Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The puzzle of how we know something actually exists drives this 47-minute session with Ven Jampa Gendun. He defines existence as requiring a valid cognition, then walks through four synonyms — established base, object of understanding, object of knowledge, phenomenon — before unpacking the valid cognizer itself: a “new and incontrovertible knower” that penetrates its object, accords with reality, and cannot be overturned. Using the example of realizing selflessness, he maps the gradient from wrong consciousness through doubt, correct assumption, and inference to direct perception. The class then shifts to live student debate on homework: arguing whether “man” and “impermanent thing” are mutually exclusive surfaces the Buddhist definition of death as separation of body and mind, and the striking conclusion that a “dead man” is technically not a person. Suited to students actively working through Collected Topics logic.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 06 CT 1988 03 22.mp3
UUID: 4e40ffbd-524c-4438-860a-ecda73e1d1f4
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-03-22
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.8 minutes
Words: ~5,771
Okay. It wouldn’t be a valid cognition. Yeah. It would be a cognition. Yeah.
But I would see it as existing. So in that way, if I was seeing it like that, then my explanation of existence wouldn’t be that which is a valid cognition. I don’t think you’d have an explanation for that. Well, that’s right. Just to no.
What you would say is, well, that yellow snow mountain exists for me. You say, yeah, but doesn’t mean it exists. It has for something to exist, it must be exist for a valid cognition. Yeah. It can that’s the only way it can exist.
I’m so sorry. May exist for you. It may exist for you. Yeah. I understand that.
But what I’m trying to say is that how does that person that sees it as existing without having a valid cognition, they still see it as existing, whether it’s a valid cognition or not. So does that mean they’re correct? No. So that’s a a mistaken thing, but still, I still think it exists. Well But they were okay.
You. So we have to find a valid conclusion. Yeah. Yeah. That’s a very difficult subject, but we’ll work on it.
Anybody? How do you actually prove that something exists actually exists then? Anything which is the object of a valid cognition exists. That’s the definition of existence. So then we just have to we have to establish what is a valid cognition.
Can you establish that? Yeah. I mean some people say I mean there’s debate on this now. One of the one of the rebels in this century, what was his name? I can’t even think of his name.
He said in Tibet, he said there was no such thing as a valid cognition. What we mean, we used the word there’s many synonyms, valid cognition, prime cognition. Another one another way to translate this word is ideal valid cognition, I d e a l, cognition. That is a model cognition. Model cognition.
But at this point, we’re gonna hopefully, if we get there, we’re gonna we’re gonna get we’re gonna get into this idea of, valid cognition, what it means. And it’s it’s going to become a little bit clearer, hopefully, as we go along. It’s a very difficult subject. I have I’m it’s not just because I have doubts, know, I have many questions. I I tend to oh, I don’t want give my opinion.
It just confused the situation. But much of Dharmakīrti’s text was nothing but to establish what a valid cognition was. How do we know a valid cognition when we see one? If we meet one on the street, I mean, there’s a valid cognition. Okay.
So what what does this mean? Just because something appears to us doesn’t mean it exists. Because something appears, for example, the I, a self, it is the which appears to ignorance, exists for ignorance, but it doesn’t exist for a valid cognition. So something can exist for a mistaken consciousness, you know, you’re walking along at night and in the distance it’s late and there’s a tree there and it’s blowing back and forth and looks like a person waiting for you. Then you can become very afraid, you can be very frightened.
You actually you actually feel or you conceive of a person being there. That doesn’t mean just because there appears a person here that there really is a person, that a person exists over there. You you walk up close to you, examine, you see it’s only a tree. You’re mistaken. And that that automatically eliminates that mistaken consciousness which conceived of a tree and replaces it with a correct understanding of a tree.
There was only a tree. Likewise, when we conceive of a self of persons, we have a strong feeling that it exists, but when we once we begin to examine like walking up closer and now analyzing, then this analysis will serve to eliminate this ignorant conception of grasping at a self and it will be replaced by wisdom, understanding selflessness. So just because something appears doesn’t mean it exists. It must be for something to exist, it must be the object of a valid cognition. A valid cognition, and what is a valid cognition we’ll go into.
So now I’m going to give a number of synonyms. What do we call them? Phenomena which are mutually inclusive with existent. These are synonymous with mutually inclusive. They’re used in different contexts, they’ll use different terms.
What they mean is they’re synonymous, mutually inclusive with existent. For example, established base, which is the name of this particular subdivision, established base. The definition of an established base, that which is established by a valid cognition. So we’re back to the old. That’s just a different way of rearranging the same words.
