Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. “Does hatred raise your blood pressure?” — Ven Jampa Gendun opens this 46.5-minute Collected Topics class with a live debate on whether hatred qualifies as both a “thing” and a “consciousness.” He then develops the key epistemological distinction between specifically characterized phenomena, which appear in full sensory detail to direct perception, and generally characterized phenomena — the abstracted mental images produced by conceptual thought. A sharp running question asks whether eye consciousness actually sees tables, water, or people, or only shape and color. The class then works through tangible objects: the four elements, the seven tangible objects arising from their combinations (including the notable claim that hunger and thirst are tangible objects arising from elemental imbalances in the body), before closing on forms cognizable only by mental consciousness, such as individual atoms. Suited to students working through the Collected Topics curriculum.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 18 CT 1988 04 26.mp3
UUID: 19e530f8-9943-4f67-80a2-ca8fda9c2618
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-04-26
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.5 minutes
Words: ~3,938
With respect to being and consciousness, there is a common locus because hatred is that common locus. Accept reason not established. Accept reason not established. Reason is established because reason is established. The subject, hatred.
It is a common locus between thing and consciousness because hatred is a thing and hatred is a consciousness. First reason. Respect hatred as the subject, It is a consciousness because it is clear and known. The first one is the thing. Oh, I’m sorry.
Hatred as the subject. The subject, hatred. It is a thing because it is able to produce, it is able to perform a function. Why? Reason not established.
Hatred is a subject, it is not able to perform a function. It is not able to produce an effect. Hatred has no effect. Does hatred raise your blood pressure? Is hatred able to perform a function?
Yes. Is hatred a thing? Hatred is not able to perform a function? Does it make you get red in the face? No.
Does it raise your heart rate? No. Does it make you punch somebody in the face? Is is hatred able to motivate any action, any I think that is right. Okay.
So is there a common locus between hatred, between consciousness and thing? The mode of appearance between specifically characterized phenomena and generally characterized phenomena are different. So we’re just talking about from the point of view. They each have their uncommon mode of appearance of their object. Their objects have a special way of appearing, which is they don’t have the same way of appearing, they have an uncommon way of appearing.
So, this is a class. Within this uncommon mode of appearance, we have specifically characterized phenomena the way they their uncommon mode of appearance and the way they generally characterize phenomena their uncommon mode of appearance. So, the uncommon mode of appearance has to cover spikes. Yeah. What is the uncommon mode of appearance of a specifically characterized phenomena?
What was it? Just in general. Uncommon mode of See, it’s not in common with generally characterized The way specifically characterized phenomena appear and the way generally characterized phenomena appear is different, isn’t it? It’s uncommon mode. They have different modes of appearance, uncommon mode of appearances.
They don’t have the common mode of appearance. They don’t have the same mode of appearance. They have different modes of appearance, uncommon. So, what is the difference between if there’s two modes of appearance? You say that there’s no common.
That’s right. You say it’s not uncommon, it’s not common. Sorry? They have no common mode of appearance or they have an uncommon mode of appearance. Common.
Yeah. They have no common mode of appearance. They have an uncommon mode of appearance. Yeah. So that’s the unique features that might be told differently from that one?
No, we’re talking about the difference between modes of appearance of generally characterized phenomena and specifically characterized phenomena. They each have a different way of appearing. They don’t have a common way of appearing. Have an uncommon way of appearing. Instead of uncommon, a unique way of appearing.
Generally characterized phenomena have a unique way of appearing. Specific characterized phenomena have a unique way of appearing. So what does anybody What about I mean, we generally characterize phenomena. Not the examples of specifically characterized phenomena, but specifically characterized phenomena themselves. Yeah, I understand that.
Where? It sounds like generally characterized phenomena. How do they They seem to have a common mode of view. In that, you think, you know, a table No. A good idea of a table.
Although that’s but No. When we’re sitting in this, we’re not quite getting the meaning of the word there. Like a table and a chair have a common mode of appearance, don’t they? What is that common mode of appearance? They for example, they both appear to be truly existent.
That is their common mode of appearance. Yeah, that’s one way we can look at it. There’s some feature which is common to both of them in in the way they appear. There’s nothing But generally characterized phenomena, characterized phenomena have distinct ways of appearing. Don’t they?
They have distinct ways of appearing? One specific characteristic of phenomena, all the various details appear completely with clarity. So it has all in full detail with clarity. With generally characterized phenomena, their mode of appearance is the abstracted, categorized, undetailed, and all the details are obscured. Only abstracted characteristics appear.
So these they have different ways of appearing. But if, you know, a generally characterized phenomena It’s only a kind of a general idea of it, and how can it be an uncommon See, I think there’s conflict. There’s common, not usual. That’s the way I would say it. I’m using you used to try the word unique.
