Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Since this is a writing task rather than a code implementation, ExitPlanMode doesn’t apply here. Here is the paragraph:
In this 46-minute session, Ven Jampa Gendun offers a memorable image to explain the wind element: consciousness is the rider, wind is the horse — together they know and move, but neither functions alone. Working through the Buddhist taxonomy of sense objects, he covers visible forms (colours and eight shapes), sounds, odours, tastes, and the four elements. A philosophical aside distinguishes sound from the rest: unlike colour or smell, it produces no continuum of its own type and lasts only a single instant. The four elements are illustrated with concrete examples — hot springs, sparks from flint, flames holding together. The session closes with live debate practice, students working through the challenger-and-respondent format and the four logical relationships. Suited to those following a formal Buddhist logic and epistemology curriculum.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 16 CT 1988 04 19.mp3
UUID: 25021219-a4f3-4c9a-b424-78dfaf26a7b2
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-04-19
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.1 minutes
Words: ~4,735
A table is like tables, chairs, books. These are tangible objects. They are not objects of the body consciousness. The eye consciousness sees the shape of the table, the color of the table. But we say we see the table, just in general common language.
This will become clearer later when we get into tangible objects. For example, the quality of the function of the earth element is hardness. The eye consciousness does not have the capacity to perceive hardness. Therefore, it cannot perceive tangible objects. It only can perceive shape and color.
The body consciousness has the capacity to perceive hardness. Therefore, the body consciousness perceives tangible objects, but we’ll talk about that more. Also, eye consciousness, when it perceives, for example, a pot, it does not conceive it. When it perceives the visible form of the pot, the shape of the pot, it does not conceive of the pot. It does not think this is a pot.
It’s the mental consciousness which identifies the pot, not the eye consciousness. It’s the mental consciousness which identifies it and names it, not the eye consciousness. Those are colors. The second division of visible form is into shape. And there are eight shapes.
I get, you know, to the definition of shape, that which is suitable to be a shape. That which is suitable to be a shape is a shape. So eight eight eight shapes. Actually, that be unacceptable definition in Western logic. But this isn’t meant to be a technical definition at this level.
Long, short, high, low, square, round, level and unlevel. So long. Long refers to the form of such things as long ropes, long boards, and deep lakes, etcetera. That’s what we mean when we say long. Deep.
Deep lakes. Deep, deep. Lights, snowy lakes. And the opposite of that is short. The opposite of long, it would be short.
Short ropes, short boards and shallow lakes. High and low refers to such things as high mountains and low valleys. What’s it, square? It also could just mean polygon, a many sided figure. Technically, the shape has equal sides, such as a cube, or a pentagon, hexagon, a square.
Also, it can include shapes like rectangles, boxes, or different rectangular solids. That’s square. What do we mean by square or polygon? Then there’s round. Round can refer to spheres or globular shapes like an egg.
It also can refer to simple things like circles, like a mandala, just a circle. And then the level. And level refers to shapes which have an even surface. And non level refers to shapes which have bumps, bumps and depressions, uneven surface. So that’s shapes.
That would that would be under square. Yeah. It’s a polygon. Guess, know, usually it Polygon, many sided figure. Cylinder.
Maybe it’s a combination of round and square. The next division sound. And the definition of sound is the object of hearing by an ear consciousness. Object of hearing by an ear consciousness. There’s eight types of sounds which are on this chart.
So sounds, you know, this is I think this is pretty self evident. You know, you can just read the chart, the different types of sound. Is this self evident? I don’t know. Sounds caused by elements conjoined with consciousness.
That means there’s some will involved in the creation of this sound. There’s some intention, motivation, but on the part of a consciousness. There’s some will involved in the creation. As opposed to two, you know, a tree limb blowing against each other, where there’s no consciousness conjoining with it. So in back side.
Yeah, on this chart. So, sound has Okay, we’ll go through it. Sound has two divisions: sounds caused by elements conjoined with consciousness and sounds caused by elements not conjoined with consciousness. Okay, we’re talking about sounds which are somehow intentionally produced by a consciousness, that is motivated by consciousness, and then somehow physically expressed. This has two divisions: articulate sound, inarticulate sounds.
That is to say, sounds which have meaning and sounds which do not have meaning. Then, so articulate sounds are divided into pleasant sounds, for example, the words of doctrine. It has unpleasant sounds, for example harsh words. Inarticulate sounds has two divisions, that is pleasant sounds, for example sound of finger snapping, and unpleasant, the sound of a fist on impact. The other major division was sounds caused by elements not conjoined with consciousness.
