Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The practical question of why Vipassana walking — scanning mind and body for an agent behind physical and mental processes, never finding one — does not yield insight into selflessness opens this 46-minute class by Ven Jampa Gendun. He uses this to sharpen the distinction between direct perception and conceptual consciousness: seeing ultimate truths is not enough; they must be examined with the right frame of inquiry. The session then works through the eleven divisions of form, why eye sense is form rather than consciousness, and why the mental sense has no physical basis. The four primary colors (one per element) and eight secondary colors complete the taxonomy, while a running contrast between the Sūtra School and Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka views of imputation prepares students for understanding the object of negation in emptiness.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 15 CT 1988 04 19.mp3
UUID: 0bb9b835-144c-4ac4-979f-106dc98c8041
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-04-19
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.0 minutes
Words: ~4,889
Magic. Last week we were talking about the differences between the specifically characterized phenomena and ultimate truths on the one hand and generally characterized phenomena and conventional truths on the other, from the point of view of four features: entity, uncommon mode of appearance, perceiving subject and activity. So I just have a few more comments just to finish that off. What is the definition of a specifically characterized phenomenon? The reason that we’re going over to this in so much detail, probably more than detail than you might like at the present time, is to get the feeling for what something must be like if it’s not imputed by conception or if it’s existing from its own side.
And this is, as we said, the study of the Sūtra School is a stepping stone to a rung on the ladder to understanding the higher schools. Ultimately, we want to understand the emptiness of the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka school. That’s our ultimate objective in studying Buddhist philosophy. We have to get some feeling of what the lower schools are talking about. What what does a specifically characterized phenomena what does it feel like?
What kind of we have to get some impression about it because this is actually what is going to be refuted by the higher schools. So if we don’t know what the lower school is asserting, we’re never going to gain an acquaintance with what the upper schools are actually saying, in fact, doesn’t exist. So again and again, we come at this from many different points of view, from the point of view of the subject, the point of view of the object, from the point of view of entity, from the point of view of appearance, from the point of view of activity. Just to develop from many more aspects the feeling of what a phenomenon must look like if it’s specifically characterized, if it’s an ultimate truth, if it’s casting its aspect from the side of this object toward the subject, if it’s not being imputed by the subject toward the object. The more we can come at it from different points of view, more feeling, the a better generic image or mental image we’re developing about it.
And then we’re beginning to get a clearer and clearer mental image idea about what emptiness is or what the object of negation of emptiness, what things lack, things that are absent of a particular way of existing. And what they’re absent of or lack is specifically what the sūtra school says actually exists. This is what things actually lack from the point of view of the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka school, the highest school. We’re coming in from different points of view. So just a few more words about it.
Okay. You know, we’re talking about specifically characterized by what we’re talking about from the point of view of the subject. What is the consciousness which cognizes specifically characterized phenomena correctly? What type of consciousness? Also?
And ultimate consciousness. And ultimate consciousness, great. Type Among the direct perception and inference, which one of those two? Direct perception. Direct perceiver is that which is an ultimate consciousness.
It sees its object with all of its details and with clarity. Another name last year when Lama Lodroe was here, studied awareness and knowledge in the various divisions of mind or awareness. One of the divisions was into two, that is collective engagers and eliminative engagers. The way we can begin to understand what that means is collective engagers are, for example, direct perceivers. A collective engager, it sees all the various aspects, characteristics of its object completely.
All the objects collected together, it engages in the complete characteristics of its object of cognition. That’s why it’s called a collective engager. An eliminative engager, for example inference, only is able to cognize the object partially. Necessarily eliminates the details of its object. Therefore, conceptual consciousness is referred to as an eliminative engager.
Eliminative. Yeah, that which eliminates. Eliminative. Yeah. Or partial engager, something like that.
Partial engager. It’s not able to cognize all the details of its object. It simplifies and abstracts the qualities of its object. This is the characteristic of conceptual consciousnesses, or for example, inference. So within the Sūtra School, the direct perception is not misleading.
That’s why we call it an ultimate consciousness. But, even though all of the characteristics, all of the properties appear to it, it does not necessarily ascertain all the characteristics of its object. It’s not able to ascertain. Even though when I look at this piece of paper, the impermanence of the piece of paper is appearing to my eye consciousness, my eye consciousness is not able to ascertain the impermanence of the paper that was appearing. So even though things appear doesn’t mean that we have to understand, that we have to ascertain them.