But, you know, if we’re beginning to come at the same idea from beginning to we’re going come at it from many different points of view, you know, many words that describe the same thing. So we get to each one has each definition has a little bit different feeling, gives us maybe just a little bit more insight into what we’re talking about. So therefore they they have many different in different contexts they use many different terms. Another synonymous term, object of understanding. Object of understanding.
The definition of object of understanding. The object realized by a valid cognition. Okay. The definition of object of understanding is the object realized by a valid cognition. Another synonymous term, object of knowledge.
Object of knowledge. The definition of object of knowledge is that which is suitable to be the object of awareness. The definition of object of knowledge is that which is suitable to be the object of awareness. And the last one, the last is phenomenon. Phenomenon.
The definition of phenomenon is that which holds its own entity. That which holds its own entity is the definition of phenomenon. That which holds its own entity, or you could say nature. So that’s the definition of the School. This is the definition of phenomenon.
All this is within the Sūtra School. Everything that we say unless I say otherwise will be accordance with the Sūtra School. So, you know, that which holds its own entity, you know, if an object can’t hold its own entity, it just falls immediately. It doesn’t it can’t even come into existence because of, you know, like people say, you know, keep keep yourself to hold yourself together, you know, you’re falling apart. You know, it has to be able to maintain itself for some duration in order for it to exist.
So the object, the definition of phenomena is something which is is able to maintain its entity or, hold its hold its entity, hold its nature together for some duration. So these are all synonymous terms. What do we mean when we say existent? Is I don’t know. Is this going too fast?
No? I just gave you some information, more or less. Gonna give you I just gave you some definitions. And now we could go on to the next next division of existence, which is permanent phenomena and thing, or impermanent phenomena, if you like. We could go on to that division, or we could Okay.
On this chart, as we go along, selflessness was divided into two, nonexistent and existent. Existent was divided into two, permanent phenomena and thing. There’s a division of existent. And then we just went through the definition of existent and named phenomena which are synonymous with existence and gave the definitions of each. We could go further and divide existence into permanent phenomena and thing.
Or we could go to the homework. Let’s see. I haven’t said anything about establishing a convention. Yeah. Will we come?
Yeah. I just I was going to go into it later. When we got into the various types of things and phenomena, then we have to get into a discussion of different types of consciousnesses. But, you know, I don’t think we would have time to really go into it, so maybe I’ll just take up very briefly the idea of valid cognizer. The definition of a valid cognizer.
Cognizer. Does anybody this was taught in the in the when we studied awareness and knowledge, when we studied Lorig. Does anybody remember the definition of valid cognizer? Anybody remember that? Valid cognizer.
So the definition of a valid cognizer in the Sūtra School is that which is a knower which is new and incontrovertible. A knower which is new and incontrovertible. That’s the hard part. What is the word incontrovertible? Okay, we’ll go into this very briefly.
Okay, new and a knower, or you could just say a new and incontrovertible knower, a new and incontrovertible knower. That’s nice. New and incontrovertible knower. Okay? That’s the definition of valid cognizer.
Now, create a word new. What does the word new mean? Oh, that’s good. So the cognition, you know. So this Okay.
The first moment of any cognizer is new. Second moment cannot be a valid cognizer. My eye consciousness which perceives the table, the first moment of that is new. The second moment, as I keep staring at that table, is old, is not new, so it’s not a valid cognizer. That’s all that this new means.
Okay, the first instance of a correct cognizer is new, Or the first instance of a cognizer is new. The second instance So this becomes important after a while. Why they stipulate it has to be the first moment when we get into the idea of difference between direct perceivers and thought consciousnesses. You know, begin to see how even though we may be still looking at the table, we are beginning to not to see the table directly, but our idea of the table, our mental image of the table. And so it’s not a valid cognizer with respect to the table.
It’s becoming mixed with our idea of what the table is. So it’s very important that we stipulate the first moment. Very first moment is what we mean by new. Now incontrovertible is I think it’s a difficult point. It So it has I tried to think of the qualities of what I mean by incontrovertible.
So I came up with three qualities. The first one is that this cognizer it gets it gets at the object. It actually it gets it engages the object, it penetrates into the object. I’ll explain these, what I mean by that. The second is that it’s factually concordant, you know, or simply put, correct.
Factually concordant. It accords with the way things really are. And the third is it’s stable. It’s stable. So this first one actually concordant.