Again, are both types, articulate and inarticulate. Articulate is pleasant sounds, for example, of doctrine taught by trees rustled by a Buddha’s extraordinary powers. Unpleasant, words of scolding from a tree rustled by a Buddha’s extraordinary powers. Inarticulate, pleasant sounds, for example, a drum, and inarticulate, unpleasant sounds, for example, of crashing stones. The only perhaps important thing to bring out with respect to sound is sounds are made of particles.
They’re made up of atoms, elements, just as they would be considered in the West probably. There is no continuum to a sound as opposed to the other four objects of the senses, such as visible forms, odors, tastes, tangible objects. There is no continuum of its same type. Once the sound is produced, it does not reproduce the sound. If we make the sound hitting on the table, it doesn’t keep going on and on and on, reproducing itself.
Whereas once we produce this table, a visible form, then it keeps reproducing itself in type. There’s a continuity, a continuum, is always reproducing itself until it finally deteriorates. In the case of sound, in one instant it only lasts for one instant as opposed to tastes, as opposed to smells, as opposed to tangible objects. It doesn’t go on indefinitely.
It’s just Well, it’s not continually reproducing itself. Well, I’ll do that. Yeah. I mean, this this color blue, it’s it’s it’s rising, abiding, ceasing, but it’s it’s producing a similar type in as its effect. It’s reproducing its continuum like a candle flame.
Even though it’s constantly changing, it’s still producing a similar type to itself in a continuum. The candle flame will burn for an hour or two hours, whereas sound it’s finished. This color, once we create it, it will continue until its gross impermanence sets in. That’s the only quality that differentiates between the other force sense objects, is this quality of does not produce a continuum of its own type, but it is made of particles. The next is odors.
Odors. That’s on the chart. Odors is divided into fragrant odors and unfragrant odors. That has four types: equal fragrant odors, unequal fragrant odors, equal unfragrant odors, unequal unfragrant odors. What it means by equal is simply whether the odor infuses itself into other objects.
Like an example of an equal that is I guess, I don’t know, it depends upon your taste. Well, I’ll just give you an example of garlic. Garlic is an equal odor, if you want to call it unfragrant or fragrant, unless you decide. But, you know, whatever, it really infuses itself in other objects. So, this is what it means by equal.
Unequal would be in odors which do not penetrate into other objects like They usually use the example of sesame seeds, the odor of sesame seeds, but I don’t know if that has much bearing, if you can identify with that. That’s what they mean by here, when they say equal and unequal, having the ability to infuse other objects with their odor, for example, The next is taste, and taste says six divided into six. These are again permutations of the various elements. For example, sweet arises from the predominance of earth and water. I don’t know if you’re interested.
We’ll go into this when we get to tangible objects. The various predominances of the elements, because all the four elements always occur together. But usually, one combination or one particular element is predominant among this combination of four elements. They produce different effects. For example, sweetness.
When there’s a predominance of earth and water, then there’s a sweet taste, such as the taste of molasses. Then there’s sour, which is fire and earth, predominance of fire and earth. Salty, which is the predominance of water and fire pungent, in the predominance of fire and wind; bitter,, predominance of water and wind, and astringency. Astringency is a combination of earth and wind. So those are the tastes.
The next division is tangible objects. It’s on the back. Divided into the elements, the four elements, and tangible objects risen from the elements, that is the evolutions these various elements together, the various tangible objects which arise from the combination of these four elements. First is earth element, or earth. The definition of earth is that which is hard and obstructive.
And it has the function or the nature of hardness. Hardness. The next element is water. Has definition of that which is wet and fluid. That which is wet and fluid.
Or viscous. Wet and viscous. You know, it has a fluid flowing quality to it. That which is wet and fluid. And it has it has the nature of cohesiveness as a binding quality.
Next element is fire. The definition of fire is that which is hot and burning. And it has the function of heating, the nature of temperature heating. And the fourth element is wind, which is defined as that which is light and moving, that which is light and moving, and has the function of animation, animating. Obviously, this term wind is used quite covers a great area of meaning.
It can refer to anything from the gross wind in actual fact, the movement the atoms refers to the breath, it refers all the way down to very subtle energy levels. The most subtle energies in the body are also referred to as wind. So it has this But it somehow maintains the same idea of light in moving. It has the mot quality of motility. You know, it’s said that the consciousness is like mounted on the winds.