Direct perception is also unable to take as its object permanent phenomena. These are its particular limitations of a direct perception. One is that it’s not able to ascertain. For example, in the case of an ordinary person, it’s not able to ascertain all the subtle aspects which appear to it, for example impermanence. Two, it’s incapable of taking a permanent object, permanent phenomena as its object of cognition.
Thus, even though every day of our lives, day in and day out, we’re always seeing, hearing, perceiving ultimate truths, they don’t liberate us. In order for ultimate truths to begin to actually act as an antidote to ignorance, actually to help us to gain liberation, we have to ascertain these subtle qualities of these ultimate truths, and ultimately we have to realize the selflessness of the person. We have to Now, this is one thing. Many people take Vipassana courses. It’s very popular.
What are they looking at? They say Vipassana means insight, they’re trying to have insight into selflessness. They’re trying to by taking, by directly perceiving the five aggregates, We can just say, Well, the five aggregates of the form aggregate, the feeling aggregate, the aggregate of discriminations, the aggregate of compositional factors, and aggregate of consciousnesses. These are the five aggregates, but we can simplify these down into mind and body. Same thing, just a more simplified division.
So they’re trying to have direct perception of mind and body as lacking of substantially existent self. So what are they doing? They sit and they sit and they go throughout their body looking through the body, looking through the body, looking through the body. And they’re looking through them, they watch their mind, constantly watching their mind, feelings arising, thoughts arising, discriminations arising, emotions arising. They just keep watching and watching and watching, watching the mind and body, watching the mind and body.
So that ultimately it begins to dawn on them that through this entire period of watching they have never seen a substantially existent self. They’ve never seen someone behind their thoughts. There’s no one thinking their thoughts. There’s no one tasting their taste, tasting their foods. There’s no one making the effort of lifting the arm.
All they see is barely physical and mental processes occurring. That’s all they see. They look, they keep watching and watching and watching. Maybe they’ll catch a hint, a sight of this, a glimpse of this self which they always thought was there. So they just keep watching, watching, watching, watching, watching and just never find it.
They walk and they’re walking around thinking, eating, eating, talking, and they keep watching, watching. And so this entire process, all they ever see is physical processes, mental processes, nothing behind these processes. There’s no agent, there’s no subject, there’s no one thinking the thoughts, there’s no one in control. So finally it begins to dawn on the mind. The mind begins to understand and realize that there is no substantially existent self.
There is no independent self which we have up till now been led to believe is controlling this entire processes. So this is how the cultivation of the realization of insight from the point of view of the Sūtra School goes. And this is what the Theravadins are following. This is their main practice when they do Vipassana. They have direct perception of mind and body, and indirectly the mind and body specifically characterized phenomenon.
Want to see every detail of it as if they don’t want to miss one little detail. There’s no doubt in mind that they’ve seen it all. Mind and body, if it’s there, they’ve seen it all. If it begins to dawn on them, there’s nothing they’ve not seen, and therefore the self that they always thought exists just simply does not exist. So they have direct perception of specifically characterized phenomena of the ultimate truth of mind and body, but they realize that there’s a lack of a self, a substantially existent self, and all there is are these various mental and physical processes.
So they directly perceive the aggregates, the mind and body. They indirectly perceive selflessness. Is this how? By observing ultimate truths is not enough. See it. Every one of us sees ultimate truths all the time, but simply that is not enough.
We must also come to realization of first characteristics such as subtle impermanence and ultimately the selflessness of the mind and body. This lack of something you thought was there all along, which in fact doesn’t exist. So perception, direct perception is unable to ascertain all the characteristics that appear to it, so it has to be cultivated. That’s what he’s doing when the Vipassana meditator is walking very slowly, watching every muscle move, watching every feeling arise, the complete motion of watching his foot as he raises it. Is there anything which is willing this to rise?
The foot raising, heel raising, raising, lifting, toe, toe, moving forward, touching, touching, touching. All he sees is there’s just these physical processes, mental processes. There’s no one lifting the foot. There’s just a mental process of intention, motivation. And then there’s a physical process of raising, but there’s no one doing this.
Anyway, he is seeing ultimate truth, but because he’s cultivating it with mindfulness of looking for something, this substantially existing self, it cultivates an insight. Merely watching yourself walk slowly is not enough. If they don’t explain if there’s no mindfulness of selflessness of what you’re looking for, then it just serves as a basis for development of concentration. It’s not a basis for developing insight. So if you take, for example, a Vipassana course and they don’t explain the idea of what we’re looking for, what a substantially existent self is about, then how are you going to realize selflessness?