No, the first one was gets at its object. Now those of you who studied awareness and knowledge, there’s one division. The first division of awareness and knowledge was dividing mind into seven. There’s one division of mind, of awareness, which will be divided into seven parts. Anybody remember seven parts?
Okay. Don’t you know, just bogged you down with too much information, but one of them was assumption or correct assumption. What’s interesting, this will be of interest to you, with the way we come to a direct perceiver. Know, seven we can divide the mind. One way of dividing awareness is in the seven.
We have a direct perception. We have conception, direct perception, inferential conception, subsequent cognition, correct assumption, appearing but not ascertained, doubt, and wrong consciousness, wrong consciousness. Seven. Now let’s take for example that wrong con wrong consciousness. You know, for example, if we take if we apply it to the self, you know, the we have a wrong con wrong consciousness which grasps at an independently existing self.
Okay, so we begin, we accept that that’s the way reality is. You think this self, this independently existing self really exists. You hold that very strongly. This is a wrong consciousness holding that. Then we go along to the Buddha house and some guy is saying, Oh, it doesn’t really exist that way.
So maybe if explains the situation clear enough, a little bit of doubt arises in our mind. Before it was no question. Now we develop a doubt which tends toward the non factual. Doubt, there’s three types of doubt. Doubt which tends towards the non factual.
That means, well, there’s finally a little ray of light has come into this pitch blackness of ignorance, but it’s not much. So you still think you’re open to the question, really I think that this self exists. But maybe a little doubt. So you tend toward the non factual that this self actually exists. Then you begin to study a little bit and you go listen more teach and then you begin to wonder, well, I don’t know now.
And maybe it does and maybe it doesn’t. So now you become equally balanced between the factual and non factual. You still have doubt, but now the doubt is beginning to move toward the factual. And then you study more, you listen to more teachings, you do some meditation, you think, Well, I’m not sure, but now I really think this self doesn’t exist the way I always thought it did. And now we have doubt which tends toward the factual.
And we’re going through this process. And then you begin to think about it, and you use reasoning, why this self can’t exist the way it appears, etcetera. And you think, well, you know, that sounds pretty good. And this teacher, he seems to know what he’s talking about. So you’d form a correct assumption.
And this is the one I want to come to when I’m using as an illustration of this first of getting at the object. We’ve come, we have developed a correct assumption thinking this self, an independent self does not exist. I still have not it’s only based upon belief at this time. It has I have not really penetrated I’ve really not not gotten at the object itself, but it’s correct. But I have not really engaged or penetrated what I mean when I say independent self.
This is called a correct assumption. So I really haven’t gotten at the object. I really haven’t formed an experience I haven’t experienced an independent self or his lack of independent self. I’m still my assumption is correct. So this is what this first attribute of a valid cognizer is.
It must get at its object. It must actually experience its object. It must penetrate into its object. Correct assumption does not. So I keep working at it.
You start using reasoning. Cannot be a self because of the self, independently existing self that cannot exist because the self is dependent upon the mind and body. And therefore if it’s dependent upon the mind and body, the independent self cannot exist. I start using more and more reasoning. And through this process I go from a correct assumption to an inferential understanding or inferring consciousness.
Using reasoning I come up with a thought consciousness which is correct, which is getting at its object, which actually experiences, but it’s only a conception. That is to say, it’s using an image about what selflessness is. It is not actually seeing it directly. It has an image, a mental image. Thought consciousnesses, conception use ideas, generic images, mental images.
You know, when I think about my mother, when I think about America, America doesn’t doesn’t actually appear to my eye consciousness. It doesn’t appear to my mind actually. I’m using my idea that I have about America. I go back in my filing system in my mind, and I look up America over here. And I I have this symbol or image, mental image about America.
I can use that to think about America. Like, oh, America is a great country. It has forests and valleys. I’m using my idea about what America is to operate, to communicate, to understand what America is. It’s a valid way of understanding things.
I can understand things using these symbols, these mental images. So when we have an inference, we have a correct understanding, but we’re using these images, these symbols, mental images, generic images. If I become I go penetrate deeper and deeper using more and more reason, become more and more familiar, more and more familiar, more and more familiar. I habituate myself to that object, that selflessness. We’re going to discuss this more later.
Object will become clearer and clearer and clearer until I’m no longer understanding the object through the medium of a mental image, I understand it directly. Then we have bare perception. We have direct perception. I actually through see emptiness, selflessness directly without having to use my idea about it. I know what it is actually, directly.
