Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 47-minute class, Ven Jampa Gendun works through live debate drills before turning to formal definitions from the Lower Path of Reasoning. Students open by calling out examples — black pots, Ron Reagan, Australian women — to map how many logical “possibilities” hold between concept pairs, building feel for pervasion and mutual exclusion. The teacher then examines what makes a cognition valid: it must penetrate its object, be factually concordant, and be stable — illustrated by a jaundiced person seeing a yellow snow mountain whose eye consciousness fails all three. The second half defines “thing” (a phenomenon able to produce an effect) and its synonyms — impermanent phenomenon, product, compounded phenomena, ultimate truth, and specifically characterized phenomenon — before closing on permanent phenomena, where the rabbit’s horn tests whether “not momentary” alone is a sufficient definition.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 07 CT 1988 03 22.mp3
UUID: 326dff57-3348-414b-902f-8488fd2e5d2f
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-03-22
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.7 minutes
Words: ~4,330
This piece of paper, for example, is an impermanent thing, but it’s not a permanent thing. So then it’s it’s, three possibilities. Yeah? How many four possibilities with respect to impermanent phenomenon? Three.
Everybody agree with that? Well, I think you now you’d have to correct that one. Here. Yeah. Is that right, Lisa?
So what’s American and Australia? Yeah. I say mutual. Is it? Yeah.
I think so. Okay. How many mutually exclusives with respect to pot? Yeah? Okay.
How many with respect to how many exclusives with respect to pot? Three. There you go. Three? Two?
Anybody else? Two? One? Two. Well, we got quite a difference in the finger.
Okay. Who said three? Okay. List yours, Kim. Pot and rock.
Okay. Pot, rock star. Rock Pot and rock star or or what? Exclusive. Okay.
Pot and rock. I’m assuming pot is a — yeah, kind of an object to hold. And then? Pot and Australian.
Aussie. Pot and adult human female. Anybody disagree with anything? Yeah, that I thought I should say like Australian citizen or something like that. Australian.
Would you say an Australian? I suppose it’s an Australian product, do you? Yeah, you’re right. We’ll have to be very careful when we we have to be more careful. Okay.
How many three possibilities with respect to One. Which one was that? The last. How many four possibilities with respect to pot? One.
Which one was that? Color? Okay, plot and color. Just for the sake of debate, as it says here in the notes, first we ask for an instance of both. So I’m going to ask you, I’m going to debate with you.
What is the pervasion with respect to pot and color? Is the pervasion with respect to pot and color? Black in color. What is the pervasion with respect to black in color? Is it inclusive, exclusive, three possibilities or four possibilities?
Okay. He says four there’s not four possibilities because there’s nothing which is both. I’ll I’ll do it easier way. Show both. Show both.
So an instant which is both. A black part, you mean? A black part. Okay. Black part.
Is it black Okay. Black part. Is a black pot Okay. I’ll try to do it in a little more formal. Black Is a black pot a pot?
Is a black pot Black in color? Yeah. Okay. Show me something which is neither pot or color. Neither one of those.
You mean neither a pot or black? White cup. A white cup. Is it white cup not a pot? No.
Is white cup not black in color? No. Why is it white white cup not black in color? Then the pervasion in both directions. So we went through both, neither, and the pervasion in both directions.
How do we give that? If it is a pot, it is not pervaded by being black in color. It is a pot, is not pervaded by being black in color. Show. Show, that means give the example.
Show. Of the white cap. Otherwise, if it is a pot, if pot, if then, is not pervaded, by being black in color. Is that correct statement? It is a give me an example.
That’s right. White part. White part. So is a white part a part? Yes.
Is white part not black in color? Okay. If it is if it is a black if it is black in color, then it is not pervaded by being a pot. Show? Black cat.
Black cat. Is a black cat black in color? Yes. Is a black cat not a pot? Yes.
Okay. You get the starting to get the idea? Yeah. A little bit. Okay.
The last one. How many mutually inclusive with respect to sentient being? A a rock star doesn’t have to be a sentient being. I don’t know what to say about that. We’ll have to get a ruling on that.
That is so. A There’s a rock star that’s not a human being. Would I kinda think so, but I guess we could have They brought out this record of sheep sounds. Yeah. And it was really popular everywhere.
Really? Were they like? Chickens in it as well. Really? Think they’d come to Okay.
Ellie. I have a question for Ellie. See if you’ve been paying attention. What is the pervasion between man and America? I haven’t put anything here.