Just by watching your foot going up and down, just by watching that ultimate truth is not enough. You must cultivate the understanding that within this ultimate truth there’s a lack of substantially existent self. And this needs to be cultivated. It’s not going to rise out of nowhere. Concepts, conception, not concepts — conception.
We’ve been talking about it. It’s not an ultimate consciousness, it’s an obscured consciousness. Conventional truth can be termed, translated even, as truth for a concealer, truth for the obscured. Conception is obscured. It’s obscured from directly perceiving the ultimate truth.
It knows its object through a mental image of the object. So we can develop a mental image of an object and give it very, very detailed. Maybe our face. We probably have probably one of the images we’re most familiar with our own face. And we can probably know where every freckle is, how many hair is, or whatever.
It’s very detailed, but it’s still a simplification. It’s still an abstract. It doesn’t have all the collected complete characteristics of your own actual face. And because it’s necessary for conception to use this as a means to get at its object, it’s said to be obscured from actually seeing the object completely. Therefore, it takes a generally characterized phenomenon as its object.
That is, the general idea about the face, not the detailed face itself. These mental images are not deteriorating moment by moment. This is why we call them permanent. We can call up by will, by intention, we can call up a mental image. This mental image is there.
It does not need to be continually reproducing its same continuum, its same type again and again. It is not deteriorating. It will not go away over a course of time. The only thing that’s necessary is through the force of our will we can cause that mental image to arise. We don’t need to create the causes.
We don’t have to reconstruct it again. It’s there like in our file. It’s non deteriorating, therefore it’s said to be permanent. This image does not arise dependent upon the actual presence of the object. So this is one advantage of conception is we can understand an object without its being present, physically present.
Whereas with direct perception, in order to understand the object, the object must be physically present. We can simply invoke the mental image by terms, verbally or by thoughts, by concepts. In this way, conception is not limited by the physical presence of objects. But the object does not appear in full detail or with clarity. So, of these types of consciousness has its advantages and disadvantages.
But we say thought is always mistaken. All thought conscious are mistaken in that the object appears the mental image appears to be the actual object. Our idea about the object appears to be the actual object. Usually, we don’t assent to that appearance. We don’t think that’s really the object, but still it appears that way.
Sometimes we actually do take what appears to us to be the actual object. Normally we don’t. But still, even though we don’t accept that that appearance is the actual object, it still appears that way. In this respect, it’s said that all conceptual consciousness are mistaken because the appearing object, because the mental image appears to be the actual object itself, but it is not. Direct perception knows its object immediately.
It does not rely on an internal image, and is not prone to error. For that reason, it’s said to be an ultimate consciousness. It does not rely on an internal image and is not prone to error. Therefore, it’s said to be an ultimate consciousness. The object which it cognizes appears by way of its own unique characteristics and casts those characteristics toward the sense consciousness or the mental consciousness.
And that’s what an ultimate truth is. I’d like to bring up one little fact and then we’ll move on. This is more in the way of a question just to start some thinking. What is the difference between the collection of the parts and the whole? This is the whole.
This is the collection of the parts. Is there any difference between these two? What? The way in which they’re arranged. The way in which what is arranged?
The parts. This doesn’t have any parts. It is composed of parts. This whole doesn’t have a the whole we’re not talking about its part. And this is as if it didn’t have part.
Well, that’s difference, the perception. One’s perception of a whole, the other’s perception of a collection. Yep. Okay. Is So is that Are these two perceptions different, then?
Are these two perceptions different? Are these two cognitions different? Us. Well. Is the cognition of the sum of the parts and the cognition of the whole, are they different in any way?
Cognition of some of the parts. The sum of the parts? Yeah. I think if we’ve got a mental image saying car, and we just see it as one whole it’s just one whole sort of conception. And if we sort of see a car and we’re aware of all the little bits that go to make it up, then we somehow it’s it’s different.
At the time you’re at the time that you’re aware of at the time you’re cognizing the parts, are you aware of the sum of the parts or the parts? You’re probably aware of the parts. So that’s not the sum of the parts? No, that’s wrong. So you can’t be aware of the and the sum of the parts and whole.
Is there a difference between the sum of the parts in the whole? The sum of the parts of this cassette player and its whole? Yeah? What’s that? In what way?
Well, they’re not the same. And they perform the same function, don’t they? I know. They both can you can put a cassette in and play it or Oh, okay. Well, the sum of the parts in this in this configuration?
What is the difference in perception? What? If you saw this table, let’s say this table has three parts. When you begin to analyze something, what happens to the conception of the whole? It’s It’s So if you begin to analyze it, if you want to analyze the table, to analyze means to break down in some way.
