Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. A visual puzzle opens this 45-minute session: Ven Jampa Gendun shows students a picture and asks whether they see a chorten or a mandala — exposing how quickly an inexact mental image misleads. He then works through four canonical examples of permanent phenomena: space as the mere absence of obstructive contact; analytic cessation, where afflictions are expelled and the door locked forever (nirvana); non-analytic cessation, where the door is merely left ajar; and suchness as emptiness. Running through the middle is a lively exchange on what eye consciousness actually perceives versus what the mind labels, illustrated by the door example and the famous horns on a rabbit’s head. The session closes with live student debate on whether selflessness and existence are mutually inclusive. Suited to students actively studying Buddhist logic and epistemology.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 11 CT 1988 04 05.mp3
UUID: 0513d016-5616-4699-9763-33eea26ca034
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-04-05
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 44.9 minutes
Words: ~4,140
If you see a picture of a chorten. What is a chorten? Chorten? This is an example. On the on the on my left hand side, this It’s obscured by the back.
A little with a That’s a mandala. See? Your your your mental image of Chorten took in Mandala. So it wasn’t it wasn’t It was a very inexact mental image. It gets you in a lot of trouble.
Any question? Okay. Well, maybe we’ll finish off permanent phenomena and then we’ll go on to the homework and we’ll let you guys debate in a little bit. This is what’s supposed to be happening. But we do have Yeah, we’ll on to that.
So we went through the various I think we listed five phenomena which were mutually inclusive, synonymous with permanent phenomena. And then so in this chart, Jeffrey has Jeffrey Hopkins, which I where I stole this from this chart, he lists four examples. These are just examples. It’s not to say this this is not an exhaustive list of of permanent phenomena. This is just four examples of permanent phenomena.
There are other permanent phenomena. For example, anybody? Well, maybe we’ll go through them first, then you can give me So the first one is space. Space is the mere absence of obstructive contact, the mere absence of obstructive contact. It’s a permanent phenomenon.
So we can ask the question. I’ll ask the question. I’ll ask the question. When an eye when eye consciousness sees, know, for example, from myself to that door, I see the absence of objects. I see that.
And when I see space, Doesn’t my consciousness see space? No. It sees a door. It sees a door. And you could walk through the door?
It sees a door with nothing in front of you. It sees the absence of obstructive contact. Present? Absence of what? Why not Alastair?
It doesn’t see the absence Doesn’t see the absence of obstructive contact? No. What does it see? Sees the door. Doesn’t it see the absence of objects in a way?
It see the absence of objects but not the absence of obstructive contact. Isn’t that the same thing? What’s the difference? Have confidence. Just by merely seeing the absence of objects between myself and the door, do I do I do I or do I not see the absence of obstructive contact?
I can see that in the image. That’s good. So we have to think about it. It’s a reasoning process. I can see there’s no object there, but we have to think, ah, then there’s there’s an absence of obstructive contact.
So Pardon? I doesn’t think. It really seems. That’s right. That’s right.
That’s good. Yeah. It’s it’s not a conceptual conscious. Now thinking, the idea is what they say dumb, In a sense, it’s not stupid, but it doesn’t think. Well, by dumb, yeah.
Anyway, that’s what the Tibetans say. Maybe I shouldn’t say that in English. Don’t know. It’s not It doesn’t use reasoning, it doesn’t use thoughts. It merely sees the facts and doesn’t think about the fact.
So it doesn’t see the absence of obstructive contact, doesn’t see the space. Doesn’t see the door? No. Doesn’t the The eye doesn’t see the door. Pardon?
Is door a word? Is a word? Doesn’t see a door. And then are you trying to say, Kath, that it sees this object and then the mind imputes upon that a door? Yeah.
I think then then you’ve never seen a door before. No. My eye hasn’t. No. Okay.
And you’ve your your eye has never seen a person before? No. Or food or cooking? No. Your eye has your eye ever seen anything?
Name me one thing your eye has ever seen. The direct perception. But then the eye consciousness does not see anything. It sees something, but not what I think it sees. What does it see?
You. It’s dumb. Dumb. Think maybe there’s a Anybody have any comment on what Kath is getting at here? It’s good idea she’s working with.
