Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 44-minute session, Ven Jampa Gendun leads students through the formal logic of Collected Topics, the introductory Tibetan Buddhist curriculum in epistemology and ontology. He opens by unpacking dependent arising’s three modes — dependence on causes, parts, and imputation — then works through the technical relationship between definition and definiendum, using a pot as a running example to show why a definition cannot serve double duty across unrelated phenomena. The heart of the session is live debate practice: students work out “four possibilities” problems, testing whether consciousness and permanent phenomena share a common locus and whether consciousness is pervaded by being a non-form thing. Gendun corrects reasoning in real time and models the formal debate structure. Suited to students already enrolled in a Collected Topics course.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 27 CT 1988 05 17.mp3
UUID: 9e2b71f2-da1f-4d09-8eb8-a85835aab0c3
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-05-17
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 43.8 minutes
Words: ~2,266
Directions, parts, parts, parts, parts. Okay. Sounds great. This time? Something with time?
Yeah, you can Yeah, those would be parts, like moments, moments of something’s existence. Upon the continuum of moments, you impute the object. What about cognition? That’s necessary for imputation. What was the thinking?
Activity? Pardon? Activity? Yeah, you can divide an activity up into parts. Like going, that which is about to be gone over, that which is being gone over, and that which has been gone over.
And that would be the going, the parts that have been going. Well, this must be the manner in which the parts are over. Oh, I’m anyway, I’m thinking of dependent origination. Yeah. Three types of.
That’s something else altogether. Three types of dependent arising. Causes, as you said, imputation and parts. Things are dependent because they’re dependent upon either causes, imputation or parts. So your question was whether the subtle energy, whether it imputed, whether it’s imputed in existence to all of its moments.
Of its moments upon the collection of these moments we impute. Continuum. So everything always depends upon its parts. This is the definition of definiendum. Of substantially existing phenomena three qualities.
Says this would be the same as we said before. It is that which is defined by itself. It is that which, for example, defines the case of taking pot as a basis. It is that which defines pot. It cannot act as a definition of another phenomena.
So bulbous thing with flat bottom and able to perform the function of holding water cannot act as the definition of a pillar. It is established in terms of a definiendum. What is the reason we say substantially existent? Anybody guess that from what has been said previously? For example, table is a substantially existent phenomena.
What is reason we can say for calling it a substantially existent phenomena? It’s appearing as an object of awareness does not depend upon convention. So that table appearing to my eye consciousness as an object of awareness does not depend upon convention, whereas Kimball appearing as an object of my awareness depends upon convention. What was the second quality of it? It cannot act as the definition of another phenomena.
So there’s the definition of definition. For example, yeah, I know what you mean. Sometimes things have two names, don’t they? No. I mean, one name for two things.
Oh, one name for two things. Something goes back and forth. Camp? Camp is a place where you can put your tent or it’s something which is in fashion or something like that? So what?
Well, if that’s a different meaning, if it says it cannot be an illustration of another phenomenon. Can that be cannot be the illustration of another phenomenon. Cannot act an illustration of another phenomenon. So, what in terms of pot is that which illustrates both pot and that which is able to hold a fluid. Pot cannot act as an illustration.
As an illustration of what? A little bit now on. Flowers. Pot cannot act as an illustration. They didn’t have pot mirrors perhaps.
Not actually illustrations. I don’t know what they would say about it. What would they say? No, doesn’t happen to us. No, it’s not.
Does the definienne refer to the object which is being recorded or the term? Here we’re talking about actually the definienda pot, but that would be the definienda pot as opposed to just the pot. That could, yeah, that’s right. The definition of pot could illustrate something other than a thing you put water in. It could be something you smoke.
I don’t know. They become more technical. You can call somebody pot. He illustrates a person. Pot illustrates a person.
I don’t know what to say about that. That’s a good point. So what was the definition of an established base? Does anyone remember? How about That which is established by a valid cognition?
Is the definition of an established base. And why? The only point to be made here is in order to understand the definiendum, or in this case, established base, we have to understand the definition first. It’s necessary to understand the definition first. In order to understand pot, we have to understand bulbous thing with flat bottom able to perform the function of holding a fluid.
In order to understand what a pot is, before we can understand what a pot is, we have to understand a bulbous thing, this bulbous thing first. That is to say the definition or actually nature. Another word for definition is nature. That completes the second section on established bases. That completes that entire section.
Are there any questions on that section? There’s a lot of information. See the third section was what? I thought maybe we’d have a quiz since we finished the section, But I’ll tell you what is going to be on the quiz. That’ll make it a little bit easier.
Crossword. You have to find the eye. That’s your test. Anyone who can’t find the eye? You must remain in the room until you find your eye.
Bring it up on the altar. That the division I think it’s Just for your own sake, I think it’s good to have an overall perspective of the various divisions of phenomena. Like the division of selfless into non-existent and existent, then the I’m just telling you what I think would be useful for you to know. Then the division of existent into permanent phenomena and thing, and then the definition of permanent phenomena, and an example of a permanent phenomenaanent phenomena. I think it would be good to know at least one example.
And then the definition of thing. Also, aside from thing, Maybe the ultimate truth. Being an ultimate truth. The definition of the existent would be good to know also, definition of existent. Then the division of thing into form, consciousness, and non associated compositional factors.
And Maybe Actually, it’d be good to know the It’s not so difficult. The division of form, that’s not so difficult, is it? The various senses, the five senses, and then visible form, sound, odors, taste, tangible objects, and form for mental consciousness. There’s eleven. Then the definition of consciousness, and then the definition of non associated compositional factors, It’s division into person and non person.
Maybe an example of a non person compositional factor. So that would be good if you need that, I think. That’s not so much, I don’t think. And then we can maybe I think that would be useful When the Khensur Rinpoche comes, he may ask you some questions. Tibetan, you have to know this in Tibetan.
