Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Using a pot — “a bulbous thing, flat bottom, able to hold fluid” — as his running example, Ven Jampa Gendun leads a small study group through a foundational Collected Topics distinction: definition versus definiendum. In this 47-minute session he works out which must be grasped first and what understanding itself actually means, arriving at the view that knowing an object is the progressive elimination of superimpositions — wrong projections stripped away layer by layer, illustrated with a child learning to separate cats from dogs. The session then turns to the isolated momentary, examining why phenomena equally pervasive with this category divide into permanent and impermanent depending on whether they point to a substantially existent thing or a purely mental concept. Best suited to students already working through Collected Topics.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 34 CT 1988 06 21.mp3
UUID: 2d3c92b9-8769-43cd-b140-9ab9bdf77450
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-06-21
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.9 minutes
Words: ~4,917
That’s right. That was possesses three qualities of substantial existence and impermanent. What did I say that? Said in the first one, yeah. To which possesses the three qualities of substantial existence and impermanent.
So we just use the definition of definition. What is the definition of definition? The definition of definition, that which possesses the three qualities of substantial existence. So the definition is I mean, definition is this thing itself. The the definition of, you know, this this thing itself is what?
It’s a bulbous thing, flat bottom, able to hold fluid. That’s the thing itself. It’s substantially existent. And then in dependence upon that, we we impute a pot, and that is imputedly existent. So the pot is imputedly existent, that which is able So there’s a little beginning to develop some feeling for the difference.
Anyway, so we can keep so we can keep substituting here. For example, what can we put there? One thing I’m not clear about is why we yeah. I guess this is what you’re getting at, this definition of substantial, what changed the last example. Yeah.
So in the first case, use part, didn’t we? Yeah. Part is what? Part? Pot.
A pot is a pot is In terms of definition and definiendum, it’s a definiendum, isn’t it? It has it has whereas this is a definition. This is definiendum. That’s a pot is a definition, the definiendum is a definiendum. So we’re just using two different examples.
This Sure. I hadn’t sort of come across this. Well, made that distinction. Yeah. Yeah, that yeah, that’s right.
So there’s I mean, it’s very So there is that distinction is that the Definiendum then relates to like a specific instance or an instance of something, whereas the definition is more a description of something. Definition is the thing itself, isn’t Right. The thing itself. Mhmm. What is this thing?
That’s If I point to this and say, is that? It’s a pot. You would say, but is it is that a part? Is that a part? What is the difference between this between saying this is a part and this is a bulbous thing, flat bottom able to hold fluid.
Is there any difference between that? Okay. One is I point to this and say one I point to it and say that’s a pot or I point to this and say that’s a flat bottom that’s a bulbous thing with flat bottom able to hold fluid. What is like an accurate description of its qualities? Which one?
D, the one which describes all its all its properties. It’s an accurate description. It’s not the thing itself. The description is not the thing, is it? Is a bulbous thing that bottom able to hold fluid, is that its description of something?
If it is, what is it describing? Is it is there some Sorry, I want to get this bogged down. No, no, no. I think you’re sitting with pots like a label on the basis of when we’ve established an an object as as being as possessing those qualities, and we can put that label on. And that stands for that?
Yeah. That’s right. That’s not actually the thing. It’s a it’s a like a label a name. It’s it’s yeah.
When you’re talking about bulbous flat bottom or anything, you’re talking about the actual you’re you’re hanging in much more closely to the object itself. What what does that when when eye consciousness sees this, what does it see? Yeah, sees a bulbous flat bottom, essentially. Yeah. And then it labels a part.
But we say it sees a part, doesn’t it? We can we say it’s then we don’t say we can’t say it doesn’t see a part, But what it sees is a flat a bulbous thing with a flat bottom of the whole fluid. But that is enough for us, sufficient for us, enough for us to say that it sees a pot. So we can say that the definition also means the nature. And it can be also so the nature of this thing.