You always are new medium for your brains. What else? No. We’re talking about the eye consciousness. Eye consciousness.
Sorry. No, it’s alright. So, Kath is saying that door is just an idea or a word, and therefore the eye consciousness doesn’t really see the door. The light label door is is a a a name. The the door itself is what I see.
Yes. But what does your eye see? I see the form that I what I label door is what I see. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. The baby can see the door, but can’t say it is a door. Because without a space, you can’t label it. That’s good. Yeah.
Yes. Is what do you think about Rudy’s idea? Baby can Do you have to know what an object is in order to see it? Unless you know the name, you can’t see it? So the What you’re getting at, Kath, is quite a good It’s a good point.
The eye consciousness can see a door, but it doesn’t see the door as a door. Okay? So there’s a difference. It can see the door, but it doesn’t see the door as a door. In order to see door, does it have to know the door as door?
Then the baby, as Rudy was pointing out, doesn’t see anything. No, it doesn’t. It’s blind. All babies are blind. It doesn’t see What is this what is this something that it sees?
Light. Oh, then it knows light. But the object that the consciousness is turned to is the same, isn’t it? So therefore we’re looking at the same object, but it’s a different consciousness that’s perceiving it. Does it does it do you see color?
Yes, but how about if I see hues? You see hues. Okay, you see hues. Yeah, but I can’t guarantee you if you see the same hues. No, but do you see hues?
Your eye consciousness sees hues. So your eye consciousness sees hues? It actually Does it see shapes? So it and that’s what we say when that’s what we mean when we say see? And that’s what it says.
So you see light and shade? Yeah. Alright. But do you know the name Light and Shade? Do you have to know the name Light and Shade?
It just sees okay, that’s good. It sees different intensities of light. Okay, it sees light. It sees light. If it sees variances in light and shade, then it must see light.
Doesn’t it see the variations in light and shade of the door? So Kath, if the eye consciousness can see light, the eye consciousness sees light. Does the eye consciousness see anything? The eye consciousness see anything? Give me something.
An ultimate self. Any sense? Common sense. Okay, I think about the difference between seeing a door and seeing a door as a door. I think they’re quite two distinct things.
You can think about that. We’ll back into it next week. Okay. So, we’re just going through these various examples of permanent phenomena just to get an idea of permanent phenomena. Lisa is very curious about what analytic cessation are.
So analytic cessation, analytical cessation, are final states of cessation, final states of cessation, of obstructions. Final states of cessation of obstructions. Sounds like taking an oath or something. States of Final states of cessation of final states of cessation of obstructions upon analysis of the nature of a phenomena. No, I can’t say it the first time.
Final states of cessation, of obstructions obstructions upon analysis of the nature of phenomena which are such that these obstructions will not return. That’s easy. Which are such that these obstructions will never return. So, what does that mean? Okay.
Moving right along. Okay, it sounds difficult, but it isn’t. It’s the mere absence of a ceased affliction. The mere absence is the absence of a ceased affliction. An absence of a ceased affliction, like affliction such as desire, hatred, ignorance.
That ceased affliction Finished, stopped? That absence of that affliction. Okay? That means the affliction is still there, right? Yeah.
If it’s absent? That’s the double limit. It says absence of a ceased The absence of Daryl in his room. Means a lot in my room. Alright, it’s permanent, isn’t it?
The absence of Daryl in his room. Is it changing from moment to moment? Is the absence of Daryl in his room changing from moment to moment? But is it changing from moment to moment to moment? Is the absence of Daryl in his room, right?
Is the absence of Daryl in his room changing from moment to moment, disintegrating from moment to moment? It may come to an end. Not we’re we’re not going to talking about this moment. Can we Yeah. Okay.
So what what what is, you know Yeah. Okay. So in the process of cultivating a path, we slowly abandon the various afflictive emotions such as desire, hatred, ignorance, jealousy, spite. So the cessation of those afflictions, as they cease, we abandon them in such a way that they will never return again. It’s like having a thief throwing them out of the door and locking the door, such that these afflictive emotions will never return again.
They cannot return again. This is called a cessation. It is the third noble truth, the cessation. A nirvana or beyond sorrow is a cessation. It means that, in this case, that all the various afflictive emotions have been gotten rid of and therefore there is a cessation, there is an absence in such a way that they will never return again.
