four seals. Anything which is in accordance with that is in accordance with my doctrine. So all the schools had to come up with a way to fit in their particular interpretation of the Buddha’s teachings in accordance with this particular sūtra where he said, Everything that you understand should accord with these four seals. It’s, Ah, okay. Then we’ll just give it a little twist here and there.
Okay, this is what I’m explaining is the sūtra school. Nothing? No, no. What they’re going to do they say you know, according to when we talk about selflessness, we’re talking about what is called the view. So the view gets more and more subtle.
Go from the sūtra school says, Okay, some things persons are selfless, but phenomena other than persons have a self. Okay, then we go up to middle way school and they say, Well, they begin to become more refined. They say, you know, we okay. Some things are lack of self, that is imaginary objects lack of self. You know, any permanent phenomena other than emptiness, lacks of self.
But tables and chairs, they are truly they’re going to different they’re going to begin to use a different vocabulary and begin to interpret what they mean by a self differently. And also going to begin to assign different objects having a self and not a self. So within the mind only school they divide up phenomena into three divisions: imaginaries, thoroughly established phenomena, and real real objects. And they’re going to say, Two of these truly exist. One of them doesn’t.
And then you get up to the middle way school and say, Nothing truly exists. But what they mean by truly exists becomes more and more subtle. So they’re beginning to change the meaning of the terms and they’re going to begin to become more and more refined in how they assign to the various objects which are truly existent, which are non truly existent. So this is going to come out as we go along to this evening with accordance to the Sūtra School. What we mean by ultimately existent, truly existent, and it will become a little more clearer.
So, you know, that gets us hopefully I wasn’t trying to give an explanation of selflessness. I was just trying to The first overall pervasive category is selfless, existent and nonexistent. Everything, whether it’s existent or nonexistent, is selfless according to the Sūtra School. But we have to make it some little distinction, some little understanding of it. Otherwise later on it’s going to say, Well, how can the table You just said everything was selfless but tables have a self.
They really exist. They truly exist. Well, we have to jump ahead a little bit anticipation and understand what they mean when they say that all phenomena are selfless. If they don’t mean what they say, for example, as in the middle way school, they have a different interpretation. You can get debates between your different schools, even in my when I was studying, one person would take the position of a Sūtra school, another person would take the position of a Middle Way school, and you debate according to your system, and you debate within the system, and you debate two different systems.
But you have to understand precisely what they mean when they use a word. If you’re using the same word in two different ways, you have no basis of debate. You may actually debate about the uses of a particular word, so you come to some common ground. But in debate, you must come to some common ground. Therefore, you must understand the other person’s system completely.
If you’re both if you’re arguing apples and oranges, you’re never going to get anywhere. You know, you have to come to some mutual agreement on what you mean when you say this, what you mean when you say this, in order that the debate or the argumentation can go somewhere in a particular direction. If there’s no basis, then you’re just going to listen to your own self, each of you. There can never be any contradiction. So the overall category, the most pervasive category is selfless.
Then selfless is broken down into existent and nonexistent. Okay, there’s some very famous examples of non existences. These will come up when teachers teach, like the horns on a rabbit’s head. The horns on a rabbit’s head. This is a very famous example of a nonexistent.
What happens is, you know, it’s maybe it’s it’s getting to be nighttime, and you see in the distance you see a rabbit there. He’s, oh, look at the horns on that rabbit. They really don’t exist, right? But they use this example, the horns of a rabbit’s head. Another is sky flowers.
You’re seeing flowers in the sky in the clouds form Flowers look like flowers. Another famous example is blue snow mountain. Blue snow mountain or maybe a yellow snow mountain would be better. In a way, some diseases. I don’t know which disease.
But it’s supposed to cause you to see white as blue. For example, if you have jaundice, you will see colors to the pigmentation. You will see white as yellow. When you see white snow mountain, see yellow snow mountain. That yellow snow mountain doesn’t exist even though it appears.
It doesn’t exist. So another famous example is like yellow snow mountain where they usually use blue snow mountain. I don’t know what disease that is. This presents another question. Does nonexistence exist, or is nonexistent existent or nonexistent?
Any thought about that? Does nonexistence exist, or is it nonexistent? Well, that’s the question. Does nonexistent exist or not exist? Doesn’t exist.
How do you know it doesn’t exist? Because if it’s nonexistent, then how can it exist? Well, that’s what we’re trying to find out, whether it’s nonexistent or not. You cannot use the question as the proof. Well, maybe I can ask you open person.
This is what I believe. Okay, yeah, that’s fine. That’s great. But what is your reason for believing that? Basically because with the non on the front of existing, that means that it doesn’t exist.
So non existent means non existent, that can’t be existing if it’s non existent. It can either be existing or non existent. How about non existent of an elephant in this room? Does that exist? Does an elephant exist in this room?
No, sorry. The nonexistent of an elephant of an elephant in this room exists? Yeah, but it’s in existence. What? Impermanence is permanent.
Is impermanence permanent? Yeah? We’ll get to that. So anybody else have an idea whether nonexistence exists or not? Yeah.