They each have their unique way of appearing. Generally characterized phenomena have their unique way of appearing is abstracted, the details are obscured, a blurred image, a generalized image. That’s generally characterized phenomena. Specifically characterized phenomena, for example, tables and people. They appear in detail, all their various details.
They appear with clarity. So that’s their unique way of appearing. What things are you talking about? Are you talking about generally characteristic phenomena or? Well, we usually perceive things as generally characterized.
No, no. What is the object of a The objects of direct perception are what? Eye consciousness, ear consciousness? What is that? This specific thing.
So a direct perceiver is a complete engager. It sees all the various details appear to it clearly. Whereas concept conceptual thought conceptual consciousness? No, I think conceptual. But when you use your eye consciousness, your consciousness, nose, tongue, and body senses and your mental consciousness, those, any direct perceiver sees a specific characterized phenomenon.
I see the table, which is a specific characterized phenomenon. It’s not a generally characterized phenomenon. I don’t see my idea of the table with my eye. When I think about the table, then I’m using my idea, the mental image of the table. That mental image of the table is not a table, but it’s my idea about the table.
It appears with abstracted characteristics without any detail, a generalized image of a table. That is the object of my thought consciousness, but not the object of my eye consciousness. In my eye consciousness, I see a very detailed, actual, real table. So when we’re working with thought, see generally characterized phenomena. Sorry, just what’s actually doing.
Yeah. Yeah. Well, then we’re getting into another area. We’re getting to the area of how our concepts obscure our actually seeing object as it really is. But we do see tables and chairs.
What would be wrong with saying that we don’t see that we see chairs, that I see that table? See, it was a big deal. I know what he’s saying. If you ask four But then what would they be seeing when they were reporting? They would be seeing their mental image at the table, which would be abstract certain details of the table.
Their abstracted details may be quite different, so they were going to report differently. But at the moment, all three of them are perceiving the table. Aside from the angle in which they are looking at the table, they are seeing the same table. Say, by getting a pretty different pair of glasses or don’t wear them or something like that, then it’s the same with with other people if they change their appearance sometimes. I mean, I think I just sort of think that we relate to people.
We have an idea of a person, and then we look when we see them, we don’t actually see the person. We don’t relate to it, our idea of that person. And I think that’s sort of that’s that’s how I was Yeah. The process happens a lot, In direct perception, it’s not involved in thinking or having any ideas about the object. It just barely sees the object itself.
Yeah, I mean, we see the door, we see the table. We may start thinking about the table, in which case the conceptions would begin to obscure the clarity of the direct perception. But we don’t necessarily think about everything that we see. We would never have time to rest. Yeah.
Well, how do those two then relate to the uncommon mode of appearance? So they don’t have a common mode of appearance. They have a different way of appearing. Each of those have a different way of appearing. What about entity?
Entity. So as far as the entity we were talking about, specifically characterized phenomena must be present in order for it to appear to our consciousness, in order for it to be realized. It must be present, its entity. But a generally characterized phenomenon doesn’t have to be present. I can think about the United States, but that United States which I’m thinking I don’t have to be in the United States in order to realize America.
I can just but that United States, which I’m understanding, is not a specifically characterized phenomenon. It’s a generally characterized phenomenon. It’s my idea about the United States. So the nature is is that the specifically characterized phenomena have the ability to perform a function. And generally characterized phenomena don’t.
And their main function is they’re able to produce an effect. For example, the flame, one moment of flame is able to produce the next moment of the flame in the same continuum. But the main effect is that they’re able to produce the consciousness. So specifically characterized phenomena, way of their nature, are able to cast their aspect and cause a perceiving consciousness to arise. Whereas generally characterized phenomena do not have that ability.
Their nature is that they are produced by that they are Not produced. That they arise through the will or intention of the mind. They come from the side of the mind. They don’t have the nature or entity of being able to produce perceiving consciousness. They’re not able to perform that function.
They have this different nature or different entity. Anything else? Can you talk about activity, please? Yes, I combined the last two, perceiving subject and activity. So this activity It’s necessary to have in order to produce a conscious realizing a specific characterized phenomenon, must be present.
Whereas generally characterized phenomena, they don’t have to be present. So they are known immediately. Through the action of their casting, unique aspects, unique characteristics towards the mind, their activity. But the generally characterized phenomena aren’t realized through that activity. Action of specific characterized phenomena is to cast or cause to appear the aspect of their unique characteristics.
And that the object is like coming from the object toward the mind, causes the mind to arise. Whereas generally characterized activity, generally characterized phenomena are produced by will of the mind themselves. They actually cause to arise the generally characterized phenomena like space, like mental images, ideas. Good. Okay.