And but that which is known by name is a pot, but the nature its nature its actual nature or the actual thing itself is is a bulbous thing with a flat bottom. So what what is the difference between a part and a flat and a bulbous thing? I would say that the pot is like one is like a definition of what a pot is, and the other one’s kind of I mean, just off the top of my head, I’d say one the bulbous thing, but I’m saying it’s like a description or definition of what a pot is. And the other one is is just what I immediately label through habit on on the object. Part.
Part is a label. Yeah. It’s my name for that class of objects. So part is a name? No.
I mean, if I say pot, I’m not looking at a name. What do you mean when you what do you mean what is the word pot? What what is a pot? What is a pot? Is pot?
Well, I can either say this, or I can try and describe what a pot is. How is it? The bulb is what the actual object that you’re referring to. So Well, what you said first about saying the actual object, said the label, which kind of Oh, I see. So what is a part?
What is a part? Pot? It’s a bulbous. That’s right. Yeah.
What is the difference between pot and bulbous thing? Is the difference between pot and bulbous thing? Well, I don’t know, it depends, I think, what context you’re using. In this context. What, part?
Because what I feel is that difference is that with the first one it’s kind of like you’re referring to the actual object, whereas the other one is more a definition of what the actual object is. Isn’t the definition the actual object? No. It’s a Definition is not the actual object. What is the definition of part?
Bulbous thing, flat bottom, isn’t that the actual object? That bulbous thing, flat bottom, able to hold fluid, isn’t that the thing with isn’t that the actual object? Definition can be nature. It can be translated as nature. The nature of the thing.
That’s the thing itself. Well, I mean I mean, maybe they’re the same. Yeah. The pot and and the bulbous thing. Don’t don’t we have to understand what do we understand first?
Do we do we understand simultaneously? Where a child doesn’t know he doesn’t, you know, he doesn’t know any English, for example. Somebody points to this. Which one did which one does he learn first, or does he learn them simultaneously pot and bulbous thing? Which one does he understand first, or does he understand it He understands pot, and then he understands pot, and then he understands bulbous thing.
Yeah. Doesn’t he doesn’t he understand with his eye consciousness? Doesn’t he see through direct perception a bulbous thing with flat bottom and able to hold fluid even if he doesn’t know its name? So which one did he understand first? What do want to understand?
Well, if he’s got no English or anything like that, then he understands in general way without being able to apply the specific label. So first the first the it’s necessary to understand the the definition before the definiendum. Isn’t it? Definiendum the definition is the thing itself, and it’s the thing itself. And then we understand it’s definiendum.
So that’s in general. Don’t you work out maybe your you say, hey. This is the definition of a pot, and wherever it goes, and it sees something that complies to those rules, you see a pot, but it doesn’t because, you know, first, you may see a pot that, you know, has got one hand on it see something that’s quite a bit different and maybe we realize that that’s a pot. So And what is saying that you need the definition first. Definition is the thing itself.
Definition isn’t something in a dictionary which helps us to understand definition is the thing itself. How do you understand? Maybe I’ve got I’m I’m not sure about about definition of what I suppose. Because I feel that if you you can see a part without What do you see when you see a part? What do you actually see with your eye contact?
I suppose you see a different that you could see another pot. It doesn’t quite feel. That is not that is not a pot, is it? It is a pot. Mhmm.
If it’s if it’s not if it’s not a bulbous thing with a flat bottom made with the hold water, even hold fluid, then it’s not a pot. That’s the definition of pot. It’s something other. It’s something else. So you mean as soon as a child sees one pot, will immediately understand if it’s a part.
When he first sees this thing, bulbous thing with a flat bottom able to hold fluid, somebody says, oh, Johnny, that’s a pot. So he develops the opposite mental image of pot and non pot, associates this term pot with that mental image. And whenever he sees another mental image of actually, yeah, mental image of pot or mental image of bulbous thing flat bottom able to hold fluid, then he’s going to associate, oh, that’s a pot. But it’s not it’s not really I mean, it’s subject to mistakes, though. I mean, when you first when a child first learns, yeah, somebody says that’s a cat.