For example, is how about you know, space exist? Not uncaused space, non space. Like the space that everything exists within. You know, this table, house. Does that exist My reflex has been yes.
Is that okay. Is that is that is that really created by the mind, or is that is it really? Again, my response would be yes. What? It’s created by the mind?
No, that it’s not. It’s not created by the mind? Something which is can you name something which is then anything which is created by the mind doesn’t really exist. No, I didn’t say no. I was just seeing the distinction between the nonexistence of an elephant, that nonexistence existing only exists only as a concept or as an idea, whereas if an elephant was here, actually here, nothing exists.
So we can know things in two ways, can’t we? I think that’s what I’m getting at. We can know things through direct perception and through conception. Thought. Okay, if something so we’re going come to this.
That’s a very good point, that we can know things in two ways. If we know something through thought, does it mean it doesn’t exist? Helen? That’s right. So even though we know something through thought, it still can exist.
So even though we know we can say non existent exists but we only know it through thought, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t not exist. Dreams. Dreams. Dreams? Do dreams exist?
Yes, they do. Yeah. That’s right. They’re not real. Maybe it’ll become clear as we go into what we mean when we say existent.
So we can leave that open for maybe you can think about that. Does non existent exist or not exist? And maybe it’ll become a little bit clearer as we go along what we mean by existent. So we’ll move on to existent, the definition of existent. With selfless, I’ve got two divisions, of course, and subtle.
I know you said there was two divisions of existing ones. So is that two divisions somehow inside those two divisions? So selflessness is the selflessness of persons. These two divisions are two divisions of selflessness of persons. Course and selflessness of persons only.
And then the way we interpret selflessness with respect to all objects other than persons is that they are empty of being objects of use or understanding of a person with such a self. In that way it seems just a minute. Yeah. Okay. Thanks.
So existent. That which is the object of a valid cognition. The definition of existent. That which is the object of a valid cognition. That which is the object of a valid cognition is the definition of existence.
Merely appearing to cognition. By cognition I just mean a bare just knowing. Usually, when we say knowing in English, it has the idea of understanding, doesn’t it? We don’t mean understanding here. We don’t mean that we that it’s correct or incorrect.
We just mean to bear I don’t know. A priority. Pardon? It’s a priori? A priority.
No. That’s a different song. Yeah. Well, what we mean is the aspect of the object is appearing in the mind. Just that.
Just that. When we say cognize, it doesn’t mean whether it’s like a neutral. It doesn’t mean we’re saying it’s correct cognition or incorrect cognition. It just means that something is registering in the mind. Something is registering.
It could be directed through the eye consciousness or the thought consciousness, but something is registering. That’s what we something is Like an opportunity camera or something. Yeah. There’s something on the screen. Yeah.
Something on the screen. Could be like an irrational type of you don’t have to have that. I know. I can I can cognition of pink elephants in this room? I just say something on the screen.
I’m not saying whether the thing really exists or not. Might be a faulty switch somewhere. No, no, no, no. It’s just the cognition. No, I’m explaining what cognition is first.
Cognition. Just a mirror, something on the screen. Something that appears on the screen is a cognition. Now, valid cognition would mean that what appears on the screen actually exists in that way that is appearing on the screen. You understand the object correctly.
Yeah. Well, say then if you were seeing pink elephants, for instance, in the room, then to you that’s existing, but then again it’s not because it hasn’t got a valid cognition. To you, don’t know where you are experiencing that. Has to be existing. So for example, if I have jaundice, know when you have jaundice or liver disease, I go outside and I see a snow mountain, it appears yellow.
On my screen, my mental screen, there’s a yellow snow mountain. So I have a cognition of a yellow snow mountain. But is that a valid cognition or wrong? It’s a cognition. It’s a cognition.
No question. Is it a valid cognition? Is it a correct cognition? You’ve got this sickness or not. No, not.
Why isn’t it? Because the mountain doesn’t exist. Exists. So white’s no mountain, isn’t it? Yes, right.
Isn’t that? It’s an incorrect cognition. But what I’m trying to say is that you’re explaining what existent is, right? Yeah, we’re defining So defining existent, it says that which is the object of a valid cognition. If you were to see this yellow mountain and you saw that as a yellow mountain as existing, it wouldn’t be a valid cognition but it would still be existing to you.
So my existence can’t be just that which is a valid cognition. The consciousness, the cognition which is seen in Yellow Snow Mountain in you, is that a correct cognition, a valid cognition, or not? Sorry, You walk outside and you see Yellowstone Mountain. Is that cognition? It’s a cognition, but it’s not a valid cognition.
Are you sure? It is if you’ve jaundice. Valid. Valid? Then a Yellowstone Mountain exists?
The person with jaundice, yes. Does does everything that appears to you exist? What appears? Just because something appears to you doesn’t mean it exists. Yeah?
So just as something just because something appears to a cognition or a mind or consciousness doesn’t mean that object exists. But if that person sees it as existed, the person sees the