Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. “Omniscience which is a pot” — deliberately absurd — is the anchoring example in this 47-minute class from Ven Jampa Gendun’s Collected Topics series. The session drills a single core skill: treating complex logical formulas as indivisible units so that negations and pervasion relationships can be applied to them cleanly. Gendun works through four types of pervasion — mutually exclusive, mutually inclusive, three possibilities, four possibilities — using progressively trickier subject-pairs: object of knowledge, pot, definiendum, and the especially knotty “thing which is it” versus “form which is it.” Student objections are fielded throughout, and a recurring thread is learning not to panic when a subject looks impenetrable. For students already working through Collected Topics.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 36 CT 1988 07 05.mp3
UUID: 1e1524ce-ec89-444c-82f2-ff11f40ae469
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-07-05
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 47.2 minutes
Words: ~4,430
Something which is a thing which has this quality. But as we were working with last week, this has to be thought of as one unit, one subject. Because at times you’re going to be negating not thing which is green. And it’s not necessarily a thing which is not green. Thing which is not green and nothing which is green can be quite two different statements.
That’s the idea that we’re working with that is and is not necessary. Because then we can work with very complex subjects and be able to handle them as units and then be able to negate the entire unit. So this is the training that’s involved in this. So there’s this example. What follows in this example is the translation of what is in the actual text except for what’s in parentheses.
Then I add it to hopefully make it a little bit clearer. So objective understanding of omniscience, which is it. So, you know, this it is we don’t know what it is yet. It could be anything. It could be anything.
So that’s one subject. Object of understanding of omniscience, which is it. Omniscience is just a consciousness which knows all phenomena. So an object of understanding of such a consciousness which is an ex or it it can be anything. And the other subject which we’re going to examine the relationship with is object of understanding of omniscience, which is not it.
So what is the pervasion between these two? You know, just like what is the pervasion between form and color? What is the pervasion between and I’m just, for the sake of making it easier to work with, I’m calling this the one on the left A and the one on the right B. What is the pervasion? And the book gives the answer.
The answer is four possibilities. And then it just gives it doesn’t really go through the debate in a proper manner, it just gives different possibilities, different ways to look at it. So, if an object is A, it is not pervaded by B. So, if an object is the object of understanding of omniscience, which is what? If an object is A, is not pervaded by being B, so object of knowledge.
So they’re saying, The subject is object of knowledge. It is an object of understanding of omniscience which is what? Which is object of knowledge. It refers to whatever you plug in there, x or So, it is object of knowledge. So, we come out with the statement, Object of knowledge is an object of understanding of omniscience, which is object of knowledge.
Now what are they saying? That this consciousness, this omniscience is an object of knowledge. Object of knowledge is an object of understanding of omniscience which is object of knowledge. Yeah? This will become a little bit clearer as we go along, hopefully.
Just as we said, The thing which is green We’re not talking about any type of thing. We’re talking about a thing which is green. Here we’re talking about an omniscience which is an object of knowledge. It may sound silly in this case because all omnisciences are objects of knowledge because they exist. Omniscience which is object of knowledge.
Object of knowledge. Object of knowledge is an object of understanding of an omniscience which is an object of knowledge. We could put green here instead. If I substituted green there, I said green is the object of understanding of omniscience which is green. Is that true?
Is green an object of understanding of omniscience which is green? It sounds different. Does that get referred to the object or to the omniscience? The thing which is We’re talking about a green thing. We’re talking about a green omniscience.
Is there such a thing as a green omniscience? Omniscience which is green? Is there such a thing as consciousness which is green? Green with envy? Aside from that.
So, green is not an object of understanding of omniscience which is green, is it? There’s no such thing as omniscience which is green. Therefore green can’t be an object of understanding because it doesn’t exist. So, in the first, if an object of A is not pervaded by being B, posit object of knowledge. Object of knowledge then if we substitute in this object of knowledge as a subject, it is the object of understanding of omniscience which is not an object of knowledge, So it’s not pervaded by that.
It’s just a very complicated subject. It’s not difficult to It’s just very tricky, is what they’re doing here, trying to play tricks on you. Let’s look at the second example, it’s a little bit easier. If an object is B, it is not pervaded by being A, okay? So we have these two, two, you know, these are just are just A and B.
These happen to be very long A’s, very long B’s, but they’re still just A and B form and sound or whatever. But here A is object of understanding of omniscience, which is it. So don’t get intimidated just because there’s a lot of words. It’s still just one thing and here’s another thing in A and B even though it looks like a very complicated subject. They want to know what is the relationship between this complicated subject A and complicated B.
If an object is B, it is not prohibited by A. Posit pot. B? Pot is the subject. Is it B?
Okay, explain to me why. Why is part b? Can you see there? Now you said it is pot, right? It is referring to pot in this case.
So why is pot B? Pot as the subject. It is an object of understanding of omniscience which is not pot, right? Pot is the subject. It is an object of understanding of omniscience which is not pot.
Is that true, or is it not true? Is pot the object of consciousness which is not pot? Is pot the object of consciousness which is not pot? Or is it the object of understanding of consciousness which is pot? The consciousness isn’t pot.
So pot is the object of understanding of a consciousness which is not pot, because it’s not, right? There’s a consciousness which is not pot. Pot is the object of understanding of omniscience which is not pot. Stretch your imagination a little bit. Yeah?
