Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Using a mirror-image analogy to explain how sense consciousness works, Ven Jampa Gendun opens this 46-minute Collected Topics class with an analysis of explicit versus implicit perception: the eye sees water’s color and shape but cannot apprehend wetness, so it only implicitly perceives water. He extends this to the four elements, asking which sense faculty explicitly apprehends earth, water, fire, and wind — and why these count as tangible rather than visible forms. The second half shifts to formal debate practice on logical relations — exclusive, inclusive, three possibilities, four possibilities — working through “existent and a thing which is not a form” as the main example. Students take turns building arguments while a candid exchange about double negatives in English highlights the translation challenges this curriculum presents. Suited to students already working through Collected Topics.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 19 CT 1988 04 26.mp3
UUID: 1b2429a3-e6ad-48c4-beae-8547f0c2d899
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-04-26
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.3 minutes
Words: ~3,289
Focusing within the pupil of the eye, an eye consciousness having a similar aspect of, having an aspect which is similar in color and shape with respect to that visible form. Simultaneously with the arising of this conscious aspect, a direct perception arises. This is what we mean when we say we know something or we see something. Our eye consciousness apprehends a visible form. The conscious aspect is like the object, but it’s not the object.
It’s like a mirror image. The mirror image of my face is not my face. It’s like it’s simply a visual image of my face. My face is not simply a visual image. So in the case of an eye consciousness which perceives water, which sees water, the aspect of the color and shape of the water arises in the mind, arises in the consciousness, conscious aspect similar to the shape and color of the water arises.
Because water is actually a tangible object, it is an object that is touched by the body consciousness. The aspect of wetness and fluidity does not arise, the aspect of it does not arise in the eye consciousness. Therefore, the eye consciousness is said not to directly perceive water, or we say explicitly. It does not explicitly perceive water. It implicitly sees water.
Because the actual aspect of water, wetness and fluidity, that aspect is not arising to the eye consciousness. But it implicitly sees the water because the conscious aspect, which is similar to the color and shape of the water, arises. That is sufficient for us to say that we see the water, but we only implicitly perceive the water. We don’t explicitly perceive the water. In order to explicitly see an object, its aspect must actually arise.
A conscious aspect which is similar to that object must arise. In that case, it would have to be wetness. We’d only notice the water implicitly. How’s that? So we can say we feel the table, we can touch the table, but we only implicitly our body conscious only implicitly knows the table.
It does not explicitly know the table because the table is a visible object, is a visible form. We can touch water because we can feel the wetness, we can explicitly perceive, have explicit direct perception of the table through the body consciousness, but we cannot have explicit experience of the table through the eye consciousness. But we can have implicit experience of water through the eye consciousness by seeing the shape and the color of the water. Really, dependent upon that, then we can say that we see the water, but only implicitly. Okay, so this is debatable.
The four elements, where the four elements are tangible objects. Can have anything which is of four elements known explicitly through the body consciousness. Now, is the table Which is it? Is it a tangible object, or is it a visible form? Or is it an object of the ear consciousness?
The table a visible form or a tangible object? Both. Which consciousness? Which explicitly perceives the table, eye consciousness or body consciousness? Only one can explicitly see it.
Eye consciousness. The body consciousness, the consciousness, the body consciousness. Okay, about water for example, heat, fire, water, wind. Can we see water? We can see water.
But just because we can see water doesn’t mean it’s an object of apprehension. Is water a tangible object or a visible form? Form. Again. Okay.
Is water If something is a visible form, what does it have to be? What are the divisions of visible form? Shape and color. Shape and color. Water shape and color?
Yes. Or does it have shape and color? Does a shepherd have a tail? It has to, but is it safe in color? No, it’s water.
It’s water. So what is it? Is it an element? Is it one of the four elements? Yeah.
Yeah? So is it a tangible object? Yeah. No, it’s not a visible form. It has form, it has shape, it has color, but it is not shape and color.