Let’s try it, okay? Is this something which is both? Man and American? Yes. Okay, for example?
Is there someone who’s man and an American? Ron Reagan. Ron Is there somebody who’s a man and not American? Baja. Okay.
Is there somebody who’s American, not a man? Ellie, is there someone who’s American and not a man? I copied from here. This is the tale I have. Oh, that’s right.
Yeah. That’s good. That’s good. So any questions about that? Everybody sort of getting the idea, the feeling for it?
This is the way we can begin to relate the similarities and difference between two things. So how many possibilities was there? How many do think? How many of us are possibilities between men and American? Woman in Australia, Australian citizen.
What is the What is the pervasion between women and Australian citizen? A woman can be Now, what is it? First, just answer this question directly. It has to be one of these four. You say inclusive, exclusive, three possibilities before it.
It has to be three possibilities, I suppose. Yeah? I don’t know. I mean, I wasn’t here last week, right? Shouldn’t have been.
Okay. But okay. You said it’s four possibilities? Three or four. I haven’t thought about it yet.
Is it something which is both? It’s not exclusive. Is it something which is both? There something? American female.
Don’t know. Australian woman. Oh, so it’s one of the same things. Yeah. Okay.
An Australian woman, something that’s both. Yeah. There’s lots to Show me. Name one. Cat down the back.
Cat. Cat as a woman? Cat? Cat is a woman? Is she Australian?
Yeah. Okay. So it’s something which is both. Mhmm. So is how about is whatever is a woman, does it have to be an Australian citizen, for example?
An American woman. American woman. Is an American woman a woman? Is an American woman not an Australian citizen? No.
Is whatever is an Australian citizen have to be a woman? No. For example? An Australian man. An Australian man.
Is Australian man Australian? Yes. Is Australian man not a woman? Why? So what does that mean?
Which one of these? In relation to is an Australian man. No, no, no. Usually inclusive, exclusive, three possibilities or four possibilities? First question.
A woman, an Australian citizen. Is that four possibility? Three possibility? Everybody? Yeah?
Okay. What do you think it is? Three past. Anybody else agree or disagree? Any differences of opinion?
So if we think it’s three possibilities, which is pervaded and which pervades? Which is and which is being pervaded? Sentient being. So if it is I’ll write this We’ll get I should write this out. If it is a sentient being, it is pervaded by, pervaded by being impermanent.
Everybody agree with that? But if it’s a if if it’s an impermanent thing, it is not pervaded by being a sentient being. For example? A rock. A rock.
A rock. Is it rock impermanent? Yes. Is it not a sentient being? Yes.
That’s right. Yeah? Okay. This something which is not is it being an impermanent? No.
It’s all phenomena. All phenomena are impermanent. What does this chart say? There’s nothing which doesn’t change. I don’t think so.
Does number one change? Does that change? I what. Does the number one change? I’m How about different?
Does that change? Hurts. Does that change? What would we find? I knew that.
Didn’t that be? Would be The letters on the board would change. The letters on the board Are the letters on the board different? Is the letter are these one? Are these much on the board?
One. Oh. How much you don’t know how much is one in one? One, two, three, five. Okay, very good.
So you know what one means. Is that one permanent or impermanent? Well, it’s impermanent if I’m counting because I start off at one and I go to two, three, four. Mean, when it’s constant? Actually, because I got to two.
I started off at one, two, three. How about the lack of elephants in this room? How about the present lack of elephants in this room? Is that impermanent or permanent? Is that changing?
Remember I said the word changing? The the present lack the this very moment, the lack of elephants in this room, is that an impermanent phenomenon? Is that a phenomenon? Is that an object of knowledge? Yeah.
I suppose. Is it permanent or impermanent? I think pretty permanent. But it can’t be. Everything is What’s an elephant, can you tell me?
At this very moment? There’s many, many, many, permanent things. We’ll get into that when we discuss permanent. Is it permanent phenomena? Is it?
When we say what’s the definition of an existent? What’s the definition of existence? Something lack of elephant in this room, the present lack of elephant in this room, is that the object of a valid cognition? So it’s existent. The present lack of elephant in room is existent.
It’s permanent. Okay. We’ll get we’ll get to that. Thank you. We’ll get to that next week.
Okay. Well, maybe we’ll I had another list of of homework, but I’ll have to make up a new one because this is the one I have made use of material which we which we didn’t get into. So I’ll just make What is the relationship between three things? Okay. Child.
