Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 36-minute session, Ven Jampa Gendun opens with a striking epistemological claim: we never perceive objects as they actually are, only our mental image of them. He explains why thought consciousness is considered “obscured” and why conventional truths are called truths for the obscured, then outlines the four conditions required for sense consciousness to arise. A student question draws out the Gelugpa account of how inferential understanding of emptiness can lead to direct perception: through sustained familiarization, the mental image gradually fades until emptiness is perceived directly, “like water poured into water.” A question about clairvoyance prompts a brief taxonomy of the four types of direct perceivers. The session then shifts to a lively homework review in Buddhist logic, working through categorical relationships — mutually inclusive, exclusive, three or four possibilities — using terms like child, adult, Australian citizen, and object of knowledge, including a spirited debate about whether a green-painted child counts as “green.” For students following an introductory Collected Topics curriculum.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 09 CT 1988 03 29.mp3
UUID: 7b9dc843-3c16-45c2-a4ae-f4569a0666fa
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-03-29
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 35.7 minutes
Words: ~2,915
Of the actual phenomenon itself. It’s always what will appear to it is our image, idea about the object, and the object itself will be mixed together. The the our image, our idea about the object is obscuring us from seeing the actual specific details, the actual nature of the object itself. We are seeing our idea about that object. It may be a correct idea, it may be you know, our idea and the actual objects may be almost exactly the same.
Quite often our ideas are absolutely wrong. Quite often they’re correct, but they’re always not specifically correct, not identical with the object itself. It’s always influenced, conditioned by whatever factors in our mind. Being created by our mind and not by the object itself. When we see things directly, our understanding comes from the power of the object.
When we understand things inferentially, it’s coming through the power of our ideas about the object, our mental image about the object. So that’s why they say thought consciousnesses are obscured, or they said conventional truths are truths for the obscured. What is the obscured? Thought consciousness. Thought consciousness obscures from actually knowing the object itself specifically.
Therefore they are not ultimate consciousness. They are just merely conventional consciousnesses. So this is considered a fault of thought consciousness, that they’re obscured. Sometimes the conventional truths are said to be truths for the obscured. So is that a little bit It’s a very difficult subject.
I don’t know. I find it quite an interesting subject. The fact that we know things through direct perception, the force of the object forcing it it casts like casting its aspect upon our mind. Everything is coming from the side. You know, in sūtra school, things are established objectively from their own side.
They cast their aspect onto our consciousness and dependence upon that, a cognizing consciousness arises eye consciousness arises. You know, there this pin, the sense consciousnesses. We can talk about four different conditions for a consciousness to arise: the objective condition, the empowering condition, the immediately preceding condition, and the general condition. We can go with this at a later time when we go over cause and effect. Objective condition: the object comes in contact with that sense power and there’s a clear, it’s said to be clear matter within the eyeball itself.
When they say sense power, they’re not talking about the eyeball. They’re talking about some sort of clear matter. It is matter, but it’s so subtle it can’t be seen with the naked eye. So when these come in contact, in addition there’s a preceding moment of consciousness. These three come in contact with general conditions such as light.
There arises through the force of this, through the power of this object and these conditions, the eye consciousness seeing the pin arises. And when we think about a pin, we can understand the pin validly, but we don’t see the pin itself, we understand our idea about the pin, our image of the pin. We create the mental image by which we’re understanding the object. Such an understanding is dependent upon our conceptions. You know, when you say, Oh, I know what he’s like, or, I know what she’s like, you really don’t know.
You only know what your conception is of that person. When we say that we understand emptiness, until we have direct perception we only understand our idea about it. We only understand our particular mental image. It may in fact be a correct mental image, but we’re still obscured from seeing the object directly. And it’s only by direct perception, which in this case of emptiness, for example, that the ignorance can be eliminated, not through our ideas about emptiness, but through direct perception.
Any specific questions, ideas? About the direct perception of emptiness. If first of all, you can only kind of understand it by by the opposite of direct perception by using reason and things like that. That’s right. But then from there, how do you go about actually pursuing it directly?
It doesn’t seem I can’t see how I mean, even though you have discovered it. Yeah. Yeah. That’s a good question. How do you go about perceiving it directly, unless you’ve already seen those things?
Yeah. That’s a very good question. There’s a lot of debate amongst the Buddhists within Buddhism and outside of Buddhism. Some people say there’s an unbridgeable gulf between influence and direct perception. There’s connection.
But the Gelugpas in this particular tradition that most of us are studying in, they say there’s definitely a connection, that one will aid the other, that having an inferential understanding of an object will help you lead you onto a direct perception of the object. But there’s a lot of debate about this. Know, I mean, they would be saying that, for example, on the path of preparation you have there’s five paths. The second path you have what? Inferential understanding of emptiness, the second path.
You keep familiarizing yourself over and over and over and over again. So you’re understanding your mental image. You’re working with a mental image of emptiness, right? You’re not actually seeing emptiness itself. Your mental image begins to fade.
