Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. A live debate session rather than a lecture, this 25-minute class has Ven Jampa Gendun coaching students through the four logical relationships — mutual inclusion, mutual exclusion, three possibilities, four possibilities — applied to specifically and generally characterized phenomena. Working with named students in real time, he uses product, ultimate truth, and consciousness as test cases, pressing each respondent until their premise self-contradicts. A sustained exchange over whether thought-consciousness can ever qualify as a generally characterized phenomenon shows the method at its sharpest. A brief digression considers whether God could count as a consciousness, and the session closes with a handout drawn from notes on the Necklace of Good Fortune, a text establishing rebirth through valid cognition. Aimed at students already working through the formal categories of Buddhist debate logic.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 12 CT 1988 04 05.mp3
UUID: 8523659e-88a9-4d01-b843-c2c429bc4caf
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-04-05
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 24.8 minutes
Words: ~2,308
Lisa is essentially saying, anything which If these two are mutually inclusive, anything which is in existence must be a specifically characterized phenomenon. Right? So then, how would you show that How would you cause it to self contradict yourself? And then how Okay. She says no.
Okay. That’s fine. You can say that. Okay. Then, how would you Okay.
Now, off to a slightly a short little debate here. We have to prove that generally characterized phenomena are existent. What would you do? Generally characterized phenomena are existent because Because existent things are either What is the definition of existent? Specifically, characterized phenomena are existent because?
Objects are not existent. Okay. So just to prove something existent, can give What you’re more or less doing is giving the definition, because they have the object of a valid cognition. Anything which is object of a valid cognition must be existent because that’s the definition of existence. Not the same.
A generally characterized phenomena a specifically characterized phenomena? It is because then? She’s going to throw back Because all things that show specific characteristics are more existent. Anything which is resistant to specific characterized phenomena that’s your premise. That’s wrong.
That’s all. So, how you had to contradict yourself? Yeah. That’s good to me. Good.
Is everybody sort of getting the hang If we don’t do the homework, then we can’t get the flow of this How this debate is going to run. But we’re trying to We’re going to have a more formal format, slowly it’s beginning to evolve very nicely, think. That how to Someone presents a premise, and you take in your mind the consequences of that premise, and again, to take examples which would show how that premise would be self contradictory. That person cannot maintain that position. Lisa said that these were mutually inclusive, which the consequence of that is, anything which existed must be a specifically characterized phenomena.
If that’s the case, then generally characterized phenomena must be a specifically characterized phenomena because generally characterized phenomena is existent and anything which existent must be specifically characterized phenomena. Non existent. Okay, you can say that. You said that and then Judy answered back, They are existent because So then there’s a sub debate. They are existent because What did you answer?
What did you Was the object of a valid cognition. And she could say, no, I don’t agree. I mean, she doesn’t have to. You you can I mean, will reach a point where there’s an absurdity to disagree? But at this point, we haven’t quite reached that, To say that the generally characterized phenomena are not the object of a valid cognition, objects of valid cognition.
But eventually, you can get down to direct perception, as I mentioned before, where you can say, well, don’t you see this? And someone would have to deny their own actual experience. That’s where all inference is actually coming from. But, you know, they can’t They don’t have to always be agreeing. So then we have to prove our secondary debate, then the third debate, and third, fourth debate, and it goes out, out, out further.
Then finally, get them to agree, and then you start coming back in until you get to your major premise. This way, the debate can last, you know, maybe an hour or two hours. You go from many tangents. You know, just like I was saying about trying to jump get this guy to jump off the cliff. He’s going here and you block that, and he’s going over and block that.
Finally, you get him to show his self contradiction. Okay. Any questions about that? Maybe we’ll save this same homework over till next week since most people didn’t do it. Is absence anybody?
Is absence of color a color? No. It’s not. It’s not. It’s suitable to be a hue.
Can’t you see clear? Yeah. That’s right. Yeah. There’s eight eight secondary colors.
Yeah. Clear. That that was just suitable to be a hue. Those were eight specific Those are just Probably, technically, maybe you can support the latter or As I mentioned when I gave you, those were the eight colors, which in various discourses that the Buddha mentioned. So they are presented in this first discussion of collected topics as a secondary color, to have another division.