There could be different methods of analyzing. Essentially, it means to break it up using some methodology to break it up into some characteristics using some method. If we were to analyze this table, immediately upon analysis, we be still cognizing the table? Would we still see the table? What will we see?
We can see the legs and the top. We can see the legs and the top and not necessarily see the table? Is that possible? We’re getting into the idea of what they mean by imputation and what we’re getting here by when we say the object casts its aspect to the consciousness. From the point of view of Sūtra School, the sum of the parts and the whole are equal.
No difference. The object casts its aspect to the mind, and the mind understands that. The mind takes on the actual shape of that object. It’s like a mirror, and it reflects, takes on the actual image of that object. So from that point of view, there’s no sense of having to consider what the object is.
It’s as if the object is being forced upon you. We don’t need to differentiate between the sum of the parts or the whole. In fact, they’re equal in Sūtra School. Now, if we take it from the point of view of the middle way school, the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka school, is there any difference between the whole and the sum of the parts? What?
The whole is imputed on the sum of the parts. That’s good. That’s right. So now what happens? This is in stages though, but we’re going to introduce one stage.
We put these legs here, put the top on, we’ve got the sum of the parts. This aspect casts itself at our mind and upon that we project, we label table. So what happened? The sum of the parts is the basis of the imputation of the table. It’s not the table.
The table is not casting its aspect from the side of the subject, forcing itself upon us, but the sum of the parts is casting its aspect. Upon that sum of the parts, which acts as the basis of imputation, we project, we label, we designate, we impute the concept table upon the sum of the parts, upon the two legs and the top. When those two get joined together, then you’ve got a complete object, So we need three things from the point of view of a Consequentialist school. We need imputing consciousness. We need the basis of the imputation and we need the imputation.
These arise simultaneously. Introducing this idea because to give you an idea of the difference between the way the Sūtra School sees the status of objects. That is simply that we don’t have to call this a table, we don’t have to use verbal terms. We don’t have to use any concept. This is a table and its aspect is cast upon our mind.
Our mind forms in that image and we understand table through that process. Now, in one stage you’re coming to the understanding. So this is the object which being refuted. This is the object which, in fact, doesn’t exist from the point of view of the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka school. If this were the case, this is what is being meant by truly existent.
That things aren’t dependent upon our names, naming them. They aren’t dependent upon our labeling them. They aren’t dependent upon designation and imputation. But from the point of view of the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka school, the parts are casting their aspect, appear to us. They appear casting their aspect to our mind.
Upon that base and this appearance of the parts is taken as a basis, we impute a name, we impute, we designate, label, Table. The table is coming from the side of the mind projected onto the parts. There’s a difference between the whole and the sum of the parts. This is the table and this is the parts of the table. Table, table, or the basis of imputation of the table.
The basis of imputation are the parts of the table, it’s not the table. This appears to the mind and the mind keeps that. This is the way the table comes into existence. You say a job that the Sūtra School sort of says that things have a sort of inherent tableness. That’s exactly right.
That’s exactly right. There’s something about them from their own status, from their own side, which makes them a table, independent of our calling them a table. This is developing the object of what is to be negated, what is to be refuted in the understanding of emptiness. Through their own force, by the force of the very object itself, we understand table, by the virtue of their own status. Okay.
We’ll just talk about that more in the future. So, the definition of a specifically characterized phenomenon? Natalie? Oh, Natalie. Oh, Alison.
Oh, Natalie. Alison? Specifically characterized phenomena? Not very good. So that’s the object of negation for now, if the Sūtra School is setting that forth, this is the nature of all these various phenomena, which are appearing to us all the time.
This is their ultimate truth. But in fact, this is the object which is going to be negated by the Consequentialist school eventually. So selflessness is divided into how many parts? Has many how many divisions? Selfless has how many divisions?
Existence. What are those divisions? Existent and nonexistent. Nonexistent. And existent has how many divisions?
What are they? Pardon? And thing is divided in how many divisions? Anybody tell me without looking? Division of How many What is How many are If you divide division If you if you divide thing If you divide thing How many parts?
How many If you divide thing, how many divisions? How many parts? Linda? There’s a three. We’ve got a three.
Anybody dispute that? And what are those three? It’s pretty basic. What would you guess? If you looked around this room.
What? Form? Right. And something else? Non associated consciousness.
non-associated compositional factors. If we divide form, how many parts are there? Eleven. Quite often they just divide form into two, inner form and outer form, the inner form would be what? Can anybody guess?