It probably oh, look, Johnny. There’s a cat. It may take any the shape of any four legged animal, and if it saw a dog, it’ll say cat. No, Johnny, that’s not a cat. That’s a dog, not cat.
So then he cuts out dog. He scratches out dog, then he sees a cow. No, a cat. No, Johnny, that’s not a cat. So he’s quick.
He doesn’t have to go through thousands of different animals. He begins to eliminate greater categories. Finally ends up with a mental image which will take in all cases, which does not include anything which is not cat. He’s excluded all not cats, and he’s left with the opposite of not cat. But he doesn’t have to have a complete definition of what cat is to be able understand the cat, does he?
Understand what a cat does it? He would that is a cat. The definition of a cat is a cat. The only thing cat is to understand the definition of cat. So whatever your definition is, it may fit in body, but it’s like, you know, if you would do definition of top, it’s something other than flat, boldest thing.
Oh, you can have your own do, but that but but you wouldn’t be able to communicate in there. Yeah. You’re talking about having, well, a complete understanding of what a pure definition of pot before you can understand what a actually is. If you understand what a pot is, you understand the definition of pot at the same time. You have to.
That’s not definition comes first? No. It comes before the definiendum of pot. Before the term before the not the term, before the definiendum of pot. The the the you have to the order is you have to understand the definition of an object before you understand its definiendum.
That’s because definition substantially exists and the feeling is Yeah. That’s fine. You have nothing that you would have nothing to Yeah. To refer to to understand it, to pot. But in the common day language, we say that when you see this, you see a pot.
Yeah. I would say that we we probably say that the definiendum of pot and part are the same thing. Is the definiendum of pot and pot the same thing? The definiendum of pot doesn’t have a definiendum. The definiendum of the bulbous thing is pot.
First, understand the definition. We understand the bulbous thing and then we understand what is the definiendum of bulbous thing? That is a pot. We under we see the thing and then we name it. Boldest thing, etcetera, is the definition.
Is it is is the thing or the yeah. Is the is the definition? Is it both? Yeah. If somebody if somebody said there’s there’s a duckbill platypus.
You might no. There is a an Ohio long haired wasp. You know? Yeah. The what the do you understand Ohio long haired wasp?
No. But what I mean was, if something was explained to You haven’t actually seen it. Yeah. I mean, do you have to do you have to direct it to see it? What?
To to know the definition. What do you think? To know the definition? I don’t know. Any anybody?
What if you’re blind? So you’re blind. You have to have sensory perception. That’s a good that’s a good example. Can can can a blind person understand color?
Red color? He wouldn’t know what to refer to. He wouldn’t have any basis. Well, if the person who was describing it, he meant this long haired wasp creature thing. That’s quite a haired wasp.
Very rare. Description of this creature. Right? It’s described to me. That’s good.
Like that. That’s good. That’s approaching some some useful Mhmm. Problems there. I was thinking mainly in, like, mathematical type area or chemical type, not just mathematical, notation type.
Which is mathematical, notation type. You know, it’s it’s described in that context. And the person can understand all the meaning of, you know, know, can understand it conceptually. If something’s being described to you, aren’t you hearing it, and hearing is a sense? Yeah.
I mean information that you’re getting Yeah. What if I what happens if I describe a thing, a bulbous thing with a flat bottom able to hold fluid, to you? What do you act do you under what do you understand? Do you understand do you understand anything? No.
I might see it as a bowl. Mean, I’m not labeling a bowl. What what what would you label a bowl? Do you mean, well, if it’s a If I said, oh, there’s a thing in the closet. Yeah.
It’s a bulbous thing, flat bottom able to hold water, you’ve you’ve never seen one of these before. Yeah. It’s a birthday present. Surprise. Yeah?