Child. American American American citizen. Girl. Dish. And blue.
Yes. Color. Okay. Adult. Australian Aussie Aussie Aussie citizen.
Boy. Green in color. Existent. And we we had one more. Phenomena.
Is that on the existing phenomena? No. It’s two. That’s two. Alright.
One over here. Objective knowledge. Object. Okay. So there’s six.
No, that’s that’s knowledge is the same as cognition. Object of knowledge, cognition. Yeah, knowing. You could say object of knowing or an object of knowledge. Yeah.
Something that can be known. Not that they can be known. Is there any object which cannot be known? Is there something which exists and that can be known? Is there anything like that?
What is the definition of existence? That’s that’s some kind yeah, that’s right. Yeah. In within Buddhist philosophy, if it’s not known, it doesn’t exist. Why talk about something that we don’t know about?
It is as far as things only exist for minds, and if it’s not known, it doesn’t exist. Because everything is known by by a valid cognition, otherwise it doesn’t exist. So I hope this is going satisfactorily. Do you have this? Nick.
Does everyone have this? Rudy? You have nothing? One for you and one for Nick. Nick.
Continue with the collected topics, The Lower Path of Reasoning, which had eight divisions. The first was color. The second was called established base. So we’re beginning to become familiar with the divisions and the definitions of the way in which Buddhist philosophy breaks up all phenomena, all phenomena. So the first overall division, the overall category is existent or selflessness.
Unless it’s going to be particularly pointed out, we’re always going to be speaking from the point of view of the sūtra school. So, all things are selfless. In what way are all things selfless? Lacking a self. The Buddha said that all phenomena are selfless.
Anybody? In what way are all phenomena selfless, like inner self? Inner phenomena being objects of use of a person, or yourself, the person. So that’s phenomena other than persons? And persons?
Emptiness of That’s right. What kind of self? Don’t you have a self? An independent, self-sufficient existing self. That’s good.
In this way, a sūtra school is able to explain the Buddha statement that all phenomena are selfless even though they believe that such things as tables, chairs truly exist. They assert true existence, that things in fact have a self, but they’re not objects of use of a person having a self. Therefore, things are said to be selfless. So, things have their own entity, their own self, their own self nature, but they’re not objects of use of a person who has a self entity. People are selfless and objects are empty or a lack of being used by such a type of person.
So in this way all phenomena are selfless. So then that was the overriding division, which covers everything, both existent and non existent. And then we can divide selflessness into two parts. What are the two parts? Phenomena’s selflessness and a person’s selflessness.
That would be later down. What would be the Wait. That would also be later down. Okay, good. Existent and nonexistent.
So we can talk about existent selfless existences which are selfless, and nonexistence, which are selfless, which perhaps doesn’t make much sense, but even nonexistences are selfless. We talked about we asked the question, Is nonexistence existent or not? Is non existence is that existent or is it nonexistent? I think we did make up a conclusion that it’s existent. Non existent is existent.
The fact that it’s an object of knowing the place. Probably is existent because otherwise how would we know whether something is nonexistent or not? We couldn’t know it. We couldn’t know things are nonexistent if we couldn’t be able to have a valid cognizer perceiving nonexistence, like the nonexistence of the pink elephants in this room. How could we recognize the nonexistence of pink elephants in this room if nonexistence didn’t in fact exist?
Nonexistence itself is probably existent. Then we took up existence. We listed a number of synonyms or the other term, probably more accurate term, is those phenomena which are mutually inclusive or synonyms with existence. For example, established base, objects of understanding, objects of knowledge, and phenomena. Were there any questions on any of those?
We got through those, the phenomena or the synonyms of existent. That which is the object of a valid cognition. Would the eye consciousness seeing a snow mountain? We’ll take that as an example. Does a snow mountain exist?
Does a blue snow I’m sorry, a blue snow mountain. Does a blue snow mountain exist? It is because someone with a defective eye What’s a yellow snow mountain? Someone who has jaundice. He sees a yellow snow mountain, so therefore it exists because he sees it.
That’s not found in valid cognition? Yeah, but the what? The consciousness, There’s no valid cognizer which sees yellow? In that case, the yellow doesn’t exist. So does the yellow snow mountain exist?
Does the yellow snow mountain exist? What do you think? The eye consciousness perceiving the yellow snow mountain exists. Does that exist? Yeah?