Is it color? What is the definition of visible form? Object of apprehension by the eye consciousness. So is there’s nothing else but shape and color. What is the object of apprehension by the eye consciousness?
Sound is not. Taste is not. Tangibility is not. Hardness, wetness. Light and moving.
Are not objects of apprehension but eye consciousness. Shape and color is not an object of apprehension by the body consciousness. It’s an object of apprehension by the eye consciousness. So it’s only the elements to be tangible? The four elements and the seven tangible objects arisen from the elements.
Thirst, you know, like smoothness, roughness, heaviness, lightness, cold, hunger, thirst. So the four elements and the seven are objects that are objects of body consciousness. That is to say only the body consciousness arises in an aspect similar to the four elements and these seven tangible objects arisen from the elements. Eye consciousness cannot arise in the aspect similar to earth, water, fire. Eye consciousness cannot rise in the aspect of heaviness, of wetness, of heat.
The tongue consciousness cannot rise in the aspect of heat. The eye consciousness cannot rise in the aspect of flavor. You feel the tongue through roughness and smoothness? Is that the tongue consciousness or the body consciousness? Anybody?
What’s the difference between sense power and consciousness? Eye sense power and eye consciousness. What is the difference? Is the sense power a consciousness? What’s the definition of an eye sense power?
I I gave that, didn’t I? The dominant condition? Empowerment condition. That’s good, yeah, the empowering condition. We talked about it.
It was the subtle form in the eye. That’s the eye sense power. One is consciousness, one is form. So that’s a little bit. Oh my goodness.
Should we go to the homework? So, debate? I’m joking. I’m sorry. We don’t have much time.
We don’t have much time to debate. Consciousness. Existence. I’m going to do a little breathing. Alright?
Existent and which there are no possibilities. Notebook. Okay. So the existent? Existent?
How many mutually exclusives with existent in these other five? One exclusive. One mutually exclusive. Anybody else have a different number? None.
There’s a none. One. One. Linda? Not mutually exclusive because a table is existent.
Because there is a common locus. Because there is a common is a common locus. A reason not a common locus. Reason is that common locus? A table is that common locus because a table is existent and a table is not book.
Answer. You have two answers. Oh, no, I was going go backwards. Then a table as a subject. Table a subject.
It is a common locus between existent and not book It’s asking you. With respect to the pervasion between existent and notebook? With respect to the pervasion between existent and not book, it is not mutually exclusive. It follows that it is not mutually exclusive. What does it pervasion?
Okay, so there’s how exclusives? Existent? How many exclusives? Who’s an exclusive? Anybody?
Inclusive? None. Who said none? Besides the Alastair? Think Does everybody agree with that?
Do you agree with that, Jin? Yes. It is not three possibilities. Because? If an object is in existence?
If an object is existent, it must be in existence. And? It is in existence. Accept. Then you pray, then it follows.
I thought definitely what we wrote down last week was a system of five things. You know? Here? Here’s permanent. Here’s permanent.
We’re seeing how these relate with all five. So what is that? There’s one inclusive. Three possibilities? How many three possibilities?
Three. Three. Everybody agree with that? Everybody agree? Everybody disagree?
I disagree. There are not three three possibilities because there are only two three possibilities. Reason not established. There there are not three three possibilities because you cannot show me those three possibilities. There’s three, which are three possibilities.
With respect to existent and permanent. Existent and And? You said there are three of them. Right? You mean three.
You mean the three. Tethered from the book. Yeah? And notebook. With respect to?
Well, many possibilities with respect to existence? How many three possibilities with respect to existence? Two. There are not two because there are three. There are three because with respect to existent, permanent is three possibilities, and specifically characterized phenomenon is three possibilities, and a thing which is not a form is three possibilities.
So what reason is not established? The pervasion between existence and a thing which is not a form is three possibilities. Because If it is a thing which is not a form, it is pervaded by being existent. And if it’s an existent, it is not pervaded by being a thing which is not a form. For example, a consciousness.
