Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Why does a generous act destroyed by anger still count as a virtuous action? That question drives a memorable section of this 46-minute Collected Topics class with Ven Jampa Gendun, which works through definitions from the second subdivision of the Lesser Path of Reasoning. The session begins with generally characterized phenomena — permanent phenomena imputed purely by conception rather than arising from the object’s side — before reviewing identical versus different. The karma discussion unpacks why the word “categorized” appears in the definitions of skillful and unskillful action: even an act whose potency has been destroyed by regret or anger retains its classification. The session closes on term generality versus meaning generality, using the vivid example of building a mental image of a hand through words alone, for someone who has never seen one. Students debate in pairs throughout.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 23 CT 1988 05 03.mp3
UUID: 99c9d5e6-81b4-43dd-9971-b43d7c44e4bd
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-05-03
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.7 minutes
Words: ~4,091
They’re not objects of direct perception. That’s true, but is that the reason? They’re apprehended by them. Directly apprehended. Yeah, that’s better.
That’s good. They do not cast their aspect because they are understood from the side of the subject through the medium of a mental image. Means more or less they’re being created by the mind, They’re not being something out there which is causing the mind to arise, but they’re being created by the mind itself. So they’re not able to perform that function, not causing the mind to arise. What do you accept? What about the phenomena that arise in the mind?
Arise in the mind. Arise. Arise. Impermanent phenomena arise. In the mind.
Yeah, I would say that. I would say that. The word arise is difficult. Arise in the mind. Are imputed by the mind, designated by the mind.
What is the definition of a non product? Now, what is the definition of conventional truth? Anybody? Pardon? What is the definition is it?
What is the definition of generally characterized phenomena? Is it? Yeah. A phenomena which is established as merely imputed by conception. So it’s coming from the side of the mind.
It’s merely being designated, created. You can’t use the word create, but being designated by the mind merely by that. It’s not coming from the side of the object. Did everybody follow that debate more or less? If everyone will. So would everyone choose a partner.
Two, four, six, eight, ten, eleven. Will everyone take a partner? Oh, that’s eleven, eleven people. Maybe Yeah. Everyone take a partner and debate this, these two thing and form.
And you can sort of, you know, you can play with it as you as you as you like. One person will be the challenger and then the the other respondent, and then one person then take turns, one be the respondent and the other the challenger. So maybe I’ll be your partner there. Okay. With respect to respect to thing and form, what is the pervasion?
So what do you do first? Well, I work out. Okay. What is what is the first step? They’re not they’re not exclusive.
The first step? Is illustrating the things. Is there a common locus? Right? It’s expensive.
The very first step. Yes. This is something which is both. Especially? Yeah?
Okay. Then in your mind, you have to determine the pervasion. Okay. If it is a thing You say that. And I say, take consciousness as the subject.
To the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha, I go for refuge until I am enlightened. Through the merit I create by practicing giving and the other perfections, may I attain Buddhahood for the sake of all beings. To the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha, I go for refuge until I am enlightened. Through the merit I create by practicing giving and the other perfections, May I attain Buddhahood for the sake of all beings. To the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha, I go for refuge until I am enlightened through the merit I create by practicing giving and the other perfections.
May I attain Buddhahood for the sake of all beings. Homage to my guru and protector Mañjuśrī, who holds to his heart a scriptural text symbolizing things as they are, whose intelligence shines forth as the sun, unclouded by delusions or traces of ignorance, who teaches in sixty ways with the loving compassion of a father for his only son. All creatures caught in the prison of saṃsāra, confused in the darkness of their ignorance, overwhelmed by their suffering. You whose dragon-thunder-like proclamation of dharma arouses us from the stupor of our delusions and frees us from the iron chains of our karma, who wields the sword of wisdom hewing down suffering at its very root, clearing away the darkness, clearing away the darkness of ignorance. You, whose princely body is adorned with one hundred and twelve marks of a Buddha, who has completed the stages achieving the highest perfection of a bodhisattva who has been pure from the beginning.
I bow down to you, O Mañjuśrī, with the brilliance of your wisdom, O compassionate one. Illuminate the darkness enclosing my mind. Enlighten my intelligence and wisdom so that I may gain insight into the Buddha’s words and the texts that explain them. We were talking Last week we talked about identical and different. Identical and different.
How do we determine whether two things are identical or different? What is the definition of identical? Similar. Like you and me. You and I.
Are we similar? Well, know you and I. So we’re identical? We different groups. We’re the same and different.
Identical. What was the definition of identical? Phenomenon is not distinct. Which is? Not distinct.
How do we determine whether two phenomena are distinct or not distinct? If they have different mental images. For example, is that? Top. Top.
Is that? Rudy, what is that? Cooked. Mike. Are those the same or different?
Are those the same or are those identical or distinct? What do call it? Identical and different. Are these identical These two things, are they identical or different? A bit differently.