How about the yellow snow mountain? Then the yellow snow mountain exists. No? Why? It’s not reality.
Do youwhy does eye consciousness see the Yellow Snow Mountain? He goes, Why wouldn’t you say it exists? How can you prove it doesn’t exist? So what are you saying? That’s a good question.
So we have to if we question whether there’s a yellow snow mountain, even though someone sees it, then we say, Well, perhaps you have some kind of fault. You’re misperceiving, misunderstanding. So we say this particular eye consciousness is not a valid cognition. There were some characteristics of a valid cognition we talked about last week. Some of the primary characteristics of what constitutes a valid cognition.
Anybody? What were some of the qualities of valid cognition? Otherwise we can say everything exists that appears to us. Is anything with same perception existing? Does it exist?
Anybody? Yeah, Kevin? It’s incontrovertible. It gets it or penetrates its object. It’s factually concordant.
It’s stable. Stable. So we can say in general a valid cognition must be new and incontrovertible. And by incontrovertible, first it must get at its object. It can’t simply be concordant, as we mentioned last week.
For example, an assumption may be true. You may assume something which is correct assumption. If there’s someone in the next room, if your teacher tells you that things are selfless, you say, Yeah, he knows what he’s talking about. And you assume it, and it may be true, but you haven’t penetrated. You haven’t really got at the object through your own experience or your own reasoning.
So you really haven’t penetrated to the object. So even though you have a valid understanding, it’s not a valid cognition in the sense it hasn’t penetrated. It hasn’t really gotten at the object yet. Can only get an object either through experience or reasoning. Those are the two ways.
We can validly know anything that will come up later. So, we have to be able to get an object. Again, it has to be factually concordant and it has to be stable. For example, in the case of a doubt, that doubt is not a factually concordant doubt. Even though at the moment it arises it has gotten in its object, it is factually concordant, but it’s not stable.
It will quickly be lost. It’s not so this valid cognition has these qualities. So this person who sees a yellow snow mountain, his eye consciousness is said not to be a valid cognition because it’s not factually concordant. That anything that appears to us does not necessarily exist. For example, the independently existing self again and again appears to us and we believe it exists.
But that belief is based on ignorance, a misknowing, misunderstanding. It’s not a valid cognition. So even though the self is again and again appearing to us, it in fact doesn’t exist. Just because things appear doesn’t mean they exist. They have to exist for a valid cognition, not for any type of consciousness in general.
So we divide existences into two: permanent phenomena things. So we’ll start with things. Know, he could have just as easily this is taken from I took this chart I lifted this chart from Jeffrey Hopkins’s book on Meditation on Emptiness. He could have just said rather than saying things, could have said impermanent phenomena, for example. They would have been nice and symmetrical, you know, impermanent and impermanent, but anyway, that’s the way he did it.
Permanent phenomena and thing. So we’ll take out things to begin with and define them and look at the synonyms for things. So the definition of a thing. Definition of a thing. Anybody know what the definition of a thing is?
Must be something. It’s just not anything. Definition of a thing is a phenomenon which is able to perform a function. A phenomenon versus permanent phenomena. We know what a phenomena which is able to perform a function.
Phenomena which is able to perform a function. And we know what a phenomenon is, don’t we? We learned that last week. Anybody? Lisa, Lisa, no.
Something which just holds its own entity. Yeah, that’s right. That which holds it in. Has to have duration, has to be able to maintain its characteristics. So a phenomenon which is able to perform a function, especially the function of producing an effect, especially the function of producing an effect.
So in general the definition is that the phenomena which is able to perform a function, but specifically when we say, Well, what is the particular function we’re talking about here? It’s able to produce an effect of some sort. One of the first synonymous terms with thing is impermanent phenomena. And if the definition of impermanent phenomena, phenomena, phenomena, phenomena, yeah, that’s right. Phenomena is that which is momentary, that which is momentary.
Or perhaps a phenomena which is momentary would be better. A phenomena which is momentary. A phenomena which is momentary. Now, again, what we mean here is when we say momentary, we say something which disintegrates moment by moment. Now, the use of the word permanent and impermanent in Buddhist philosophy and Western philosophy is quite different, isn’t it?
By impermanent, generally in Western philosophy, mean something that’s going to come to an end. It’s not eternal. It has nothing to do with the way it’s used in Buddhist philosophy. In Buddhist philosophy, when we say something is impermanent, it may in fact have an end or it may not. Like, for example, the mind.
