Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 46-minute session, Ven Jampa Gendun opens with a lively aside on how beings recognize similarity of type — asking whether animals can form mental images without language, illustrated by a dog identifying its food regardless of the brand on the can. The class then shifts to a written examination on Collected Topics logic: students are asked to give definitions and divisions of existence, thing, permanent phenomena, form, consciousness, and non-associated compositional factors, and to state the pervasion relationships between pairs of categories. The teacher reviews answers in a debate format, working through cases such as whether fire counts as a color and whether red space serves as a common locus between permanent phenomena and thing. The tone is informal and occasionally humorous — the teacher jokes about accepting chocolate bribes — and the session is aimed at students actively working through Buddhist logic and epistemology.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 30 CT 1988 05 24.mp3
UUID: 22a6e2f0-17d5-4e5e-9732-2b7c46ff29b3
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-05-24
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.9 minutes
Words: ~2,297
I have a person trained in someone who knows language, names, and things. Those things which naturally appear the same to their awareness, or to say that which appears the same to a person, we say they’re similar, entirely, same. We would I mean, like, for in one sense, this is one way of putting it. Another way to put it in the Buddhist traditional sense is that we’ve been applying these names from beginningless times to cats and things like this, due to predispositions that we naturally automatically apply these names to similarities of types. So that’s one way of looking at it.
From beginningless rebirth, we’ve been applying these same names to these objects, and so we recognize similarities of type. But it seems that there’s an innate sense, a natural awareness that a maple tree and a fir tree are similar in type, and a pot and a pillar are not similar in type. We would naturally say that this What? Well, an animal can know that things are similar. Yeah, it can.
Yeah. It doesn’t have any language. It doesn’t have any language. That’s right. No, it has isn’t it, they say it has a language.
Animals have a language. They say they have language. They say they have language, Buddhist psychology. But anyway, they can use symbols. They can think conceptually.
They have mental images. Similar type. I mean, they would know, you know, whatever type of dog food, you know, if you open a dog food, a dog would jump up, whether it was, one kind of dog food or another type of dog food, even if the label looked differently. Even though, Ah, here’s my dog food. Know?
No, no, before you open the can, go to the cupboard, you’re starting to bring down the can. And this time, know, maybe it’s a completely different brand of dog food. He’s able to What if he got another can of food out at the same time It may to normally get out the dog. Yeah. At the same time, yeah.
The dog thinks it’s food. Probably would. Yeah. They’re not very so their mental image was taking Time. They’re taking type, wouldn’t it?
Specific time of day, condition of their stomach. What about cars? You know, dogs aren’t dumb. Well, I mean, they don’t there’s not dogs aren’t really silly. They know that if they you know?
But, oh, I think they can recognize cars. What makes of cars? Probably, they if it was a really different shape, they probably could. If they had van instead of a saloon Yeah. They’d be able to pick up.
Dogs, yeah, dogs can’t understand this. They sit. Yeah. Right. Or whatever.
They said they can understand about sixty commands in. Well, sixty words. So that had to be Continue with that, developing the idea of what an isolate is. Okay. A big moment.
I couldn’t find my my copy down what I the examination questions, but I I lost them. Oh. What was it? See, one of them was impermanent and thing? And what’s the three possibilities from?
So let’s I’ll tell you what we do. We’ll do an oral examination. First, we’ll start with the divisions. You have to put away your charts. Shall we write it down?
Yeah, let’s write it. Okay? Yeah, please, let’s write it down. Then I can check to see how everybody’s doing so I can know where we stand. So, first question.
Existence is divided into has how many divisions? Existent has how many divisions? I should write down. Do you write the other one or Yeah. Only the other.
Existing. Yeah. Existing has how many divisions? I’m gonna give away the answer. Existing has how many divisions?
Then we’ll say. Okay. What is the No. I can see it there. Existence has how many divisions?
What is the definition of thing? And give an example of a thing. Okay, what is the definition of permanent phenomena? And give an example of a permanent phenomenon. Thing has Thing has how many divisions?
And name them. What are the divisions of thing? What is the definition of existent? What is the definition A phenomena. What is the definition of phenomena?
Okay. What is the definition of impermanent phenomena? What What is the definition of form? And how many divisions does it have? What the definition of form and how many divisions does it have?
What are the divisions of visible form? Are the divisions of visible form? Visible. Visible. Visible form.
What are the divisions of visible form? What is the definition of consciousness? What is the definition of non associated compositional factor? What are its divisions? What are the divisions of non associated compositional factor?
Okay, what Yeah. With respect to color and thing, what is the pervasion? With respect to color and thing, what is the pervasion? Kind of by the time, yeah? Yeah, mutually inclusive, exclusive three possibilities, four possibilities.
With respect to Which pervades which? With respect to colors, which pervades which? I’ll make up some question. Does the pervasion operate in both directions, one direction or neither direction? No, you already answered that.
Which pervades which? Which pervades which? Think that’s good enough. Which pervades which? If they pervade at all.
Yeah, with respect to permanent and thing, what is pervasion? With respect to not form and impermanent phenomena, what is the pervasion? And if an object is impermanent phenomenon, is it pervaded by being not formed? If the answer is yes, if the answer is no, then posit that object. So if an object is an impermanent phenomenon, is it pervaded by being not form?
And if the answer is no, posit that object. If an object is impermanent phenomena, is it pervaded by being not formed? And if the answer is no, posit that object. Okay. With respect to existence and phenomena, what is the pervasion?
With respect to existent phenomena, what is the pervasion, and which pervades which? And then the bonus question. What is with respect to difference and that which is three possibilities with, what is the pervasion? This is for high achievers. Everybody.