If we divide form into two, inner form and outer form, what would be the inner form? Internal, inner form, inner form. What would be the inner form? Consciousness. Is this conscious in this form?
Possible. I was thinking more of eye sense, ear sense, nose sense, tongue sense, and body sense. But we’re just working. In general, we can say that form is divided into eleven. The first five are the physical senses eye, ear, nose, tongue, body.
Why don’t they have the mind sense here, mental sense here? Why isn’t there a mental sense? They have eye sense, ear sense, all the way down to body sense, but they have no mental sense? Nonsense. Pardon?
So is a sense consciousness, Is an eye sense a consciousness? Yeah, but that’s specifically a It is a consciousness. Then is that form? Is an eye sense form? Is an sense form?
Then is an eye sense not consciousness? Is an eye sense consciousness? Then what is the relationship between consciousness and form? It mutually inclusive, exclusive? Three possibilities or four possibilities?
Anybody? It’s exclusive? Karen doesn’t think so. Why is it exclusive? Consciousness is form.
Is there a common locus? There’s no common locus. Is there a common locus? Is an eye sense both consciousness and form? Yes, it is.
Then eye sense, debate with him. There is a common locus because I sense is that common locus. It is because an eye sense is consciousness and an eye sense is form. Because an I sense is consciousness and an I sense is form. Pardon?
Which one do you disagree with? Not form. And why is it a division of form? What is the definition of isense? Anybody?
I think we had that last What the definition of I sense? Uncommon empowering condition of the eye consciousness? Uncommon. Yeah, that’s right, Judy. Uncommon, empowering So eye sense is a division of form.
It’s not a division of consciousness. So we have to differentiate between I consciousness and I sense. eye sense is this subtle matter we talked about within the eyeball. It’s made of particles, it’s physical, and the consciousness is non physical. The eye is physical.
Yes, that’s right. Eye sense is like there’s a clear matter within the eye which acts as a medium. So they’re mutually exclusive Consciousness and form. There’s nothing which is both physical and non-physical. So why don’t we have a mental sense listed here?
We have eye sense, ear sense, nose sense, tongue sense, body sense, but there’s no mental sense listed. Then there’s no mental sense? Well, why is it here? It’s a different category. What category?
Well, in terms of consciousness. Okay. Good. So the mental sense is actually a conscious of the previous moment of consciousness to access the empowering condition for a later moment of consciousness. So there’s no physical sense basis.
For example, the brain is not the physical sense basis of the mind acting as the sense basis or the sense power of the mind is the previous moment of mind. So it’s not form. There is a mental sense, but it’s consciousness. So I think we up to that far, I think, last week. So we continue with the visible form.
The definition of visible form is an object of apprehension by an eye consciousness. An object of apprehension by an eye consciousness is the definition of visible form. An object of apprehension by an eye consciousness. So there are a few synonyms: form constituent and form source are synonyms of visible form. If you hear the word visible form or if you hear the word form constituent or form source, they all mean the same.
They’re just used in different contexts, but they have essentially the same meaning. As this chart indicates, visible form is divided into two, color and shape. We’ve talked about color when we did the first division of the Collected Topics. Color is divided into two, primary colors and secondary colors. And what was the definition of color?
To be here. So there are twelve, There are the four primary and eight secondary colors. The four primary colors are the four colors of the four elements. The four elements wind, earth, water, and fire. They’re kind of the building blocks of the physical universe from the point of view of the sūtra school.
So the wind is blue, earth is yellow, water is white, and fire is red. So then we we went through the secondary colors. So when it says, for example, cloud, smoke, dust, mist, illumination, darkness, shadow, and sunlight, We’re not talking of, for example, cloud. We’re not saying cloud is the secondary color, but the color of a cloud is a secondary color. For example, illumination refers to the light of the moon, stars, fire, jewels, this type of color.
Darkness refers to a form that obscures other forms and causes one to see darkness or gloom. What do we mean by darkness? Darkness obscures other forms such that they cannot be seen. Whereas in the shadow, makes others a little unclear, but they’re still perceivable. So there’s a difference in density between darkness and shadow.
Sunlight refers to the illumination of other forms when the sun appears. The secondary colors do not include the various other colors which are merely mixtures of the primary colors, mixtures of the elements. For example, if you put yellow and blue together, you get green. So if you had a predominance of wind and earth, would give a green appearance. An eye consciousness only sees color and shape.
Although Although a table, for example, appears to an eye consciousness, the eye consciousness only realizes the color of the table and the shape of the table.