For example, a table. What is the relationship? If it is a thing which is not a form, it is pervaded by being an existent. If it is an existent, it is not pervaded by being a thing which is not a form, for example, a table. Let’s and how many want four possibilities?
Yeah? Good. Very good. Okay. Let’s go maybe this handout sheet from last week.
Let’s go over that together. This bottom paragraph. We’ll just work with a simple example. Let’s use the one we just did. Existent and So we want to know what is the relationship between existent and a thing which is not a form.
Existent and a thing which is not a form. What is the very first thing that we do in determining what the relationship Peter, what’s the first thing we do? We want to know what is the relationship between these two objects? They can be anything but Yeah? Yeah.
Okay, so we want, Is there anything which is both? If there’s nothing which is both, then what does that tell us? That they’re exclusive. That they’re exclusive. If it’s this, then it can’t be this, and if it’s this, it can’t be that.
There’s nothing common to them. The very first thing we want to determine is, is there a common locus? Is there something which is both? Is there something which is existent and a thing which is not a form? Why would you give me an example?
With respect to existent, for example? Car. Is a car a thing which is not a form? Color. Color?
A color a thing which is not form? Yes. Color is form because it’s suitable to be form, because it’s a visible form. Consciousness. Is consciousness existent?
Yes. Why? Is anything which is the object of a valid cognition exist? Yes? So it’s existent because consciousness is existent because it’s the object of a valid cognition, the definition of existent.
So anything which is existent, anything which is the object of valid cognition must be existent because their definiteness definition are mutually inclusive. If it’s one, it must be the other. If it’s the other, it must be the other. The consciousness the thing which is not form? Grant?
Is it conscious? Why? So we take the subject consciousness. It is a thing which is not a form because. Okay?
Consciousness? Consciousness is formed. Consciousness, it has formed. Is it a thing which is not form? Is consciousness is?
It is not form. What do you say? Is consciousness as a subject, it is a thing which is not form. We’re not talking about whether it has or doesn’t have, but whether it is. It is not form.
Why? Because it’s clear and knowing. That’s a good reason. Is anything which is clear and knowing a thing which is not form? This is the common locus between existence and a thing which is not form.
Then we go on to see what is the pervasion between If it is existent, is it pervaded or necessarily a thing which is not form? If A, then B? If its existence is not pervaded by being a thing which is not formed? Anybody? Why, Kimball?
Well, because of that vase of flowers, I think. That vase of flowers. Got which Oh, I see. Yeah, right. Okay, the vase of flowers.
So the vase of flowers, is it in existence? Yes. What? Is anything which is the object of valid cognition pervaded by being existent? The of flowers is the subject.
It is not a thing which is not a form. It is not a thing which is not a form. Karen? The vase of flowers is the subject. It is not a thing which is not form.
Yes, it’s not a thing. It’s not a thing if vase flower is the subject. It is not a thing which is not formed because? It has formed. Is something which has formed thing which isn’t pervaded by being a thing which is not form?
Avaz is a subject. It is a thing which is not a form because it has form. That’s your reason? Why is a vase a thing which is not form? Why is a vase not a thing which is not form?
If you have two negatives in a statement, Is it Is the which has form necessarily a thing which isn’t, is form? Because it is a thing which is form. The vase is the subject. It is not a thing which is not form because it is a thing which is form. But saying that form is existent as such.
Well, we’re not talking about why. A vase is a subject. It is not a thing which is not formed because it is a thing which is formed. Is everything there? The vase is a subject.
It is a thing which is form? Yeah. What? Why? Because oh, god.
I know it’s fine. Be seen by the eye consciousness. So you need say it’s visible form? Visible. And then if they ask you, why is it visible form?
Because an object of apprehension of the eye consciousness? Okay. Then we check the other So this pervades. If it is existent No, it’s What do we have to pervasion? If it is Because a thing which is not a form is pervaded by being existent.
If it is existent, is it pervaded by being a thing which is not form? Linda? If an object is in existent, is it pervaded by being a thing which is not form? Really? Space.