If an object is different, is it pervaded by being that which is three possibilities within? And if the answer is no, posit that object. If an object is different, is it pervaded by being that which is three possibilities with being? And if the answer is no, posit that object. That’s the final question.
Okay. Give it one more time. The first one was, Existence has how many divisions? What was the third question? Permanent?
Am I finished? Could you just ask that question again, posit? If an object is different, is it pervaded by being that which is three possibilities with? If the answer is no, posit that object. If it’s yes, then there’s nothing to posit.
Actually, have to have pretty good generality of shapes of letters, don’t you, in order to read everybody’s handwriting? It comes in many different forms. Am I finished? If you hand up your examination papers. Put your name on it.
Why not? Okay. Results will be posted to you by mail. I can be bribed, by the way. Okay.
It’s alright. I’m open to it. Chocolate. So let’s go with what we just did. Existence is divided has how many divisions?
Let’s go around it. Let’s go around it. Two. What is the definition of thing? Is that what’s that which performs a function, that which is able to perform a function.
What is the definition of permanent phenomena? If you would. Can you guess? Permanent phenomena. Oh, just phenomena.
Yeah? Campbell? Well, I just thought it was something which was uncompounded and not subject to dissolution. Like the horns on a rabbit’s head? Like the horns on a rabbit’s head uncompounded and not not susceptible to dissolution?
In existence. In existence? What did you say? What are divisions of thing? How many divisions does thing have, and what are those divisions?
Really, what is the definition of existent? Existent is the object of a valid cognition. Definition of phenomena? Didn’t you just ask me that? No.
I think I asked you a permanent phenomena. This is this phenomena. Campbell? No. Didn’t know that one.
You said that which holds its own entity. What is the definition of a permanent phenomena? How many divisions does form have? Eleven divisions. What are the divisions of visible form?
Two. Two. Definition of consciousness? I don’t know, which is good at Definition of non associated compositional factors?
How many divisions? What are the divisions? Okay, good, very good. Rudi, with respect to color and thing, what is the pervasion? So four possibilities.
Does anybody disagree or does everybody agree with it? With respect to color and things, for for possibilities, it follows that the pervasion is not four possibilities because you cannot posit the common locus. I don’t accept. Your reason is not established. Is established.
I I I try to find it in my mind, not in the Bible. Yeah. Yes. I accept. File.
File. File as a sub as a subject. It follows the discolor. I accept. Was it an example which is not bad?
Is fire a color? You can either accept. I’d like to. Oh, no. There’s not poor possibilities in it.
It is not established. It is poor possibilities. I accept. It’s not poor responsibility, it’s because There’s three possibilities. No, because there’s no common locus.
Because there’s no common locus. Oh, you can, as you like, yeah. Is there a common locus between color and thing? Something which is both. Is there something which is both a color and a thing?
Yes, I thought fire, but it isn’t. Is fire a color? How can I explain this? Yeah. I know.
But you have money, don’t you? Yes. You are you money? I haven’t got money. But it also belongs to steam.
Yeah? Yeah. But what is it then? It’s a color. It’s a thing.
It’s. What color? Fire? Fire. Yeah.
That which is hot and burning. What is the definition of visible form? Anybody? That which is the object of cognition of the eye consciousness.
Okay, so can the eye consciousness see hot and burning, or is that something you experience with the body sense? So therefore, it is an object of the body consciousness. It’s a tangible object. So, can you think of something which is both color and thing? I don’t know.
Why? Tell me? Something which is color and thing. Is there anything? Just say red.
I’ll accept that. Okay. Okay. Carry on. Red as the as the subject, it follows that it is a color.
You want blue? Really? There’s a common locus. Book. Book as subject. It follows that it is not a thing.
It is a thing. And is it not a color? It’s not not color. Oh, yes. It’s color too.
Is the book a color? Must be. Because everything you see, it is nice, it has a color. The Has a color. All the things.
And, not necessarily is a color. Has a color. That’s fine. Again. Is the book not both color anything?
How can you call a book color? It has color. I’ll use it. Because it’s not color. So, it’s not color.
So, it’s not both color and thing. It’s not. I actually didn’t read that correctly. I still got a point to pick it up or something, either. Except, can you posit an object which is No.
Color and not a color and not a thing, yet a color. Light. White as a subject. Is it not thing? No.
Get stuck. If I see the list, I can see that’s going. It’s this thing, isn’t it? Color. It’s That’s fine.
If an object is a color, does it have to be a thing? Is it pervaded by being a thing? It’s pervaded by being a thing. Then? Yeah, that’s not right.
It should be both. It should be not both. It shouldn’t be neither. That’s incorrect. That’s good you caught that.
That’s when I was first That’s the first one I wrote out, so I was still working it out in my own mind how to put in English. You can’t say neither, you have to say not both. Not both. Yeah, that’s right. Good.
Jenny, with respect to permanent thing, what is pervasion? With respect to permanent and thing, there’s no common locus? No. It is a common locus because… red space What is that? Crimson space.
Is red space Red space is the subject. Is the subject. Is it permanent? It follows that it’s permanent. Are you telling me wrong?
I’m asking you. If all is that it’s permanent? No, it’s not permanent. Gray space. Something is not permanent.
I don’t know what to say. All right, reason not established. What reason? Red space is not permanent. Red space is permanent.
Either. Both. Doing well. Just feel it. The reason I claim that red space is a common locus between It is established because red space is both permanent and it is a thing. Is it not?
Well, I gave you two reasons. Red space, take red space as a subject. It follows that it is a thing because it is a color. Red space is not a color. Take a look red space, it is not a color.
It is a color because it is red. Red space is not red. Red space is not red? You said No, did. So, red space is permanent?
Red space is not permanent. That’s the last thing. For red space, take red space to subject. It is not permanent. Red space