The consciousness is sometimes likened to a rider, and the wind’s the horse. The wind consciousness by itself does not have the the quality of motility. It cannot know it, it cannot move, it cannot go to its object, but it knows things. Whereas the wind, the energy, it has a quality of motility. It can move, but it does not have a knowing quality.
These two are the subtle consciousness, for example, and the subtle wind are always found together. Together they can know and move to any place. They’re always in conjunction. So the basis for all various constructions of physical objects are the aggregations, the collections of eight substances. The basis for the construction of all the various physical objects are the collections or aggregations of the eight substances which we have listed: earth, fire earth, water, fire, and wind.
Those are the four. And the four objects of the senses are visible forms, odors, tastes, and tangible objects. Again, the reason we don’t list sound is because it doesn’t create a continuum of its own type. On the basis of these eight substances, the four elements and the four objects of the senses, all the various physical phenomena are constructed. They’re just merely combinations.
Everything is merely a combination. Some of these will predominate, others will be recessive, and You’ll get a different characteristic. For example, if we take the example of Earth, the qualities of Earth in combination with other factors, with these other elements and other substances. Earth has the idea of I mentioned that wherever there is one element there will be these three other elements. The four elements always occur together.
It’s not like we have earth here and fire and wind, but it’s that we have a predominance of one of these four elements. We can know this, that all four are occurring. For example, on earth, if we take the example earth, because earth holds together, this is an indication that the water element is present. We said the water element had the quality of cohesiveness. We’re taking as a basis earth.
We know there’s water because earth holds together. We know there’s the wind element, for example, you could have landslides or dust particles moving. This indicates the presence of the wind element. There’s an indication of fire that’s present because we can take two pieces of stone, flint, for example, and strike them together, and we get fire. So this is an indication that the fire element is present, but the earth element is predominating, for example, like in a stone.
If we take the example of water, we know that the earth element is present because water is able to support a boat, for example. Therefore, that’s an indication that the earth element is present. If we take we know that the fire element is present because there are such things as hot springs, hot water, you know. That’s the indication the fire element is present. Then there’s the indication that the wind element is present because water flows, flows downhill, for example.
This motility, factor of motility, movement. In the case of wind, take that as the basis. Within the wind element, the indication that there is the earth element is because the wind causes things to move like the tree. It’s able to act as a force causing the tree to move. We can know that there’s a fire element because there are such warm winds, currents of air, warm currents of wind.
We can know that there’s a water element because of the currents of the air itself, that there’s a cohesiveness within wind itself. Are various currents like a hurricane or a tornado. It holds together. So this is the water element. Then fire as the basis.
There’s the earth element present indicated by it’s able to support leaves or pieces of paper which float up on it. It’s able to support that. So this is an indication of the earth element. And then the indication of the water element is that the flames have a they don’t split apart to a large degree. I mean, like candle flame, it holds together into a particular shape.
That’s a cohesive quality of the water element. Then the indication of the wind element is that the flame moves around the flame’s in a fire. So maybe we’ll What was this on fire against you? Earth? Taking as Earth as the basis.
Earth as the basis. The indication of water element was that it like a stone holds together, earth, in a cohesive quality, that a stone could roll downhill. That’s an indication of the wind quality, or the idea of motility. That if you strike two stones together, you get spark as an indication that the fire element is present. Let’s see.
Yeah. So maybe we could hand those around, please. So there’s one division I’d like to introduce. It’s merely for the use of for the purpose of debate, just to complicate your life slightly. It has no nothing outside of debate, No particular function.
In English, it’s kind of long, but it’s just it’s just a way of another way of dividing things. You know, we can do this with For example, an ex let’s say, which Thing of which there is a possibility. That means a thing, you know? What is the definition of thing? Anybody?
The thing in which there is a possibility. So this can be also we could substitute here a permanent. We can substitute existence, rather than thing, at which there is possibility. And of course, there’s the On the other hand So what is the definition of this? Thing of which there is a possibility is that which is a thing and what?
There exists an object, which is it. There exists an object which is it. That’s not too difficult, I don’t think. Then on the other hand, there’s this thing of which there is no possibility. And the definition of that would be what?
Thing of which there is no possibility. Which is a thing and there exists no object which is it.. Yeah. Good. Okay.