Where’d you go? Last time, we got up to We’re going through this. We were discussing the things are divided into three. What are the divisions of things? What is that?
And that’s fine. And form is divided into how many? Pardon? How about the mental sense? Mental sense?
No mental sense? Consciousness. Then we finished what? Visible form, sound, odor, taste, tangible objects. Were you discussing tangible objects?
What is the definition of a tangible object? Anybody? What is the definition of a tangible object? Something you can touch. Something you can touch.
Can you touch the shape of this table? No. Can you touch this table? Is the table something besides shape and color? Is the table something besides shape and color?
Texture like unevenness and evenness? Aren’t those divisions of shape? Isn’t texture a division of shape? This is what they’re eight. Shape is divided into eight.
The last two are level and non level. Or you could translate that as even, uneven, rough, smooth. So there’s various textures. Is the table shape in color? Is the table a visible form?
It’s not a tangible object. Is the table a shape and color? The table is shape and color. Do you feel shape and color with your fingers? Why don’t you?
It’s visible, if it’s shape and colored and it’s a tangible object. Color. Well, the table is shape and color. You don’t feel the table then? Do you feel the table with your hand? What does green feel like?
It was just a wild insight. Well, I’ve heard feeling colors as colors being some kind of energy or something like that. I mean, I don’t know. Are colors the object of touch consciousness, body consciousness? No, but I think this is you know, I mean, there’s no kind of I don’t know any kind of valid explanation for this, I’ve just heard about people doing things to do with feeling energy of different colors and things like that.
And, also, when you think about you could say that blue, you know, this is a cool color. Kinda gives you a cool feeling. Red is a sort of a warm color, and you sort of experience a warmish feeling. What are you feeling that with the body consciousness or the mental consciousness? The mental consciousness, I suppose.
Also, some colors have a calming effect. Yeah. Do think they are feeling the colors just because they can differentiate colors? So is the table a visible form or a tangible object? It’s both.
It’s both. So then you can with the touch consciousness with the body consciousness you can experience the color and shape. You can feel the color and shape. You can’t. So, are two tables.
There’s one that’s experienced by the touch consciousness and one experienced by the eye consciousness. Like an experience at different moments. I mean, if I if I see it and then touch it, then I’m experiencing it’s an object with my body consciousness and an object with my my visual visual consciousness. That’s two that’s not the same table. Same table or two different table?
Oh, I think it was the same table. There’s the table which is the object of body and a table which is the object of eye consciousness. And maybe you can smell the table at the same time. Well, would say that a single object can be apprehended by different mental consciousnesses. Then we could say there’s a table aside from all its characteristics.
There’s a table which stands apart from its shape and color, stands apart from its taste, stands apart from its tangibility, its hardness. Are they the table? Are the table. Altogether? All these?
Shape and color, the hardness? These all together are the table. Them. Yeah? So if you the table, to see all these qualities, do you?
You don’t see the hardness of the table, do you? When you see water, do you see the wetness? Isn’t the wetness part of the water? In order to see water, don’t you have to see the wetness? Pardon?
Yeah. So do you see water? Do you see water? Or do you see waters? Or do you see waters?
Fuel wetness. Yeah. So in order to experience water, don’t you have to experience wetness? Well, you can have a mental eye. You can see water.
I mean, because of your previous experiences with water, you think that water is wet. And if I touch it maybe it’s just possible. What is the definition of water? Remember what we gave it last week? Didn’t we?
Didn’t I give it last week? Wet and fluid. Water is that which is wet and fluid. Can you see that which is wet and fluid? So you’ve never seen water?
You can’t see water? You’ve never seen the ocean. Okay. Well, maybe this will become clearer. I think you can see fluid.
I don’t know that way. Can see fluid. You can see wet nappies or something? Do you see the wetness? So you see the shape and color of water, don’t you?
You don’t see water. See, you see, when you see a person, do you see, what do you see? You see the shape and the color of a person? Is a person shape and color? Is a person shape and color?
When I say I saw Daryl, what do I see? Is Daryl shape and color? Did I see Daryl? But do I see a human being when I see their shape and color? You don’t see people.
No, I’m not talking about whether you know it or not. Just do you see people? Does the direct perceiver perceive people? Does your eye consciousness see people? The definition of a tangible, I think we gave that last week, was the object of touch by a body consciousness.
Object of touch by a body consciousness. And there were eleven types. There were the four elements and the seven tangible objects that arise from the elements, seven tangible objects which arise from the elements. So I think we went through the four elements, didn’t we? Earth, water, fire and wind.
But does that mean you can’t experience a tangible object unless you can Maybe I’ll go into a little bit. Okay? Yeah. It’s a good question. It’s a difficult question.
So this wind, I think I went through the definitions of each of these elements. Wind can, you know, energy, chi, via, Sanskrit, loong, Tibetan. Chi is what? Chinese, I guess? Chinese?