We’ve thrown all the afflictions out the door and we’ve locked the door. They can never return. This is a permanent phenomenon. Of a cessation mean there is no cessation? Absence of a cessation.
Oh, we can say the absence of the cessation. Yeah, that’s a good point, Dar. That’s right. That’s a good point. Absence of the cessation.
That’s very good. Absence of the cessation. The absence of the cessation. There. The is not there or the non cessation is there.
We cultivated a true path. We meditated, whatever. We went through this process, and we’ve abandoned all the afflicted emotions such as desire, hatred, ignorance, so that ceasing of ignorance, for example, represents an absence of the affliction. There’s an absence. This absence is not momentary.
It’s not momentarily arising. Wouldn’t it be easier then just to say the cessation of an affliction? The cessation of affliction. For all intents and purposes, you probably could say that. The The word cessation could mean the process.
The cessation while it’s going along. That’s cessation. It could mean the process of abandoning. That’s a cessation also. Yeah, right.
We said absence of that cessation. Or a complete cessation. Complete cessation. You could say that. Yeah, that’s a good complete cessation.
Because I’m it confuses me, so absence of it. A little bit understandable, that’s how we say that nirvana is permanent. nirvana is an absence simply the absence of the afflictive emotions, that’s ignorance, in such a way that they will not arise again. Therefore, it’s a permanent state. nirvana is permanent.
Then non analytical cessation. Anybody guess what that means? Anybody? You said inferential sense direct perception. In what way is it connected with perception?
What is a non analytical cessation? We explained what an analytical cessation is. No. I mean, that’s there’s some logic involved. It’s the temporary absence of an afflictive emotion due to the temporary absence of afflictive emotions, of an afflictive emotion due to the incompleteness of necessary conditions.
The temporary absence of of an afflicted emotion due to the incompleteness of necessary conditions. Can anybody give an example of a non analytical cessation? If you don’t have the object for anger to arise, then it won’t arise. That’s right. That’s good.
As Deki just said, if someone particularly gets you angry or if the object of anger is not present, which is the condition necessary for that afflictive emotion to arise, then there is a temporary absence of the afflictive emotion, anger. But it’s incomplete because once that necessary condition returns, then the afflictive emotion will return. It’s like throwing the thief out the door but leaving the door open so he can come back in. That’s right. It’s just that like in sleep, we have a non-analytical cessation of the afflicted emotions in deep sleep.
We don’t have any ignorance. We don’t have any hatred. We don’t have any desire, spite, jealousy. It’s as if we’re in nirvana. They’re going Sleeping.
Sleeping. But upon waking, the necessary conditions for them to arise become complete again and the afflictions return. Then the fourth example is suchness. Suchness is simply emptiness. So this chart was drawn up in respect to the middle way school and not the Sūtra school.
So this would not be an example in the Sūtra school. Because the Sūtra School does not assert emptiness. So that’s just going through the various What’s another example of a permanent phenomenon which we’ve discussed a number of times? One? That’s right.
That’s right. Absences. Absences. Absences. Why are absences permanent?
Why your absence is permanent? Because at the moment, the absence, it’s not disintegrating or changing. Are the horns on a rabbit’s head permanent? The horns on a rabbit’s head are permanent? You know, are the horns and rabbit’s head existent?
Horns and rabbit’s head are existent. They are existent because they’re permanent. If they don’t exist, how can they be permanent? That’s a good question. Well, that they exist.
They exist. Horns and rabbits had to exist. Yeah? Then the the the permanent or impermanent? The permanent.
Are the horns on a rabbit’s head, are they manifest phenomena or a hidden phenomena? Not many. Neither. Then they don’t exist? They do exist because they’re permanent.
I think I know what you’re thinking about. Okay. What are you thinking about, Judy? There’s a little blank somewhere. I mean, they exist.
Has anyone ever seen Horns on a Rabbit’s think. Yeah, okay. Is picture of a Horns on a Rabbit’s Head or a Horns on a Rabbit’s Head? So that’s right. What did you say, Judy?