So this is just another tool for debating, just to make things complicated. What is it again? It be that we can divide existent into two. We can say, existent of which there is possibility and existent of which there is no possibility. We can divide impermanent into two, permanent which which there is a possibility or no possibility.
Thing, in which there is a possibility, no possibility. Form, in which there is a possibility or no possibility. Permanent. No. No.
No. No. We can divide anything into these two possibilities. We just substitute that word there. Existent, permanent, thing, form, consciousness.
Yeah. What’s the thing which was understood? Okay. What Okay. That’s the next question.
Okay. No possibility. Okay. We’ll start Let’s say, thing. Thing of which there is no possibility.
A thing which is So what is the definition of a thing with which of which there is no possibility? Which is That which is a thing and there exists no object, which is it. Okay. Can you give me an example? Are the horns on a rabbit’s head a thing?
The horns on a rabbit side are a thing? Are they able to produce the function? They able to produce the function? Are to produce they able to perform a function? Are they able to produce the function ultimately?
Yeah. No? Are they a thing? Who can give me an example of a thing of which there is no possibility? Think about it.
It has to be a thing. This definition has two parts. One, the first thing, it has to be a thing. Then there does not exist in an object which is it. Is there something of which we cannot find an example?
Is there a person we which are— No, let’s leave it as being. Anybody think of a thing of which there is no example? It exists, it’s a thing, it has functions, They’re able to perform a function, but there’s no example of it. The car that runs on gum leaves. The carpet?
The car that runs on gum leaves. Is that a that a thing? Is it able to perform a function? Does it run? It doesn’t doesn’t exist.
A thing has to exist, doesn’t it? It has to exist. Maybe I’ll just leave it like that. We’ll move on. That is thing and which there is no there does not exist an object which is it.
What’s an object? Object, an object. That’s what that’s what it appears to a consciousness, I guess. Something like that. It doesn’t have to be physical.
It doesn’t have to be physical. Well, thing has a thing has how many divisions? So it can be it could be if it’s a thing, it could be either one of those three, it can so maybe I’ll just I’ll leave it at that. You think about it. Are the horns on a rabbit’s head a thing?
Are they a thing? First, it has to be a thing. Are they a thing? Does that which appears to be a thing have to be a thing? I don’t think I would do.
Right. Right. Okay. Let’s move on. Think about that.
Actually, you know already. So you already know. So we were going through let’s let’s go through the homework. So we I think we covered the first two, didn’t we? So with respect to phenomena and the and the what?
And the other six? Everybody following along? How many mutually inclusives did you have? One. One?
One. Anybody different else? Beginning with phenomena and the and the other six? What? Consciousness, color, product, general generally characterized phenomena, existent, and ultimate truth.
So wait. One. You had two, mutually inclusive? Which two? Phenomena and color?
Yeah. And phenomena and product are mutually inclusive. Okay. Let’s let’s let’s take this up first. Let’s look at this handout sheet so we can form a basis for debate.
We’ll go through this, and we’ll see if if we all understand this, then then you can debate upon this. So this is a kind of a a format that we can be, you know, just begin to learn the actual, debate. So there’s a challenger and a respondent. The respondent.. So, you know, a Okay.
I’ll just read along. And if you don’t understand anything, just please stop me. So the challenger, he begins the debate. He picks his subject. You know, he picks a subject like dog and cat, you know, whatever. With respect to a and b, what is the pervasion?
So a and b can be anything, apples, people, existent pots and pillars, impermanence, etcetera. But the only thing that’s necessary is a must be different than b. Okay. Now, are four possibilities. Right?
Four possible relationships, the way that a and b can be related. Mutually exclusive, mutually inclusive, three possibilities and four possibilities. Now, in determining what is the relationship between a and b, the first thing we do is check to see if there’s something which is both, common locus, something which is both. If there’s nothing which is both, then what? Mutually exclusive.
Why? Peter, why? If there’s no common locus, then what is the relationship? Why? So in this process of determining which of the are the four relationships, the first thing we should do is to see whether there’s a common locus, something which is both.
If there’s not, then our work is finished. We know it must be exclusive. We already know. We do. We don’t have to go any further.
Now, if there is a common locus, if there’s something which is both, then we have to go on. So in this in this debate that’s going on, the respondent So the challenger says, with respect to a and b, what is the pervasion? And the And this respondent, he either guesses or he thinks about it, and he comes up with the idea, well, they’re mutually exclusive. They’re mutually exclusive. Exclusive.