Probably all the same meaning. Have the same object. Probably talking about the same thing. Can usually, in Tibetan, refers to anything as gross as the breath and down to the subtle energies that the mind rides on, the subtle energies which are flowing through the body. So it has a wide range of applications, the word wind energy.
That’s the four elements. Then there are various combinations that the four elements give rise to. We talked about how all four elements are always found together. From the four elements, seven types of tangible objects arise. Did we talk about that?
This is on this chart. On the backside of the chart tangible objects arisen from elements. The first is smoothness, tangible object smoothness. These are all arising from different combinations of the four elements. For example, smoothness arises from a preponderance of water and fire.
When water and fire are dominant, then when smoothness occurs. When earth and wind are predominant, then roughness arises. When earth and water are predominant, then heaviness arises. The last one was earth and water. When fire and wind are predominant, then lightness arises.
When wind is predominant, then hunger arises. That’s, you know, because hunger is an object of the touch, is that which is touched by the body consciousness. So when in our stomach the element wind is predominant, we get hungry. We get hungry. And when the element of fire is predominant, we get thirsty.
There we experience thirst. Thirst is a tangible object. Hunger is a tangible object because it arises it is an object of the body consciousness. Hunger is the object of a body consciousness. Thirst is an object of a body consciousness.
Therefore it’s said to be a tangible object. Did you say cold? I’m not sure the answer is. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Cold arises from water and wind.
Predominance of water and wind. So all these no element occurs by itself. It always occurs in combinations of all the four elements, but sometimes there’s always a predominance of one type of element over another. Pain that arises from sensation, doesn’t it? It’s a feeling.
It’s a feeling consciousness. It’s not a body consciousness. It wouldn’t be It is a secondary mental factor and not a primary consciousness. It’s a feeling, you know? So, in dependence upon sensation, you would develop either pleasurable, displeasurable, neutral feeling.
It’s not a feeling consciousness, it’s a body consciousness. If it’s not a feeling, Feeling has to be either pleasurable, unpleasurable, or neutral. It could be a pleasurable feeling. Something, I don’t know. Maybe if you’re anorexic or something, I don’t know.
You might enjoy it, I don’t know. What if you stop and then it becomes painful? Yeah, so I mean, this would be a feeling arising from the sensation of from a bodily sensation, the bodily sensation of a predominance of wind in the stomach. The sensation is what we mean by the sensation would arise from this wind predominance, not the feeling, more precise. The bodily sensation, the predominance of wind in the stomach, give you a rise to That is hunger.
And then from that you can develop some type of feeling, depending upon how you can see them. So the what did you say pain is? The feeling. Feeling. It’s not a bodily sensation.
No, feeling arises from bodily sensation. It’s, you know, through the contact sensation and then feeling. Those are the seven tangible objects arising from the four elements. That makes eleven. Now each of the elements has a particular color.
So this is how all the various colors are generated. Earth is yellow, can we? Earth is yellow, water is white, fire is red, and wind is blue. So these are what? These are the primary colors, aren’t they?
These are the primary colors. The various other colors arise through combinations of the elements. I didn’t think white was a color. Red, yellow and blue are the primary colors. White is okay.
In the Tibetan tradition or in the Buddhist tradition, four primary colors. These are all classified as tangible objects because they are experienced through touch. The elements. Are the colors experienced through touch? Why?
Because the elements have colors, therefore the colors must be tangible objects? Yeah. That’s okay. Any questions about that? And then the last is form for the mental consciousness.
That’s on the other side. These are forms, actual forms, but they are form aggregates which are objects only of the mental consciousness. There are five different types. These are actually forms, but they are not visible to the eye. They appear only to the mental consciousness.
The first one is form arising from aggregation of the eight substances. For example, particle. A single particle does not appear to the eye consciousness. But if we were to take an aggregation of atoms and mentally divide them up, then upon analysis, a single atom could appear to the mental consciousness. So this appearance of a single atom to a mental consciousness is a form arising from aggregation.
It is formed because it’s that which is suitable to be formed. But it doesn’t appear to the eye consciousness, and it only appears to the mental consciousness. It does not appear to the senses of an ordinary being. An ordinary being cannot perceive one atom with the eye consciousness. An ordinary being can perceive an aggregation of atoms with the eye consciousness.
For example, this table. You can perceive aggregation but not just a single atom. So then the next is space form. Space form. For example, the appearance of clear space only to mental consciousness.
So there’s the type of you know, we see a bluish space, and that’s what we call the atmosphere. We generally call that the atmosphere. So that’s a visible form. The atmosphere, we can see that with the eye consciousness. Here we’re talking about a space that appears to the mental consciousness.