As to whether they’re technically colors, I don’t know. But they are the eight secondary colors, but more specifically eight secondary colors, which we mention specifically in various discourses. I don’t know. It’s not I don’t know. Let’s finish this second one, so people can go home with some examples.
So, I put the, you know, inclusive, exclusive, three possibilities, four possibilities. There is two, zero, six, and zero. And Judy, I think you how many inclusives did you have? For specifically characterized phenomena? I think it was Judy and Lisa.
Two. And then exclusive? One. And three possibilities? Three.
And four possibilities? No. Okay. Let’s just make sure everybody is trying to understand this one here. Okay?
Which were the two inclusives? Product and ultimate truth. Okay. So there Judy is saying that there are Out of this list here, there are two which are mutually inclusive with specifically characterized phenomena, product and ultimate truth. That means And what does that what does that mean?
And Linda? When she says mutually inclusive, Just take a guess. If a and b are mutually inclusive, what are we saying about the relationship between a and b? Sorry. My brain is here.
Look at where is this sheet? Anything which is a must be b, and anything which is b must be a. There must be no instance of something which is both There must be an instance of an a or a b which is not the other. You know, a and b are Anything which is a must be b. Anything which is b must be a.
Does that make sense, Linda? Yeah? Does everybody follow that? So what is being said here is that specifically characterized phenomena, whatever that may be, who knows what that is, and product. Who can tell her what specifically characterized phenomena?
Anybody give an example? Brent, can can you give an example? Impermanence. Anybody agree or disagree? There’s one disagreement.
Anybody else disagree? Why do you disagree? Deception. It’s actually dead. Also, in sūtra schools, they do not assert emptiness, do they?
Things are truly existent. So, entire discussion, unless it’s specifically pointed out, is from the Sūtra School. Anything which is specifically characterized phenomena is a product. Anything which is a product is this. Anything which is an ultimate truth is this, and anything which is specifically characterized phenomena is an ultimate truth.
Mhmm? Because they’re mutually inclusive. Okay, then exclusive. So Lisa and Judy are saying that which one phenomena is exclusive with specifically characterized phenomena? Generally characterized.
Okay. The specifically characterized phenomena, what do we mean by exclusive? If A and B are mutually exclusive, what are we saying about those two? Peter? That there are no specifically characterized phenomena, but generally characterized.
There are no generally characterized phenomena. Yeah. In the case that we just say a and b, what a and b? There are no a’s, b’s, no b’s, That’s right. That’s right.
The music exclusive, this is they have no relationship. The one over there, the one over here, there’s nothing which is both. Right? That’s right. So Lisa said that specifically characterized phenomena and generally characterized phenomena are mutually exclusive.
If it’s this, it can’t be this. If it’s this, it can’t be this. Does everybody follow that? If it’s specific, it must be cannot be general. If it’s general, it cannot be specific.
So that’s the relationship between those two. It’s what we’re calling mutually exclusive. Then the three possibilities. Okay. Three possibilities.
There were three. Who can name the three other than Lisa and Judy? Consciousness, color, and existence. Okay. Anybody disagree with that?
No, three possibilities. And I have to give you a sheet. Extra sheet. I have to make your copies. Does everybody Does Okay.
What are we saying about when we say that two things are related by way of being having three possibilities? Alright, Margaret? What do you think? Okay. Nick’s shaking his head.
Cath? No, I’ve never got that. Jenny? What do we mean by it? Yeah.
Some eyes are not. All leaves are out. Which ones are not. Okay. So, specifically characterized phenomenon and consciousness, color and existence.
Okay. Okay. We take this first one, consciousness. If there is a relationship of three possibilities. Okay, give me If it’s a relationship of If it consciousness, does it have to be pervaded?
Does it necessarily have to be a specifically characterized phenomenon? If it consciousness, it doesn’t have to be a specifically characterized phenomenon, for example? Then this is not three possibilities? The relationship between these two is not three possibilities? Yes.