We’re going use the term identical and different just to keep consistency. Are these two things identical, or are they different, or are they both, or neither? Or none of the four above? This is German for the word pa, in case for those They’re different names, so the same thing. So topp, topp and pat, are they identical or different?
We have one different. Different. They’re different. Aren’t they the same thing? This is the top, and this is the top, this is the pat.
Different Isn’t this? Different Different then the same. These are identical. Are these identical? About Judy, who is present, and the educational director.
Are those identical or different? Are those two things identical or different? Different, why? One’s not distinct. Judy is present now and the education director.
This person sitting over there. Isn’t she the education director? Don’t want to see her ID? Isn’t she the education director?
Isn’t she that Judy is present now? Aren’t those two identical? In what way is it different? Is there anything that’s different? Is there anything different?
Are these different? Is these identical or different? Left hand, this is right hand? These two are identical. Because I don’t think the fact whether it’s left or right is enough to evoke a different image in the mind.
Tree and tree are identical? Know. All right. Catholics? There must be one.
So there’s nothing which is identical. The term generality is the same, then they’re identical? Yes? So tree and tree are not identical. What is the difference?
Because you’re using two things to identify one thing. We haven’t established whether they’re two things or not. That’s what’s under investigation, whether tree and tree are two things or one thing. If you write tree and tree, you’ll say it’s a tree. Is this a tree?
Is that a tree? Can you climb? Is it an apple tree, an orange tree? It’s got little leaves. That’s not a tree, is it?
But I’ve got nothing to compare it with, so I don’t know that that’s a tree. Oh, a has limbs and leaves. This is a real tree. What’s the difference between this and that? Is there any difference?
This is a tree. That’s a word. A tree is not a word, is it? No.
So it’s not a tree? That’s not a tree. Is this a tree? No. What’s the difference between these two?
Neither of them are trees. It’s not easy. So at the end of this section we’re going through the second section of the Lesser Path of Reasoning. What is it called? What is this division called? Subdivision?
There’s eight subdivisions. To collect the topics, how many major divisions are Major, major, major, What are the major divisions? Possibly lesser path of reasoning, middle path of reasoning, greater path of reasoning. And of the lesser path reason, how many subdivisions? What is the first one?
And the second one? And so this chart that we went through to give us an idea of how the Buddhists break down the universe. And then at the end of this section there’s a pile of various add ons, which don’t have any particular order. Various definitions to give you something to work with and debate. We’ll go through a few of these, then we’ll discuss a little more about the idea of mental images, and then we’ll go through the debates.
We’ll go through the homework. So one of the divisions that is presented here is the division into skillful and unskillful and unspecified. By skillful, could translate it as constructive; destructive as unskillful and unspecified or something like that. It’s usually translated as virtue, non virtue and unspecified. This is here, so I’m just giving it.
The definition of skillful is that which is specified and categorized as a producer of happiness is the definition of skillful. Maybe you say skillful actions, skillful actions. That which is specified and categorized as a producer of happiness. That which is specified and categorized as a producer of happiness. An unskillful action is that which is specified and categorized as a producer of suffering.
An unspecified is, the definition is, a phenomenon which is neither established as either skillful or unskillful. So that doesn’t say much, does it? What would be a phenomenon which is not established as either skillful or unskillful? So there were various actions which the Buddha talked about as being skillful, generosity, patience, ethics, anything motivated by positive mental factors, and various actions which were specified. This is where the word specified means.
Specified as being unskillful, like the ten non virtuous actions killing, stealing, sexual misconduct. Unspecified actions were types of actions not specifically set out as being either. They’re neutral, you know, like just sitting here probably or having your foot on the floor in front of you or something. Most of our actions are unspecified, they’re neither skillful or unskillful. They’re neither producers of happiness or suffering.
And then the word categorized anybody know why they have categorized the word categorized? Sometimes in debate we debate the definitions. If you leave off one word, does the definition still pervade? Is it still workable? Or if you leave off, Why did they have all these various parts?
You can take the definition and keep playing around with it and leaving off parts of the definition to see what is necessary and why that particular word is needed. The word categorized, if we didn’t use the word categorized, that which is a producer of suffering is unskillful action. Can anybody see any flaw in that as a definition? I couldn’t tell what that would say. Yeah, that’s getting at it.
I think, you know, what happens if We say that which is a producer of suffering, you were to kill something and then you regret it. Was that action a producer of suffering? Is that action, that negative action, is it a producer of suffering, this killing that you did? You killed something, then you purified it, you regretted it, applied the four opponent powers? Is it a producer of suffering.
Is that an unskillful action? Even though it’s been purified? Is it a producer of suffering? When conditions are met, it’s going to cause you suffering? It’s going to ripen and cause you suffering, even though you may have tried to apply the four opponent powers, like regret, etc.