As you become more and more familiar, it becomes less obstructive. It becomes more and more as if it were an actual object. It feels like it fades until they reach a point when there is no obstruction, mental image fades and you actually perceive emptiness itself, like water poured into It’s not kind of, you know, the more you associate it, the more it kind of comes. We can, yeah, we can go into that. That’s quite interesting.
But that’s a good point. Yeah. Because it kind of it just seems like there’s no way. Yeah. I don’t know.
So many people would agree with According to Gelugpa interpretation? Some would say they’re well, of course, they’re different schools. Some don’t some non-Buddhist schools say that there’s no such thing as there’s only direct perception, there’s only valid way to know things. That inference, they don’t recognize inference as a valid way of knowing. Yeah.
So the way they would explain that is in the basis of his karma, that he had had direct experience in a previous life. And he was able to he’d had that experience before, and through awakening that karma, activating that karma, he was able to regain that experience. That’s I would imagine that would be the way they would explain those occurrences. But if you’ve never had the inference, then they would say you can’t have the direct perception because it’s a hidden phenomenon, for emptiness, or even subtle impermanence is a hidden phenomenon. What about something like clairvoyance, for instance, where you don’t have a direct whatever of something?
Yeah. Neither do you have, you know, something like you hear them walking down the passageway or anything like that, but you know that there’s somebody walking down the passageway anyway. Yeah. So it seems that way, that there’s neither of those two things. Why?
Is it a direct perception? Well, is a direct perception but they So there’s different As I said, we usually use the sense direct perceivers, but there’s sense direct perceivers, yogic direct perceivers, mental direct perceivers, and self knowing direct perceivers. So clairvoyance would be a type of mental perceiver. So would that be coinciding with directly perceiving emptiness? In what way?
That there isn’t an actual like, the same with clairvoyance. There’s this kind of way of seeing things without actually having, say, a physical face or something like that. Do you mean you can’t prove it to somebody else? You kind of you you can’t say, well, I’ve heard their footsteps or I’ve heard them cough or sneeze, and therefore, I know. Or you can’t you’re not looking through the door and you can’t see them.
But But you can see. But there is a direct understanding that there is a person who can’t say, Look, there’s a person. That’s what I’m Yes, sort of. In that there’s no way. There’s no way establishing Can know your own mind?
Can you know that you’re seeing something? Like I’m seeing this piece of paper, my eye consciousness is seeing this piece of paper. Can I know that my can I perceive my eye consciousness seeing that paper? Yes. Yeah?
So what is that perceiving? Is that through reasoning or experience? There’s a consciousness which knows that I’m seeing this paper not I, but my eye consciousness is seeing this paper. There’s a consciousness in my mind which knows that my eye consciousness is seeing the paper. Is that through reasoning or experience?
It could be both. I think you have to mentally say, you know, I have to put that to my own or you mean you know that you’re seeing? How about yeah, maybe we’ll go into it. Okay, maybe we could quickly quickly quickly go over the homework. So the first was child.
Okay. How many mutually exclusives did everyone have? How many mutually exclusives? No, I’m sorry. Inclusive.
We’ll start with inclusive. No. Anybody disagree? Pardon? One.
Okay, so Brent had one. Did you have mutually exclusive with child? Adult. Adult. I’m sorry, inclusive, inclusive.
Inclusive? Yeah, no, I spoke I made an error. Okay. The second, the second. How many mutually exclusive with child?
Three. Got two, one. Mutually exclusive with child? How many? Two.
Two? One, one. Lisa, which two did you have? Okay. Does anybody disagree with any of those two, either of those two?
How about the people who had one? Do you see the area of your way now? Linda doesn’t agree. Haven’t you ever been green with envy or something? What do you think, Brent?
Do you disagree with that? Well, not having access to A baby small Tārā. What do you think, Lisa? How about if you paint the child? Paint, green paint.
Would it be a green child? Pardon? Cut them. Cut them. Them.
And then they’ll be awake, on the green. Well, before you cut them. You just finish dipping them in green bucket of paint. Could be a green child. If take this piece of paper and dip it in a green bucket of paint and pull it out, is it still a white piece of paper?
What color is it? Okay, I’ll take a child and dip it in the paper. It a white child or a green child? Okay, well then this is a green white piece of paper painted green. Anybody?
Anybody? No, I don’t know. I think maybe we could have a green a child green color. But it’s not totally green, as you were saying. You’ve got eyes, different color map, different color, so it’s not totally green.
Well, you could have jet green light on Yeah. And then it would be a green eye. Totally green. I don’t think that you can. Really.
Is this a physical or or a mental? Can you have a green piece of paper? How about Mutual exclusive. What was the other mutually exclusive? Adult.
There’s nothing which is a child than an adult? Say an adult is childish but There’s nothing which is both? How about person? Is person a child or an adult? It could be either.
Could be either. Could be When you draw the line, three possibilities. When there’s a child she’s becoming a child and stuff becoming an adult. Mean, there’s adolescents in between. I mean, it’s sort of a Okay.