I didn’t know Tibetan, did I? I sat there for the first year and didn’t understand a word that was said. Really? Sweets. So maybe we can go over the for the third time.
We’ll go with the homework. We didn’t get through it, did we, last time? I think we went through, what, three? We didn’t write it. We write didn’t.
How about this? Consciousness. So how many inclusives do we have? Consciousness with respect to these four. How many inclusives, mutually inclusives?
Does anybody disagree? Consciousness with respect to these five? No mutually inclusives? How about exclusive? One.
Anybody disagree? Everybody agree? Can everyone identify which one of these five is mutually exclusive to consciousness, with consciousness? Is there anybody who doesn’t mind being a little bit confused? Sue?
One of the Can you take a wild guess? Which one of these five is mutually exclusive with consciousness? What was the first thing that you would look for? Common locus, right? Does consciousness have a common locus with every one of these things, or is there one which it doesn’t have a common locus?
Does consciousness have a common locus with permanent phenomena? Pardon? It doesn’t. There’s nothing which is both a consciousness and a permanent phenomena? For example?
Sue, are you a consciousness? Are you clear and knowing? Can you give another example? Give an example of consciousness. A consciousness.
How about something like eye consciousness, ear consciousness, anger, hatred, mind, mental factor? You want take one of those? We have eye consciousness. Is eye consciousness a phenomenon? Is eye consciousness a consciousness?
Is eye consciousness a consciousness? It’s both? Is there a common locus between consciousness and a thing which is not form? Is this something which is both?
Consciousness and a thing which is not formed are the same? You could, okay, give me another example. How about notebook? Is there a common locus between notebook and consciousness? Is there a common locus between consciousness and an non-associated compositional factor?
For example, is there a common locus of consciousness a perm? I’m not sure that I’ll. I’ll say nine because it’s the last one. I’m building up this big climax. So does anybody see that there’s nothing which is both consciousness and permanent phenomena?
There’s nothing which is both? So they’re mutually exclusive? Okay, now the big question. Is analytical cessation, suchness, mental images, certain types of non-affirming negations — permanent — analytical cessation is permanent, uncompounded space is permanent. So anything which is merely imputed by conception is permanent.
Anything which is only imputed by conception is permanent. How many? Three possibilities. Ten. Anybody?
Four. One, two, three, four, five. So Does anybody disagree? Judy disagrees. Would you debate with Peter?
Judy would be the challenger. Challenge. If she thinks there’s four possibilities, she could debate from that standpoint. Which one? Which one you want to say?
Could you get that, Peter? So give the positive pervasion. What was it? He said, If it is a thing which is not form, it is not pervaded by being conscious. Judy, what is the pervasion between consciousness and that thing which is not formed?
That’s okay. Four possibilities? It doesn’t matter. Just guess. It’s not four possibilities because there is nothing which is both.
There is nothing which is both. Reason not established. Right? I say there’s nothing which is but. You disagree with my reason, you would state positive thoughts.
Positive pervasion. What’s an object which is neither? Positive. If it is consciousness, it is not pervaded by being a thing which is not form. If an object is consciousness, it is not pervaded by being a thing which is not form.
If it is A, it’s A, B. There are four possibilities. The pervasion doesn’t work in either direction, doesn’t it? There’s no positive pervasion in either direction. If it’s A, then it’s not pervaded by B.
If it’s B, it’s not pervaded by A. If it’s consciousness, if an object is consciousness, it is not pervaded by being a thing which is not formed. I mean, I think it’s four possibilities, but I can’t. There’s not? No, I can’t tell you.
There’s not four possibilities because there’s three possibilities. The consciousness is pervaded by being a thing which is not form. That’s two. What can consciousness be a thing which is for? If an object is consciousness, is it pervaded by being a thing which is not form?
Yeah. Positive. It’s form consciousness. So if something is consciousness, if an object is consciousness, it is pervaded by being a thing which is not form. If an object is consciousness, it is pervaded by being a thing which is not form.
Composition of that? Non-associated compositional factors, that’s the subject. It follows that it is consciousness. What is the pervasion between with respect to consciousness and the thing which is not formed? What is the pervasion?
Is there a common locus? For example? It means an actual thing, that which they both perform a function. So there’s a common locus. Now we have to check the pervasion.
If it is a consciousness, is it pervaded by being a thing which is not formed? If an object is a consciousness, does it have to be a thing which is not formed? Is it necessarily a thing which is not formed? Is it? Positive that it’s an object.
Something which is consciousness but is not a thing which is not form. So, if an object is consciousness, it is pervaded by being a thing which is not form. Are you sure? Anybody disagree with me? The definition of consciousness is that which is clear and knowing, isn’t it?
Yeah. So, anything which is conscious cannot be formed. Anything which is conscious is a thing, must be able to perform a function, and it must be not formed. So it must be pervaded by being a thing which is not form. An object is consciousness is pervaded by being a thing which is not form.
What’s the definition of form? Substance is what? We went through this last week. It’s form for the mental consciousness. Okay, how many Do you agree that these are three possibilities?
Consciousness and a thing which is not formed. It is three possibilities. What is the doubt? Student: there are four possibilities and no three possibilities. Does anybody agree with that?
Peter, great. Is it unanimous? Linda, what do you think? Ready? Everybody agree?
Does everybody agree that pervasion between consciousness and not form is three possibilities? Oh my gosh. Okay, you want have a debate with Peter? Okay. Okay.
Does everybody begin to understand why these are all three possibilities? For example, consciousness. Maybe we could divide up Two, four, six, eight. How about debate thing and Let’s just make it easy. Let’s see.
Thing and forearm. And thing and consciousness form and not form.