I don’t have to use an idea about it. So we went from wrong consciousness, doubt, correct assumption, inference, direct perception. We pass through these stages in our understanding. This is a gradient, it’s three to seven times. Yeah, wouldn’t use all three times.
Of Okay, then if you want to so the second I have direct perception of selflessness, the second moment of that that direct perception of selfless becomes a subsequent cognition. That’s the sixth. And the appearing but not ascertained, you could fit it in there, but it be involved in the learning process. So there’s many points. We can begin to from this example of these gradients of going from a misunderstanding, wrong consciousness to a direct perception, we went through some different levels of understanding, Different levels, one of them is that we actually began to penetrate the object, so we had to get at the object.
Without getting at the object at the level of inference, then we can’t have a valid cognition. Also, we have to be factually concordant. So before we doubt which we were factually tended toward the non factual of course couldn’t be a valid cognition. We had to have actually it has to be in accord with the way things are. If I think there’s a yellow snow mountain, that’s factually discordant, not in accordance with the way things are, if I think there’s a yellow snow mountain.
So it has to be actually according to the way things are. And the third has to be stable. A correct assumption is open to someone could say come up to you and say, Don’t listen to that. I can prove that there is a self to you. And he could using false reasoning, which you could not identify, he could that your assumption is not stable enough to withstand another type of mind within your mind arising thinking the exact opposite.
Once we arrive at stability, you know, you understand that this pin exists, then as I’m perceiving this pin, a mind which thinks or conceives of this pin not existing cannot arise. That mind is so stable which sees the pin or thinks that there is no independent existing self. An inference cannot be will not be overturned by another inference, it will not be overturned by any other type of reason, it’s that stable. This valid cognition has this quality of stability. Valid cognition has these three qualities.
Penetrates its object, it’s factually concordant, and it’s stable. It’s not going to be overturned. It’s not going to be contravened. It’s not going to be contradicted. That was a that’s a lot of information.
I think I I I really I think I’m afraid I’m bogging you down. I don’t know. You have to tell me. I I didn’t as I said, I hope we can get into more debating, you know, just that’s what I’ve been saying. Every night I end up talking all the time.
We need to know that. Yeah. You’re right. That’s right. But I I don’t want I mean, it’s just a matter of my giving you information that’s not particularly useful, perhaps.
Any questions about after that? Yeah? Otherwise, we’ll go to the homework and take a look at that. Any question? Anita?
Yeah. Okay. So we have some homework, and we’ll take a look at that. Does everyone have one of these? Everyone have a pen?
So we’ll ask Sue to explain everything. Okay. So the let’s see. Okay. The first there were there we wanted to begin to try to see what the relationship is between two classes of objects.
And, you man is a class of object And we don’t usually think of him as a class, but he might not have much class, but but he is a class. Or a rock star in the class, you know, just like everything is a class. There are many men. And in Tibetan, we don’t have this problem with plurals. It’s it’s gonna be somewhat of a problem with English.
So how does the class of man relate to the class of, for example, rock star? Okay. I’ll ask in this way. First, with respect to the first, and that is man. You know, you know, on this list, mutually inclusive, we’ll call that number one.
I’m sorry. Yeah. That’s right. Mutually inclusive is number one, mutually exclusive is number two, three possibilities is three, and four possibilities is four. So with respect to to man, how, how many how many mutually inclusives did you have?
One. Had one. Mutually inclusive. Mutually inclusive. Yeah.
That was the woman and the adult female. Just with respect to man. Sorry. Okay. Man, how many mutually inclusives did you have?
Man, when related to the other five on the right hand column? No mutually inclusives? How many mutually exclusives? There’s a two over here. Man is not a thing?
Yes. She’s an adult female. Okay, we won’t discuss it at the beginning of this. How many mutually exclusive did you have? Two.
Okay. Anybody else have two? Anybody have three, four, five? Anybody have zero? Okay, the rest of you had one, I think.
So Alastair had two. So which two were mutually inclusive with man? Exclusive. Mutually exclusive. And?
And permanent thing. Okay. Does everybody agree with this first one that man and female are mutually exclusive? How about this second one? Any debate upon that?
Okay, somebody So you disagree. Okay, so you will start to learn a little bit of the formality debate. So you ask him, what is the I don’t know. We can use there’s a word in Tibetan we can translate as different or pervasion. Don’t want pervasion may sound just a little more technical, but I think it’s a better word to use.