Yeah. And it’s, oh, wow. That’s why I’m Wow. I’ve always wondered why that. What what would you be would you understand anything?
You’d understand something, wouldn’t you? We’d have a concept of bulbous flat bottom. Yeah. So what would you you’d you’d you’d be you’d have developed a mental image, upon sound, but you wouldn’t understand the diff you wouldn’t understand would you understand a bulbous thing? Would you understand?
Depends on whether you What do we mean when we say understand? What does it mean to real to understand something? Rudy, what do you think? What does it mean to understand?
This this is a pot. Yes. Everybody agrees. What we must we must agree to some and and I say, somebody says this is a a door. We have to have some reason to say.
What does it mean to understand? When we say we realize an object, we realize that sound is impermanent. We understand sound is impermanent. Yeah. But what does it mean to what does it mean to understand?
If I say there’s no elephant there’s no elephant in this room. Pardon? Both of those are kind of understanding. What what does it mean to understand? To identify.
If I say there’s no elephant in this room, I understand I I can I understand there’s no I can I can know or understand there’s no elephant in this room? What what what have I what do I understand? What have I done? If I say there is an elephant in this room, I say no. You say no.
You’re mistaken. Or if I say sound is permanent or I say the self inherent self truly exists. Somehow you seem to be implying that understanding carries with it that it’s gotta be correct. Can you have an incorrect understanding? Yes.
I mean, just in terms of the language. I mean, I can understand something to be true, and it’s not. Would you say you understood it, or you misunderstood it? Not yet. Okay.
I think I think understanding is always correct. Well, it’s gotta be valid then. How how do we know it’s valid? I mean, which way is it valid when when I say there’s no elephant in this room? Well, if I for me to understand there’s no elephant in this room, I have to validly cognize all the objects in this room and then and sort them and come to the conclusion that there is no elephant.
Based on my information that what an elephant is, there’s no elephant. Yeah. Well, that’s what I think of understanding. You know? You You sort of sort things and then come to conclusion.
So if you have a conceptual idea in in associating it with, let’s say, reality without direct perception. And then you can call conceptual thoughtless direct perception, you have an understanding. So then it would take direct perception to have understanding? You couldn’t have any understanding which weren’t direct perception? That’s a good point.
That’s a good point. Have we talked about this slightly hidden phenomena? For example, subtle impermanence emptiness or the atoms of this table? Slightly hidden phenomena. Do we have to directly perceive we don’t we don’t have to directly perceive subtle impermanence to understand it, do we?
So I I think this means one way it’s understood is elimination of superimposition. Talked about this when we begin to develop a mental image of cat. At first anything with four legs is going to we’re going to term cat. Whether it’s a dog, we’re going to label a dog a cat. And he said, No, Johnny, that’s not right.
That’s a dog. That’s not a cat. So we begin to refine. That is to say, we superimpose cat upon dog, the term cat upon dog. Now we yeah.
I guess I’d say that. You superimpose dog upon cat. You’re trying to put you’re trying to put this dog on this cat. And, well, anyway, we’re superimposing something which which isn’t there. Like, we superimpose permanence on sound, we say, you might hold that sound is permanent.
Generally, we say that’s something which does not exist, imposing something which does not exist upon something which exists, imposing permanence on sound. And permanent does not exist with respect to sound. We impose permanence on sound. We begin to dog does not exist with respect to cat. So as we begin to cut out all these superimpositions to where there’s no more superimpositions.
We understand the object as it actually is, and we say that Then we understand it. We realize the object itself. So there must there must come a point where there’s not just one more layer to be taken off, where there’s an actual that they must make the the jump to direct perception. Yeah. Eventually.
Like, we understand we’re understanding emptiness, and we have a have a first we develop a rough idea, and somebody first hears emptiness, he’s all that means like the vacuum. You know, it means that the room is empty of elephants. That’s what emptiness means. So he’s in that’s his idea. He is he’s developing a his mental image of emptiness.