And the challenger, he goes on, why is this? He’s questioning why he’s he said it was mutually exclusive. And the respondent answers, with respect to a and b, there is no common locus. So the challenger then, at this point, can go on to challenge whether there is no common locus or not. For example, the challenger says, With respect to a and b, there is a common locus because z is a common locus, you know, whatever z is.
It could be anything. So, the debate’s going on. At this point, the respondent, he can only He has two answers. He can either accept that z is a common locus between a and b, or he doesn’t. If he accepts, you know, if he says, You’re right, but we don’t really say the word accept.
And what’s he He’s contradicted himself already. Before he said because When he said it was exclusive, he said there was no common basis. Now, if he accepts that there is a common basis, he just contradicted his former premise. And it says here, as And then the challenger slaps the back of his hand, and I put on his back of his left hand and dramatically screams, tsa, which means salt, and he rubs it in. Tsa means salt.
If, on the other hand, our respondent does not accept, he says, your your reason is not established. What was the reason? That there was a common locus. That z was the common locus of a and b. He said, that reason is not established.
In other words, he’s saying, I don’t agree that z is both a and b, but the reason is not established. Okay. In which case, the respondent is saying that z is not the common locus. Now then, I think Challenger would have to continue debate. He would take any We’re going to introduce the idea of beginning to introduce the idea of a syllogism.
In a subject. We’ll go with this perhaps next week, beginning of what it means what a syllogism means. He he presents the subject, the subject z. It is a common locus between a and b, and gives a reason because z is a and z is b. This is quite simple.
Z is a and z is b. Therefore, it’s a common locus between these two. So informally, we have to see that the challenger has given two reasons. One, that z is a. That’s the first reason it gave, why these two are why z is a common locus.
The second was because z is b. Now, respondent, if he didn’t agree that one of these was that in fact that z was not a or z was not b. Since he presented a first and b second, a becomes the first reason that that z is a is the first reason, that z is b is the second reason. So perhaps he doesn’t agree that z is b. So he says, your second reason is not established.
And then the debate would go on through there. The challenger would have to establish that in fact z was in fact b. So this is the way, you know, this this type of debate would go along. It would become more complex, but then this is way it would initially flow. Okay.
Now Do you have to start at the beginning and go through each step? Can you jump if you accept certain? Yeah. Yeah. No.
Yes. It’s good in the beginning of debate to go through everything, every little detail, to find a but to learn the form. But two experienced debaters, they they jumped huge amounts because they both understand where they’re jumping to. And it’s They would jump a lot of material that’s less-experienced debaters might want to go through in order to get to that same point. Yeah.
This is like ABCs of debate. So Lisa said phenomena With respect to phenomena and and the other six. One inclusive? Two inclusive. Okay.
Which were you two inclus There were there were two on the right hand column which were usually inclusive with phenomena. Right? Yes. Okay. Which two were they?
color and product. Okay. What Somebody Would somebody debate with Lisa? She’s going to be the respondent and someone has to be the challenger. Color.
Because she said phenomena and color are mutually inclusive with phenomena. So take one of those or both. Just take one if you don’t agree with it. I mean, you agree with it, that’s okay. So we use this We’ll try to use this format.
So the challenger, who would like would you like to challenge here? Wait. Let’s give well, that you you said they were what did you come up with in in your homework for a phenomenon in color? Yeah. Found that really interesting color.
So I just Just can you guess? What did I come up with here? What you said they were mutually inclusive? So just answer mutually inclusive. It doesn’t matter whether you’re right or wrong.
Yeah. I see. Okay. You’re absolutely looking for examples. No.
No. Is there something which is Why why why is it? Oh, why is it? Why? Just read the script.
I’m trying to, but there is a problem. Yeah. With respect to A and D’s comments. What are A and D? With color and With respect with respect to?
Color and the meaning. It’s a common locus because There is no common locus? Oh, you said mutually exclusive. Okay. I see.
You said inclusive. I’m sorry. Okay. Great. You you still Then then I wouldn’t be there.
Okay. Then debate anyway. Go ahead. Okay. Then Okay.
Why? Why is it? Maybe we’ll maybe we’ll go through them, and then you can break up into little groups and debate them. Phenomena and the other six. There was one inclusive.
What was that? Existing. Existing. How many exclusives? None.
None. How many three possibilities? None. And how many four possibilities? None.
So this is for phenomena. You can, you know, if you check and do your