Let’s say you killed somebody yesterday, you killed an insect. You killed something. And today, I wish I hadn’t done it. That was really stupid. Maybe you have sincere regret and you apply the various powers.
Is that action a producer of suffering? A potential producer. So, anybody? I mean, yeah. Well, the Buddha did say pretty clearly that killing produces suffering results.
I mean, surely, anyway, you can purify it completely. It would be as if you hadn’t done it, you know, if you’re a Buddha. I don’t think Let’s take the opposite example. You do something virtuous, something positive, and you get angry after you do it. I wish I hadn’t done that.
I shouldn’t have given that money. He did something and you got angry at him, I wish I hadn’t done that. Is that action that giving is a producer of happiness? No. It’s not?
You had some positive motivation at the time, generosity, and you perform this action isn’t it a skillful action? Doesn’t it produce happiness? Wouldn’t it be very skillful if it was like that? Yeah. This is what this word categorized means.
Even though it’s not an actual producer of happiness or actual producer of suffering, it’s still in that category. Something that’s been purified or destroyed by anger, for example, Such an action is still categorized as a skillful action or unskillful action, even though technically it’s never going to be a producer of suffering or a producer of happiness, since one way or another it’s been destroyed. Hasn’t it already produced something before you purified it? In what way? If you stepped on, let’s say you went, like that, then, Ah, I shouldn’t have done that.
You regret immediately. Is that a negative action? Killing, killing a mosquito? Has it produced any suffering? Yeah, because it’s going to cause me suffering in the future.
Well, not even that. At that moment? Yeah, maybe so. I guess the mind of regret is suffering. How about that?
Okay, we’ll take the opposite. You do something good for somebody, give them some money, and then you say, Oh, I gave too much. Did you get some happiness? Where did the happiness come in? The came in itself.
So cause and the effect occur at the same time. Cause and effect occur at the same time. The cause and effect don’t have to be serial, don’t have to be sequential. First you have a cause and you have the effect. No, the giving is the cause.
If the giving is the effect also But there is a time. One occurs before the end. They don’t occur at the same time. You’re right. That’s what Judy The motivation, yeah.
How about the physical giving? It’s physical, physical. Virtue. Anyway, Okay. It’s just the idea that if something is destroyed in some way in action, the potency of the action, then action still remains categorized as a non skillful action or a skillful action, even though it might not be a producer of happiness or suffering.
Then we talked about identical, a phenomenon which is not distinct and different, a phenomena which is distinct. And that’s distinct with respect to conception, how a conception conceives of that phenomena. If two phenomena appear differently to conception, a thought consciousness, then they’re different. If they do not appear distinct to thought consciousness, then they’re identical. We’ll go into that a little bit.
I’ll just give a few definitions. There’s a definition of pot. That which is bulbous, flat based and capable of holding fluid. Which is bulbous means pot bellied, round pot bellied, flat base, and it’s capable of holding fluids. That’s a good question.
Is a pot with a hole in it a pot? So is a pot with a hole in it a pot? It’s not capable of holding fluids. How about if it was fixed? It was repaired?
It be a different pot, wouldn’t it? So it’s not a pot, isn’t it? A pot with a hole in it is not a pot. If your right hand were to look for your left hand and you wanted to find your hand, what would you have to look for in order to find it? If somebody didn’t know how to handle it, you know, like if the person went outside and said, I lost my donkey.
Well, I’ll help you look for it, but you have to tell me what it looks like. Otherwise, I’ll never be able to find it. How would you describe your hand if you were looking for your hand, for example? What would it take to find a hand in general, we’ll say? A hand.
We’ll say a hand. A mirror image. Is the mirror image of your hand? In order to find a hand, what would be the essential characteristics if you wanted to tell somebody what a hand? Flesh and bones?
Five fingers. Five fingers. Four fingers. Four fingers and a thumb? Yeah.
So a hand without four fingers and a thumb is not a hand? Yeah. It’s not a complete hand. It’s not really. Is it a hand?
How about a three finger? Somebody lost a finger? Would that be a hand? Okay, so you don’t have to have four fingers. You have to specify.
No, you want a general hand. You want to say, I want to go out and give me a hand. Unspecified? How about no finger? Well, guess it is.
So what does a hand have to be to be a hand? It doesn’t have to be finger. It has to be capable to hold something. Yeah, how about a paralyzed hand? Is that a hand?
Well, you can’t hold anything. So it’s not a hand? It’s still a hand. Okay, so it doesn’t have to be able to hold Yes, externally at the end of the Externally at the end of the wrist? How do we form a mental image of a hand if we’ve never seen one?
We have to describe it to somebody, don’t we? Then when you find one, ask the question, what is this? We talked about two types of images last week, didn’t we? What two types of images? We talked about two types of images.