Let’s say let’s say say sixteen years old. Well, the patient is a patient. Is a person a child or an adult? It be a human. It is.
Then in order to be a human being you don’t have to be a child or an adult. Have you ever seen a human being who wasn’t a child or an adult? Or an adult, an adult. You ever seen a human being who was neither below sixteen or above sixteen? No.
Then a human being must be either a child or an adult? Yeah. Okay. Is a person a human being? Yes.
Then he’s either a child or an adult? Yes. Which is he? Have you ever seen a person with neither? Okay.
The second one was American citizen. American American citizen to Australian citizen. American citizen. How many Oh, I’m sorry, we didn’t finish. How many three possibilities did you have for child?
Everybody go along with that. You had two? How about four possibilities? One. You had one four possibility.
Which were they? Were they? Does everybody agree with that? There is only one full possibility per child? Okay.
Give me an example of one of the four possibilities for child. Australian citizen. Okay. So is it something which is both? For example?
Pardon? Your son. Is he a child? Is he an Australian citizen? Is it something which is neither?
Pardon? A yak. A yak? Yak? A yak.
Okay. Is a yak not a child? Is a yak not an Australian citizen? Is it Okay. Is there something which is a child and not an Australian citizen?
Indian child. Is an Indian child a child? Is an Indian child not an Australian citizen? No. Is there something which is an Australian citizen and not a child?
Pardon? You’re not a child? No. Okay. How about American citizen, how many mutually inclusives were there?
Anybody? Two? Linda? How many mutually inclusives? Everybody agree with zero?
None? Mutually exclusives? Two. That’s the green again. Okay.
Sounds Okay. How many three possibilities? One? Margaret, could you say one? No, three.
Four possibilities? Okay, how about girl? How many mutual inclusives? Mutually exclusives? Three.
Three possibilities? And four possibilities? How about dish? How many mutually exclusives? Nobody had any?
One. Did I hear one, Denny? What is mutually inclusive with dish? No? Okay.
How many mutually exclusives? Three. And which three were they? Everybody agree with that? Three possibilities?
How many? Four possibilities? Which one was that? Blue in color, how many mutually exclusives? I’m sorry, the first inclusive.
How many mutually inclusive? Four. Two digits? Inclusive? Exclusive four.
And the last object of knowledge, how many inclusives? Everybody agree with that? How many mutually inclusives? Pardon? Two?
Everybody agree with two? How many exclusives? Is there a disagreement? Peter? I had one.
Ah, what were the two? Who had two and would like to give their two? Brent, did you? So did you disagree with either of those two, Peter? Can an object of knowledge be nonexistent?
What is the definition of object of knowledge? I think you would have to probably just say valid awareness. Object of knowledge and thing. Existent, object of knowledge are synonymous. Object of awareness.
How many mutually exclusives? Anybody? None? Three possibilities? Everybody green?
Four, three possibilities? And how many? Four possibilities with object of knowledge. None? Any questions about those aside from being whether a child can be green colored?
Wasn’t too sure about the last thing, object of knowledge. Yeah? What won’t you? For example? I was just pretty confused about the whole thing.
Specifically this one or in general? No. Objective what is the relationship between objective what is the what do we call it? pervasion. What is the pervasion between objective knowledge and an adult?
An adult? I kind of suppose that Is inclusion inclusive, exclusive, three possibilities or four possibilities? Take a guess. That doesn’t mean I think that all is an object. Is it?
That case, you have only four answers. It’s inclusive. Inclusive. Yes, inclusive. Okay.
If it’s inclusive, then what does that mean? Anything which is an object of knowledge has to be an adult. Yeah, well that I’m wrong. So is it not inclusive? Is it inclusive?
Then which is it? You have three possibilities left. You have three choices. It’s either exclusive, three possibilities or four possibilities. Three Three possibilities.
How are we doing this? Let me give you another. First, what is pervaded by which? What is the pervasion? Which is being invaded by which?
Which is? What do you mean? I’m sorry. In the sense of I guess I have to make this a little bit yeah, if it is one, it has to be the other. An adult is an object of knowledge, but an object of knowledge is not necessarily an adult.
So if it’s an object of knowledge, it has to be an If it’s an adult, it has to be an object of knowledge? I think so. If it’s an adult, it has to be an object of knowledge. How about someone who’s lost? Out in the desert?
What about He’s lost in the desert, out in the bush. And if something is an object, can acknowledge it. Doesn’t it have to be an object of knowledge? No. For example?
A child. Is the child not an adult? No. Why? Any questions about homework?
I kind of think you could have a You know, if you painted somebody, you’re a green, purple boy. If you’re going have a green dish, why can’t you have a green boy? I don’t have any colored people around here. You get a degree. Generally characterized phenomena.
Selfless, specifically characterized phenomena. Phenomena, thing, Tuesday, conventional truth, consciousness, color, product, generally characterized phenomena, existent, ultimate truth. So we’ll dedicate the merit that we