Space a thing which is not If something exists, does it have to be a thing which is not form? It has to be. For example? For example? Table?
Yes. Table is a thing which has a form. Just because something exists doesn’t mean it’s a thing which is not formed. Because what? Just because something exists doesn’t mean it can’t be formed.
Doesn’t mean that it has to be it’s not formed. How can I answer this? Do you agree with that statement? Do you what? Do you agree with that statement?
Because if an object exists, it doesn’t have to be form. Does it have to be form? Anything has to have a form in my mind. Does your mind have a form? Well, I can shape it.
Can make it around. Was clear. Can imagine it. Having a form. Is something having a form same as is a form?
Well, a table is form. Yeah. Everything does a table exist? Yes. So, everything that exists doesn’t have to be a thing which is not form.
Of course, the table is a form and also Exist. Existent. Okay, so I have to Tell me what are some of the obstacles to arriving at this so I can understand better. Anybody. Your obstacles, everybody.
Memory, time. The language, I think, is a big Yes. English? I think the language. Just getting used to things like saying Yeah.
Double negatives and and all that kind of stuff. Things which are not Terrible. How can how can we how how can I assist you? I think it’s gonna keep going. Yeah.
Yeah. Think It’s a combination of many things. It takes time. I can feel it. I think maybe we spend more time debating.
I think also when we have things like not a thing which is not form, and if somebody doesn’t understand it, it would be good if we could sort of explain what it actually means, and then it would be easy to debate it. Okay. Because otherwise you can’t debate if you don’t really know what the statement actually means. You see, you don’t know whether you contradict yourself or not. Not to say that effectively, but don’t know the definition.
Yeah, that’s the problem. Not just to determine the pervasion between these two, to carry on the debate. Yeah, to actually establish reasonably. For example, we can talk about this pervasion between those two things. Would somebody like to work this out loud?
Explain it out loud? Judy, would you like to explain how one would arrive at the pervasion between these two objects? So what is the pervasion? Peter, would you go through that? Same one?
Just some of the steps. We don’t whether it’s one of these four possibilities. One of these four: exclusive, inclusive, three or four. But we don’t know right now because we’re going to have to have some method. So what is the first step?
To determine whether there’s something you can do. Okay, you go through. Okay, let’s complicate one a little bit. Okay, just a little complication. Aleister?
It’s possible to think of someone that is So what is the first step? If we just It’s not exclusive because there are some which is both a man and not a friend. So it’s exclusive. Can I have a follow-up? Yeah.
First step, is there something which is both a common locus? Okay? If there is, then they’re not exclusive. Exclusive means there’s nothing which is both. Okay, go ahead.
Something that is man is not necessarily always not Australian. For instance, Dale is Australian and is a man, so that gets a bit inclusive. Okay. What does that mean? If two things are inclusive?
Then that has to be proposed in both directions. If it’s a man, it must be it’s pervaded by being not Australian, and if not Australian, it’s pervaded by being a man. Yeah? So, in this case, If it’s a man, it is not pervaded by being not Australian. Why?
Because is an example of a man that is Australian. It is not pervaded. It is not pervaded by being not Australian. Because? Because Dale is a man and Dale is Australian.
Why? Is he not not Australian? Because he is Australian. Okay. So we we excluded it.
Inclusive. And then? So man is not pervaded by being not Australian. Something that Australian. So therefore, they’re not inclusive because there is something that is a man and is Australian.
Not Australian. If it is man, if it is A, it is not pervaded by B and B. If it was inclusive, it would have to be pervaded both directions, but it’s not even pervaded by B in one direction. Is it A? A.
B. A can be anything. B can be anything. It can be not as We can put anything there. If it’s inclusive, if it’s A, it must be B.
If it’s B, it must be A. But in this case, it’s not. If it’s a man, it’s not necessarily Australian. And then, Alastair? If it’s not Australian, it’s not pervaded by being a man, for example a Tibetan