Term generality and meaning generality. Like when a teacher talks to you about emptiness, you’ve never seen emptiness, have you? But through his words, you begin to build up an image of what emptiness must be like, but you’ve never seen it. You’ve never experienced it. What’s that called generality?
A term generality. It’s the object of these words that he’s speaking about. You build up an idea through these terms that he’s using about what emptiness must be like, but you’ve never experienced it. So we’re building up some kind of term generality of hand. What would it take?
Not legs. Pardon? Not legs. Not legs. Oh, that’s a good beginning actually.
So it’s not legs? Okay, we have to assume that this person knows what legs are, otherwise, then you have to explain what legs are. How can you form an image of not hand if you know what a hand is? How we describe a hand to somebody? What are the necessary qualifications for a hand?
It’s part of the body. Part of the body. Okay, that’s the beginning. It’s the beginning, isn’t it? Is an amputated hand a hand, Not a hand.
An amputated, a cut off hand? How do we form when you see a 1985 Ford, that’s a car. You think that’s a car. Then you see a 1986 Toyota, and that’s also a car. How do you know that they’re similar?
They’re similar because we have a generality car which has four wheels, you know, etcetera, etcetera. Yeah. So that’s mental image, isn’t it? You’ve taken you’ve abstracted certain qualities from a specifically characterized phenomena. You’ve abstracted certain generalities, come up with a general image, meaning generality.
And now you keep comparing everything that you see with this and to see if it matches it. Well, how are we going to form this generality of hand? Maybe you could go about kind of explaining That’s a hand, but It doesn’t have to be like that. It doesn’t have to be like that. Give it a hand.
Because each that’s a general view of what a hand is, but each hand has an individualness. That’s a general. Aren’t you showing any more specifically characterized phenomena? I mean that’s rather detailed. As an example, But how’s that going help him find a four fingered hand?
They might bring me something that wasn’t a hand. He just keeps saying, Oh, that’s good, that’s good. So he brings you a basket of fruit, No, take that away, that’s not a hand. Then he brings you an old shoe, No, take that away, that’s a What happens? He keeps bringing you things over and over and you keep rejecting.
Saying, No, not that, not that, that, not that. Have these things. They’re all different. But I say, Yeah, they’re all my hands. So you have to go through everything in the universe rejecting.
If you get a general idea that it’s made of flesh and it’s got bones inside and all the blood and all that kind of stuff and about if we said person? We’re looking for the people in this room. And we said, I want you to take everything out of this room which is a non-person. Opposite of non person. First you think that you have to decide, Well, this is not a person.
Somebody says, Oh, this is not a person. I see. And then, This is not a person. This is not a person. Now, the opposite of all that is what we’re talking about.
So if you took everything out of this room and determined what was non person and then what was left over, you said, That’s what we mean by person. What? In the room, in the room. I just took out everything Somebody said, I don’t even have to talk about what a person looks like. Somebody just keeps, Is this a person?
No, take it out. Is Is this a No, take it out. And then say, Okay, what’s left in this room is what I mean when I say person. How are you going to come up with your image? But you know a hand when you see one, don’t you?
How do you know it? You learn somewhere along the line. Been told? What did they tell you? Mommy pointed to your nose, eyes, hair, and then your great uncle came in, who was wounded in the war, This is a hand that’s not this hand.
My hand is like this. It’s bigger. Anyway, just a few more definitions. Definition pillar these things will come up and be useful in debate someday perhaps. Definition of pillar is that which is capable of supporting a beam.
Now you have to remember, this was, as Judy pointed out, was a pot with a hole in it is not a pot. That which is capable of supporting a beam on, I could hold up a beam, couldn’t I? That doesn’t make me a pillar. Or does it? I don’t know.
These definitions are pretty much for beginning students who aren’t going to go into them too deeply. The definition of space, the factor which is the negation of obstructability, The factor which is the negation of obstructability. So let’s talk briefly. I’d like to go over the homework and debate talk briefly about the Okay, the definition of a meaning generality. This is a word that is sometimes translated as mental image.
Meaning generality. Actually, you could translate it as the object generality, but anyway, object generality or meaning generality, mental image definition. This is not just the general definition of a general meaning generality. It’s the definition of a meaning generality that appears to the thought consciousness apprehending path. The definition of the meaning generality that appears to a thought consciousness which is apprehending path, that meaning generality.
So the definition is the superimposed factor which, although not a pot, appears like a pot to the thought consciousness apprehending a pot. The superimposed factor which, although not a pot, so meaning generality is not a pot. It’s a superimposed factor, and it’s a generally characterized phenomenon, permanent phenomenon, which although it’s not a pot, appears like a pot. So this mental image, this meaning generality, even though although it’s not a pot, it appears like a pot to a thought consciousness apprehending pot. So the meaning of the term pot, there’s a difference between this and this.
We generally don’t make that distinction. Anybody will make that distinction?