He’s superimposing that that upon that is something which really doesn’t exist in terms of emptiness. He’s superimposing that upon actual emptiness. So he’s so and so but he’s going to we have now hundreds of different misconceptions about what emptiness is. We don’t even know them yet. So but so this is obstructing us from actually seeing emptiness, understanding what emptiness is.
So the whole process of coming to an understanding is eliminating, well, this isn’t empty. That’s not what emptiness is. That’s what emptiness is. And we just keep getting more deeper deeper and more subtle coming to more subtle misunderstandings of what our misconception about emptiness is and eliminating those. So there’s no longer any superimpositions upon emptiness, and then you understand emptiness.
You realize emptiness. So it’s the elimination of superimpositions, elimination of projected wrong ideas about what the object is. Like this is this is you know, this maybe is a Tom’s pencil when actually it’s a John it’s John’s pencil. Alright. No.
You’re not right. That’s not Tom’s pencil. That’s John’s pencil. So in order to to understand this John’s pencil, I’d have to eliminate the superimposition of it being Tom’s pencil. You know, that eliminate that misconception.
That was a long diversion. This is a lot of I don’t know why they go into this actually. Anybody know why they’re going to this? Nice work. A good point.
Something with. There’s something to debate with, but I think it’s it’s interesting that I don’t know what they why they I mean, why they present this when they’re little kids. That’s not very easy. It seems that you don’t really waste your time, any time, because it’s all part of one system. Whenever you start to examine one particular area, it always leads you into the same you know, because everything hangs together.
So we let’s I don’t know. We can look at this. So momentary so the four phenomena which are equally pervasive with the isolated momentary. We’re trying to understand what is the isolated momentary. What is I And there’s So it’s saying that, well, there are four phenomena which are equally pervasive with the isolated momentary.
For example, same as momentary is equally pervasive with the absolute momentary. So so you’re trying to develop a relation see what the relationship is between those two. So anything which is the same as momentary is the isolate of momentary. What is it well, give me an example of the same as momentary. What would you posit as the same as momentary?
That change from sickness. Is that the same as momentary? The opposite of momentary, not momentary. Is that the same as momentary? Yeah.
What is the definition seen? So okay. What what is here we what is the example of positive something which you can see in the moment here? Same as opposite. Opposite.
Opposite of non Opposite of nonmomentary. Opposite of nonmomentary is the same as momentary? I think so. Isn’t the opposite nonmomentary distinct from momentary? Does it sound the same?
It sounds the same, but I don’t think it was. It is. Does momentary and opposite momentary, does that sound the same to you? Yes. Sounds the same.
Sounds the same? No. I’m not it doesn’t sound the same big time, but I Sounds can see that it’s a previous lesson. Are they distinct is momentary and opposite momentary, are they distinct or same? Momentary and opposite momentary.
Opposite and nonmomentary. Are they different or the same? Opposite opposite of non momentary. Are momentary and opposite of moment are non momentary the same or different? How do we determine whether something is distinct or not?
Whether two things are distinct? Is pot and pot? Are they distinct? Everything is different? Same.
How do we know? Because I can’t make any distinction between my conception. I can’t conceive them as being the same. Well, in the sense you think the conception. Or in other other words, you know, we talked about because do we have the same memory?
Does this evoke does this have the same memory? Is that the same memory? Makes a rise a different conception of the mind even though it might be talking about the same. Same same object, same entity. Different isolate.
Different isolate. Different isolate. When we talk about the two truths, conventional truth and ultimate truth. Same entity, different iso. And then when the teacher comes in, he’ll explain what that means.
In sūtra system, the obstacle, obstruction to obtain omniscience is the subtle latency of seeing the two truths as being different entities when in fact they’re the same entity. But they are different isolates. The conventional truth, ultimate truth are the same entity. The aspects of the same thing. If we can see them, they’re different as being different entities.