It is not three possibilities because it’s four possibilities. Is it three possibilities or four possibilities? The relationship between these two. Without. I’m not sure what is.
This is conceptual consciousness? It is because it’s a specifically characterized phenomenon. Are you saying it’s four or what? I’m saying it’s four possibilities. It is four possibilities because anything which is specifically characterized phenomena does not have to be a consciousness.
Anything which is a consciousness does not have to be a specifically characterized phenomena. Do you agree with that? This is I’m just saying what you It could be. Okay. If you agree with that, then show me a consciousness which is not a specifically characterized phenomenon.
Me a characterized phenomenon. Show me a consciousness. Give me an example of a consciousness which is not a specifically characterized phenomenon. Thought consciousness. Is not a specifically characterized phenomena?
No. Is it permanent? Yes. Thought consciousness is permanent. It doesn’t rise in dependence upon causes and the aggregation of causes and effects and conditions.
Is the thought consciousness a non compounded phenomena? Yes. It is not a non compounded phenomena because it is a compounded phenomena. You have to disagree, right? Okay.
It is a compounded phenomenon because it is a phenomenon which exists in dependence upon the aggregation of causes and conditions. Aggregation of causes and conditions. Does the thought consciousness depend upon causes and conditions, the aggregation of causes and conditions? Yes. Is it a compounded phenomenon?
Yes. Is it not a non compounded phenomenon? Yes. Then it is not a generally characterized phenomena? That’s a specifically characterized phenomena?
Didn’t I ask you to give me an example of a consciousness which was not a specifically characterized phenomena? Can you give me an example of a consciousness which is not a specifically characterized phenomena? Then is this relationship Three, four possibilities? Yes. There’s not four possibilities because anything which is a consciousness must be a specific characterized phenomena.
There’s not four possibilities because anything which is a consciousness must be a specific characterized phenomena. Don’t you see that? You’re saying it’s not. When you say four possibilities, you say some consciousness are specific characterizing, some aren’t. But you can’t give me an example of the one that isn’t.
So therefore, you have to say it’s not four possibilities. Everybody follow that a little? Is God consciousness? Thought? God.
God? God. Oh. Is God consciousness? Well, you got to give me a definition of God.
Creator of the universe. Consciousness. Think they say that, I mean, generally I think in Oh, I don’t know. I’m getting out of my area. I don’t know what they would They wouldn’t say God is a consciousness, would they?
He’s omniscient, all seeing, all knowing. May be. He may have those attributes. That doesn’t mean he’s a consciousness. Why?
Isn’t he to ultimately perform a function? I mean, he created the universe. Can do something. She. I don’t know.
God must be a thing. But it only exists as a mental image. Then he can’t create the universe. That’s right. Because it can’t perform a function ultimately.
Okay. Maybe we’ll we’ll leave this, homework. Maybe I was gonna have I was gonna pass out. I was gonna pass out. I revived all of a sudden.
Maybe I’ll pass it out. You can look at it at your leisure. And then maybe, next I I was gonna say next week, but maybe in week after next, we’ll begin to discuss it. So if everybody would like to take one copy of that and just look at it. Study it.
And we’ll go we’re we’re going to go over it in a in a eventually in the near future. So it’d be good if you were familiar with it before we did. Is everybody getting a bit of feeling, some feel for this? It’s quite interesting when you when you get into it. It’s quite fascinating.
Are there enough? Maybe there are enough. No. They’re not enough. I copied twenty.
This will get goes into what is the correct reason. This is just, some foot yeah, footnote. No. This Yeah. Yeah.
It’s it’s a There was a book it’s a book called Necklace of Good Fortune. And these are the notes that were written up for the back, for just to help as a as an aid to understanding the spoken in book. Necklace of Good Fortune takes all the points of rebirth, which are proven by valid cognition in order to establish rebirth. So we’ll dedicate, like, positive energy. Through these merits, may I soon attain the enlightened state of Guru Buddha, and may I lead every migrating being without exception to that state.
May the precious bodhicitta not yet born arise and grow. May that born have no decline but increase furthermore.