Our minds stream or the mind will never have an end. It’s eternal. But it’s impermanent because by moment by moment it’s disintegrating, arising, abiding, disintegrating. Moment by moment it’s changing. Therefore it’s impermanent, but it’s eternal.
So there’s a difference in the way the two terms are used. You can say dynamic, changing. The next synonym of thing is product, product. The definition of product is that which is created. That which is created.
So we simply mean that which, you know, arises out of causes and conditions. The next synonym is compounded phenomena, compounded phenomena. So these, you know, these are all synonyms so their meanings are going to overlap. So the definition of compounded phenomena is that which is suitable to be produced, abide, and disintegrate. Or perhaps rather than that, a phenomena which is suitable to be produced, abide, and disintegrate.
Now when we when we so now I’ll repeat, the phenomena which is suitable to be produced, abide, and disintegrate. Now when we talk about compounded phenomena, what we’re when we use the word compounded phenomena impermanent phenomena are compounded out of causes and conditions. It’s a coming together of causes and conditions aggregating together, compounding, aggregating, collecting together. You can know this term is also sometimes translated as collected phenomena, compounded phenomena, aggregated phenomena. It just means that causes and conditions have come together and the phenomena arises out of that.
Okay, the next. And this is another synonym of thing is ultimate truth, ultimate truth. We’ll go into this later in more detail. The definition of ultimate truth is that which is ultimately able — I’ve written down that. Maybe it’s easier to say: a phenomenon which is ultimately able to perform a function.
A phenomena which is ultimately able to perform a function is an ultimate truth. And we’ll go into perform. Perform. Okay, the next synonym is specifically characterized phenomena. Specifically characterized phenomena, specifically characterized phenomena.
The ultimate truth and specifically characterized phenomena are quite difficult subjects. The definition of a specifically characterized phenomenon: a phenomena which is established from its own side, a phenomena which is established from its own side and not merely imputed by conception. A phenomena which is established from its own side and not merely imputed by conception? Anybody give an example of a specifically characterized phenomenon? Of a phenomenon which is established from its own side without being imputed by conception, whatever that means?
Anybody give an example? Space, is it? Space, okay. Is space established from its own side? Is space a phenomena?
Is space a phenomena? Why? And is it established from its own side? Doesn’t depend on conception to exist. Okay, if it doesn’t depend on conception to exist, then it depends upon direct perception?
How do we what valid cognizer knows space? How do you know space exists? How would you know if you saw it? If you happen to bump into it in the dark or something? Would you know it through the eye consciousness, ear consciousness, tongue, body?
No. What By what means? By which consciousness would you know it? By conception. By conception.
So, then it’s not a specifically characterized phenomenon? No. Can you mind giving an example of a specifically characterized phenomenon? Pardon? Okay.
Is a dog a phenomenon? Why? Why? Okay. A dog.
Is it established from its own side? Yeah? Okay, yeah, we’ll go That’s right. But perhaps you’re not quite sure why, but we’ll go into why. Okay, first we’ll cover permanent phenomena because it’s more or less the other side of the coin of all these terms we just went through.
So, the definition of permanent phenomena. A phenomenon which is not momentary and has a common base with phenomena. Let’s just actually substitute the word phenomenon for that: that which is not momentary and has a common base with phenomena. That which is not momentary and has a common base or locus with phenomena. Okay, why do they need that second part of the definition?
If we say the definition is, That which is not momentary and has a common basis with phenomena? What is the necessity of saying and has a common basis with phenomena for the definition of permanent phenomena? If we don’t have that second part of that definition, if we just maybe say the definition of permanent phenomena is that which is not momentary, is that a sufficient definition for permanent phenomena? So is there a difference between permanent and permanent phenomenon?
If we said anything that’s permanent, anything which is not momentary is a permanent phenomenon. Would that be correct? Anything which is not momentary is a permanent phenomenon. Why? Sue?
Why? Can you just take this guess? It doesn’t matter if you’re wrong. Is everything — see, we have to use the word thing in English — are all that which are not momentary, are they permanent phenomena? Like the horn on a rabbit’s head, is that permanent?
The horn on a rabbit’s head? It is permanent because is that which is not momentary. It is that which is not momentary. It must exist because it’s permanent. Why is it permanent?
Because it is that which is not momentary. That’s the definition of permanent phenomenon, isn’t it? Okay.