Anyway, okay. So these are the same entity, momentary and opposite of non momentary. But they’re different because they appear different between conception. The same momentary. Yeah.
What is what is the only thing we can posit as the same as momentary? Momentary. There’s nothing else in the world in the universe, which is the same as momentary except for momentary. Nothing else. So whatever is an isolate of momentary, posit posit posit an example of isolate of momentary.
Posit an example of isolated momentary. Whatever whatever is isolated momentary has to be the same as momentary. It’s the same as momentary. So what what would that be? What’s the only thing it could be?
Momentary. So if you posit Trick question. So if you posit an example of isolated momentary, there’s nothing else but momentary. Momentary, that’s the subject. It is isolated momentary.
Why? Because it’s the same as momentary. Anything which is same as momentary is an isolated momentary. Anything which is isolated momentary is the same as momentary. Again, whatever is isolate of momentary is the momentary which is the same as momentary.
The momentary which is the same as momentary. I must admit. I don’t understand. I think about this. I still tend to figure out what I was learning.
Here I am trying to explain. Now at at least four, there’s four here. Right? These three, in this case, because we have the subject is impermanent, an impermanent thing. The first, third, and fourth are permanent.
This one is impermanent. This is a thing. Same as momentary is permanent. Same as momentary is permanent. Not not not not that which is same as momentary.
Same as momentary. That which is yeah. You can say that which is momentary. That which is not that which is same as momentary. Yeah.
That which is same as momentary is permanent. If you pause it, what is it? It’s momentary. But this thing itself is permanent. This is impermanent.
This is a thing. The momentary, which is the same as momentary. Momentary. Here, we’re talking about the momentary, which is the same as momentary. Here, we’re talking about same as momentary.
What makes one thing impermanent permanent? Has something to do with mental conception? This is unchanging. This is what? This is momentary itself.
We put that in an example, Same as pot. Same as pot. And the pot which is the same as pot. This is this is impermanent. The pot which is same as pot.
Just impermanent. But same as pot. Same as pot. It’s never changing. And it’s not it’s not it’s not a pot.
Same as pot is not a pot. Pot which is pot Yeah. This is a better example. Same as pot is not a pot. Pot which is the same as pot is a pot.
This is permanent. I think one is Not that. Yeah. The one here. This is really yeah.
Is really purely mental conception. And this isn’t. This is substantially imputation. The first phenomena isn’t imputation, isn’t it really? Second phenomena.
We have to think about it. Same as same as momentary is a concept in our mind, isn’t it? But a pot is the same as momentary. It’s not a concept in our mind. So the momentary, which is same as momentary, they’re different, they’re pointing to the same thing.
They’re kind of So it’s not easy, isn’t it? They’re pointing But they’re both equally pervasive with eyes that are momentary, but they’re quite In a way, they’re quite two different things, Okay. If you’re debating about those, then they would become could they become they could become isolates on their own, wouldn’t they? Every all phenomena have an isolate. Yeah.
There’s the isolate of the momentary there, which is the same as momentary. And then you can go on and say, well, there are four there are four phenomena with you. Right. Yeah. It’s equally pervasive with isolate of pot.
Not pot. isolate of pot. Whatever is the isolate of a pot is the same as pot. It is also the same as pot. And it is also the pot which is the same as pot. But this is but this is an actual pot.
This is an actual pot. This is not a pot because it’s permanent. It’s never the same as pot. It’s it’s never it’s not changing. It’s not changing from moment to moment.
This is the the sameness. The quality of being the same as pot, it’s it’s never it’s not changing. It’s just merely being imputed by mind. There’s not actually existing, rising, abiding, ceasing. This is a concept that we’ve determined the same as pot.
So the pot, the same as pot, and the pot which is the same as pot, one was first one is permanent, and second one is impermanent. It’s actually a pot.