They exist in your mind as a mental image. So, yeah. But they What are you seeing? Not actual horns on a rabbit’s head, are you? Your mental image of the horns on a rabbit’s head.
That exists. The mental image of its truly existent self exists, but the truly existent self does not exist. The mental image of the horns on a rabbit’s head exists, but the horns on a rabbit’s head do not exist. So we can have mental ideas about things which don’t exist, and we believe that they exist because we believe that this mental image is the thing itself. We believe we’re working with the truly existent self That’s the object of our consciousness.
And we think that really exists, but it’s only our conception, our idea, our mental image. It’s just a mental construction. So just because something appears to us doesn’t mean it exists. It just may it’s just a could be just a simple mental image, just like a striped rope appearing as a snake. It appears to us, but it it really doesn’t exist.
So because things appear does not necessarily mean they exist. Okay. Let’s go to the homework. Maybe we’ll divide the room right in half here with Nick on the right. Good.
Okay, let’s see if we have any contention between the right guys and the left. Okay, with respect to selflessness, how many mutually inclusive did you have? Mutually inclusive with respect to selflessness. See this is inclusive, exclusive, three, four. Darryl says they’re all inclusive.
This side, does anyone decide, disagree, or agree with Darryl? Disagree. Disagree. So ask him. Who?
Okay. Which so That’s good. No. You you you must okay. Ben?
Ben, selflessness and color? Yeah, I think you’re probably right. You’re pretty sure we’re down. Anybody? Okay.
On this side, how many mutually inclusiveness? Selflessness and the and the other six. How many how many? Alastair, mutually inclusive? Margaret?
Okay. Let’s Anybody? How many mutually inclusives with respect to selflessness? Anybody? No?
I want my definition of selflessness explained. You don’t think there’s any mutually inclusives? You could You know, we explained that it was the largest category, that if something was selfless, it could be either existent or nonexistent. Selflessness was divided into two, existent and nonexistent. You could just think of it in terms of that.
Anything Not anything. The word thing. An object which is existent or nonexistent would be one way of looking at selfless. Just for the sake. Anything.
The word thing in English usually means The object. Existent. So I’m using the word object. Objects don’t have to We don’t have a word anymore. Objects The word I’m going to use I’m going to try to consistently use the word object to mean something which exists or nonexistent.
They’re nonexistent objects. Like horns on a rabbit’s head are an object of consciousness, but they don’t exist. Okay. Yeah. They’re still selfless.
That’s right. So, anything that you could think of would be selfless. Yeah. And even things you can’t think of. Yeah.
Either existent or nonexistent objects would be what we could We don’t have to get into the nature of selfless, the various categories. Just from the point of view of categories, either existent or nonexistent, be selfless. Judy thinks that there is one mutually inclusive with respect to selflessness. Does anybody disagree with that? Anybody disagree?
Everybody agree with that? Pardon there, Alastair? I can’t agree. Okay. You point out to her You tried to develop the contradiction.
She’s saying that selflessness and all these are mutually inclusive. Now what? Then you ask her which one. Which one? Existing.
Okay. Anything that is selfless is existing. Nonexistent object’s surface? Yes. So a nonexistent object is existing?
Yes. A possible counter. Nonexistence is existing. Here’s an example of a nonexistent object. So the horns of a rabbit’s head exist?
Yes. The mental image. The mental image of an object the object? It’s going well, and you’re going very well. Let us go back over some material maybe.
Is that So is a nonexistent object existent? No. You’re going to write better there. The and rabbit horns and rabbit’s head are nonexistent. Are the horns and rabbit’s head existent?
Are the horns and rabbit’s head existent? No. They are. Then show you a contradiction. They are existent because of so forth.
Excellent. Well, I’ve got into our head, non existence itself is existent. But he didn’t use the example of non existent. He used the example of nonexistent, the horns on a rabbit’s head. But they’re nonexistent.
So are the horns on a rabbit’s head Existent. Existent? No. They are existent because? Because they are selfless.
So what are you going to answer? That’s good, Does everybody follow that? Judy said her initial premise was that selfless and existent were mutually inclusive. What does that mean? What does that tell us?
What statement is she making about these two phenomena, their relationship? That’s right. If it is nonexistent, it must be selfless. If it is selfless, it must be existent. You want to show her inconsistency or you want to contradict her.