But if you want to think of the word different, you can say, What is the difference with respect to man and an impermanent thing? Or What is the pervasion between man and a permanent thing? So you can ask Alister, What the with respect to? What is the pervasion with respect to? And then you name the subject, Man and impermanent thing.
Okay? Go to it. What is the with respect to man and impermanent It’s a very good, clear question. What is the pervasion with respect to man in a permanent thing? Authorization.
What is the difference? Oh, the difference. Yeah, we’re looking at differences and similarities. A man has a moment. No, no, no.
This answer, one of these four possibilities. The only answer you can give at this moment, at this particular time. Exclusive. So he’s answering your exclusive. Now you can in your mind you’re thinking, well you can agree or disagree?
Okay. So you think it and you would say, it it follows that it’s not exclusive. So you’re going you want to contradict him. It follows because it’s not exclusive because Why? Look down here where where it says notes.
Because there’s no common because there is because there is a common locus. You know what locus? Just means place. Yeah? There’s there’s something which is both is what you’re saying.
So you say, listen, they they are not mutually inclusive because there is a common locus. And you would that’s that’s that’s so you’re you’re you’re directing the questions toward him. You’re controlling the debate. Okay? Direct that question toward him.
He’s saying they’re inclusive or exclusive. No. Alastair Alastair’s taking the position that they’re exclusive. And Peter said they are not usually exclusive because they have a common locus. Okay?
So you direct that toward Alastair. Okay. Okay. At this point you can either agree or disagree. If you think if you think they so you must be taking it either if you agree then you’ve contradicted yourself and you’re finished.
So you I mean, you could do that. You could realize your mistake or you could disagree. Okay. So okay. So we’re gonna use the term At this point, just say I do not accept.
Do not accept. Okay. What are you what are you not accepting then? What are you not accept what are you not accepting? There is there is no common locus.
You’re you’re not accepting that there is a common locus between what? Between man and impermanent thing. Okay. Now Peter, you just restate. There is It follows that there is the cause?
Man is that thing. Man is that common locus. Now the debate comes back to you. Now you have to either accept that man is a common locus between man and the impermanent thing or you can disagree. You can say, nah, I don’t accept.
Okay. You say, what don’t you what don’t What don’t you accept? Even my reason. What don’t you accept? You say, I don’t accept.
You have to know what you’re not accepting. I don’t accept the man who’s an impermanent thing. No. No. That’s not what you’re not accepting.
What they you’re not accepting his his what is his statement. That man is a common locus between man and impermanent thing? So that’s you say, I don’t accept that. I don’t accept that man is a common locus between man and impermanent thing. Yeah?
But you don’t have to say all that, but you should know. So you say, not I don’t accept. Okay. And okay, so you can you have to divide it. Man is a common locus between man and impermanent thing because a man is a man and is an impermanent thing.
Yeah? Okay. Can you did you follow that, Peter? Everybody follow that? We’ll go to maybe we can go through it.
Man man is a common locus between man and an impermanent thing because man is a man. That’s it. It’s man is a man and it is an impermanent thing. It’s a common locus, common position between yeah? And a man if we it’s something which is both.
Okay? So he gave you two reasons. He gave you two he gave you two reasons. He said, man is a common locus between man and an impermanent thing because reason number one, because man is a man. Reason number two, because man is an impermanent thing.
Now do you accept both of those reasons or do you accept neither of those reasons or one of those reasons? I accept one but I don’t accept both those. So you would state which one do you accept in I accept a man as a man but I don’t accept a man as an impermanent. Okay. So you would say the second reason he gave was man is impermanent.
So you say, I do I do not accept the second reason. I do not accept the second reason. So what Okay. What is he saying to you when he said, I do not accept the second reason? He accepts that the man is a man.
No. Yeah. So he’s saying, do not accept that a man is an impermanent thing. And now you have to it’s not responsibility for you to prove that man is an impermanent thing. Man it follows that man is an impermanent thing because Because what?
Because he died. Oh, that’s good. Because he died. Okay, now the responsibility comes back to you. You can either accept that man dies or not accept that man dies.
Oh. But that’s only half of an impermanent thing. I accept that man is impermanent, but I don’t accept a man as a thing. You don’t accept the thing? I don’t know.
Haven’t been proven. Yeah. That’s that’s because we haven’t come to a definition of an impermanent thing. If we don’t if we don’t have a common understanding. Yeah.
I can understand that. We don’t usually call people things, do we? It’s not polite. In Tibetan, we don’t I mean, the Tibetans, they don’t mess with They’re pretty impolite people. They claim they can make simple applies to humans, sentient beings?
Yeah. They do. Yeah. To me, that only normally would refer to an object when you call something a thing. Then we would we would What fits with the first seal?
All products are impermanent. Is that products? Products what fits sentient beings, objects, and everything? Anything which is as anything which arises out of causes and conditions. Yeah.
No. Yeah. We’ll have to get used to this It’s a different philosophy. This yeah. That’s right.
That’s right. There’s gonna be some peculiarity that we’ll have to bear with me. This man being an impermanent thing. The thing I was wondering about was, is a man still a man when he’s dead? That’s a good question.
Is a man is is a man a man when he’s dead? Anybody? Or is he just a he’s doing a thing? He’s dead. Is a is a man is a dead man a man?
Yeah. A dead man’s a man. Is there such thing as a dead man? Is there such a thing as a dead man? What’s the definition of death within Buddhist within Buddhist philosophy?
Separation of body and mind. Okay. Separation of body and mind. Okay. That which okay.
Is there any sentient being which doesn’t have a mind? No. Is there any man which is not a sentient being? I mean, not a man. Is there any ordinary man which is not a sentient being?
No. So is there any man without a mind? I beg your pardon. When he stops breathing. Yeah.
So according to Buddhist philosophy, there’s no such thing as a dead man, a dead person. Once they’re dead, they’re not a person. Yes. Goodbye. He can’t have very impermanent things in men, and no men are impermanent things, so therefore, they’re not mutually exclusive.
What Impermanent. Impermanent. I’m sorry. Impermanent. Excuse me.
You know, this also, you know, we’ll come to this next week when we when we define what we mean by permanent, but it means a different perhaps the I I was even wondering whether to use the word impermanent. It has a different meaning. Impermanent in permanent and permanent in in the Western philosophy means eternal or non eternal. That’s I think. It’s been so long.
Permanent usually means some something that’s permanent is eternal. In Buddhist philosophy, it has doesn’t have that meaning at all. It’s static or changing or and when we get to definitions, it’ll become clear. That which is impermanent is changing. That which is permanent is static and unchanging, unchanging, unchanging.
Alright? So there are things which are permanent and come into existence and go out of out of existence. There are things which are impermanent, which which have no beginning and no end. Some and so there’s different combinations. You know, when we discuss permanence and impermanence, we can talk about some things have beginning and no end, some things have end and no beginning, some things have both, some things have neither.
But it so we have to get used to this. We can either quit using this word impermanent altogether or understand, that when we say impermanent, mean changing, not that it’s eternal. That has no has no bearing on the definition at all. Okay. Let’s the second.
Woman. How many had a how many had how many mutually inclusives were there with woman? One. Anybody have more than one other than that? Do you say those are mutually inclusive?
That’s what you were bringing up there, wasn’t it with men? Yeah, that’s right. Are you in debate with her? No? So are women are women in impermanent thing mutually inclusive?
Okay. So were there any how many exclusives were there with women? There are no exclusives. How many, three how many, how many three possibilities? One.
How you say none? None. One. Anybody else have a One. Peter had one.
Alice anybody else is gonna let’s get somebody else debating. What else what did every everybody else have for three possibilities? One. So Alistair was the only one who had zero? Okay.
Same Okay. How many had how many did possib women have four possibilities. How many four possibilities were there with respect to women? Three. Anybody else have a difference?
Anybody have that? Okay. American? How many had how many mutual inclusives were there? Aren’t all rock stars Americans?
No. It’s How many mutually inclusives exclusives mutually exclusives with America? What was that? So is it the Australian and American don’t have a common locus? Anybody are there such things as dual nationals?
Anyway, can Americans are allowed to be dual nationals. How about three with respect to American, the three possibilities, how many were there? None? One? One.
Okay. So one American and okay. So you’re saying that American and American and all these five were let’s see. What what are you saying? You’re saying there was no three possibilities.
Which one did you find, Brent? The impermanent thing. Okay. Is the American impermanent thing three possibilities, Lisa? Or four possibilities or?
Okay. Let’s let’s look down at bottom of it at at the note. To debate, first give that that which is pervaded and that which pervades. Example. So Anything which is anything which isn’t anything what is called thing?
Okay? Anything which is American is pervaded by being impermanent, is pervaded by being an impermanent thing. Is is that correct? Okay. Then what does it what does it say?
Then give the non pervasion in an instant to illustrate it. But