You want to have her contradict herself. So you take an example, the horns on a rabbit’s head. Are existent. Why? Because anything which is selfless must be existent, and horns on a rabbit’s head are selfless.
What about the existence of the non existence of the non existence existence? You’re confusing the issue quite a lot. The body? Yeah. We’re not talking about the non existence and the non existence?
Are the horns on the rabbit’s head dear? Lisa, so Judy is saying that these selfless and existent are mutually inclusive. What does that mean? That’s right. Okay.
You to have her contradict herself. So we take an example, the horns on a rabbit’s head. How would you debate? Go ahead, try. Yeah, you can.
Anybody else taking the example of a horns on a rabbit’s head? Brent? Ultimately, we are trying to show her premise that these selfless and existent are not mutually inclusive. That’s where we want to lead to. We have to lay some groundwork.
We are taking some consequences of her premise and trying to have her contradict herself. We take as a consequence, when she says that selfless and existent are mutually inclusive, what do we know by that? Anything which is existent must be selfless, and anything is selfless must be existent. We think, Ah, I think she’s wrong. That’s what we’re thinking in our mind.
I think everything that’s selfless doesn’t have to be existent. I don’t think she’s right. So I’m going to pick something which is selfless, which I don’t think is existent. I’m going to ask her because she’s going to have to say it’s existent. She said anything which is selfless must be existent.
I’ll hold that the horns on the rabbit’s head are selfless. No, you put it in the form of an assertion, a statement. Therefore, the horns on the rabbit’s head must be existent That’s right. Why? Because they are selfless.
That’s right. She could disagree. She said, No, the horns and rabbit’s head aren’t selfless. She could disagree with that, but I don’t think she would have a nice But this would carry on to another debate. If she said, No, they’re not selfless, they have a self.
Then you’d have a secondary debate, a secondary debate working. Then you have to settle that one, then you come back to the first debate. Sometimes debates go on for hours. If she didn’t agree that the horns on a rabbit’s head were selfless, then you have to prove that they were selfless. Once she got her to establish that they were selfless, then you would have to show that they must be existent because they’re selfless.
She said, No, they’re not existent. They must be existent because they’re selfless. She’d say, Oh, my major premise was wrong. You’d have to take her all the way back. What do we do?
It’s like you back up somebody against a cliff, you know, and you want them to jump off the cliff. So first they go right, you block that. When they go left, you block that. When they try to go forward, you block that. And finally, they have to jump off.
There no way out of their position. They have to admit that their major premise was self contradictory, that they contradict themselves. Wherever they go, they have to contradict themselves. Really, becomes a real movement of the mind.. Most discussions are going like this and like this.
And they really never come up against any hard fact where you have to say, Wow, I must be wrong. Even though I don’t see it, I don’t see any way out of my self contradiction. I must be wrong. You can actually come to that where you don’t understand quite why you’re wrong, but you don’t see any way out of it. Any answer that you give will contradict, will be inconsistent with what you do believe.
So then you have to accept, I have to accept what you say. Even though I can’t understand what it is, I have to accept it because I can’t Everything that you put forward is contradicting my premise. So how many inclusives, mutually inclusives with selfless? Any? Zero?
Exclusive? Three possibilities? We got four, we got a six. What did you say, Peter? Who said four?
Was there four in the crowd? Anybody disagree with six? There’s six all? How many fours? Four possibilities.
Okay. So I say I say I say this. What do I say? The second one is specifically characterized phenomena. How many inclusives?
Mutually inclusives? Anybody? Three. We have a three. Anybody else?
Anybody have a difference of opinion? Two, we have a two and a three, One and a half. Anybody else? Okay. So you two fire down.
Step outside. Okay. Judy, you’ve been debate with Lisa. Which three? Product, existence, and truth.
Ultimate truth, okay. So which is the third one you don’t agree with, Judy? Is everybody following? Has one more than Judy does as far as mutually inclusive. She says that specifically characterized phenomena, product, ultimate truth, and existent are mutually inclusive.
Judy doesn’t have this existent as being mutually inclusive. Does anybody have any opinion on that, that specifically characterized phenomena existent are mutually inclusive or not?