Because there’s no such thing as an object of understanding of omniscience which is pot. It’s an object of a conscious omniscience which is not pot, because omniscience is not a pot. There’s no such thing as a pot which is omniscience which is a pot. So it is the object of understanding of an omniscience which is not pot. So pot is B.
Now it is not pervaded a. It is not pervaded by being a. So, is pot not the object of understanding of omniscience, which is pot? It is the object of understanding of omniscience which is pot? Then it is not the object of understanding of omniscience which is pot.
So, is A, you know, just getting you A, not A. Not A. What is A? The object of understanding of omniscience, which is pot. If not that, I I understand it’s with it’s becoming used to what?
I don’t know. Not panicking. Panicking. That’s a good point. Not panicking.
I think your mind tends to shut off or something. You figured out the first one, right? You said, No, I don’t. And you want to But if you sort of begin to go with some method, then you can work with it. Becomes a little bit clearer.
I guess it’s panic, isn’t it? And this ego, the panic. It’s a technique. So this has helped us getting used to working with more complex ideas as units and being able to see units of ideas and working with them, shuffle them around and not panic, I guess. Why?
Okay, I can tell you. Why B? In this latter case, If an object is B it is not pervaded by A, pot. Why B? Why is pot B?
Because pot is an object of understanding of an omniscience which is not pot. I mean it sounds ridiculous, but it’s a true statement. Why A? Because pot is not an object of understanding of omniscience, which is a pot, because there’s no such thing as an omniscience which is a pot, therefore it can’t be the object of such a nonexistent omniscient consciousness. So it’s a rather absurd example, but it makes you think.
Okay, if an object is A, it is not pervaded by B, not B. Now things are getting a little bit we’re starting to shuffle the knots around it. Pause it, definiendum. That’s what the like a definiendum. Everybody remember what a definiendum is?
Anybody remember the definition of a definiendum? It’s a name for definition. The name for a definitenum? Yeah, that’s that which what did he say? That which has the three qualities of an Invitational existence or something like that.
But that’s right. Mean, just for your own purposes, that which is defined, that which has a definition. That which has a definition. Like pot? Pot is what?
Is that a definition or a definiendum? Why? Why is it an definiendum and not a definition? Or does it or does it have yeah. Because it’s the name we give for this thing.
It’s the name? It’s the name we give for this thing that we call it pot. Because the set was defined by Is that which is? Yeah. So, Plot has a definition, therefore it’s a definiendum.
I think that’s the most easy way to put it. It has a definition. That which has a definition. That which illustrates definition or that which has a definition. That which illustrates you know, you have a definition which is the nature and that which illustrates that.
In this case that which illustrates a bulbous thing, the flat bottom able to have formed the function of holding fluids is what we call pot, that which illustrates. So why A? Why is A a definiendum? The definiendum is the subject. It is an object of understanding of omniscience, which is a definiendum.
Is that right? Is omniscience a definiendum? Why? Because it’s clear now. It a definition.
It has a definition. Yeah, so anything which has a definition is a definiendum. Omniscience has a definition therefore Omniscience has a definition therefore it’s a definiendum. So defininum as a subject, it is the object of understanding of an omniscience which is a defininum. Why be?
Definiendum as a subject. It is not pervaded by being not object of understanding of omniscience, which is not definiendum. Okay, why? Because the definiendum is not created by being the object of understanding of omniscience which is a definiendum. Why is that?
I go on to say. This is Let’s get this this maybe I think. Let’s try. With respect to thing which is it and form which is it, what is the pervasion? There’s not three possibilities.
Which pervades which? So let’s take this in A, B, right? A and B. You said you’re saying he said if if if an object is A, it is pervaded by B. How would you Would you like to change that?
If if an object is b, pervaded by a. If a is not pervaded by b, okay? So let’s see if this holds up. If an object is a form which is an object Oh no. If an object is a form which is it, it is pervaded by being a thing which is it.
Okay? So let’s plug in some possibilities. Can you give us some possibilities we can plug in here? Deposit an object. Just take a guess.
It doesn’t matter whether you’re right or wrong. Oh, it’s going to have to be the same thing. We’re taking one object and it’s going to have to satisfy a form which is the Well, just try pot, okay? Let’s try pot. Pot is the subject, it is a form which is a pot.
Pot is the subject, it is a thing which is a pot. Is everything which is a form which is it pervaded by being a thing which is it? What? Anything which is B. Know, is one thing here.
There’s one thing here. We’re calling this B and this A. Now, anything which is B an object is B, does it have to be A? That’s what you said here. It can be something silly, not form.
It can be anything? Doesn’t even have to be a thing? So what do you think? It’s not pervaded. So there’s not three possibilities?
No. Positive, that object that you were thinking of. Is not form. Okay. Not form.
Form which is not form. If an object is form which is not form, it is not pervaded by being a thing which is not form. See, we’re just plugging in here, not form. Wherever the it occurs up here. Yeah?
See, what we have to do, we have to the only way to get the hang of this is to actually debate a lot. We write it out, saying that if B is you’re not agreeing with this? Not anymore. Right there. Okay, it’s not pervaded.
B is not pervaded by A. So okay, B, I was just saying that if an object is B, is not pervaded by A. What is it? He’s saying that object is not form. So what is B?
B is form which is not form, okay, is not pervaded by being a thing which is not form. Is that a true statement? This is one thing here. If an object is form which is not form, is it pervaded by being a thing which is not form? If an object is form which is not form, is it necessarily a thing which is not form?
No? Then you take this back? A form which is not form. Oh, it’s not Are you saying it’s not form? Okay, a form which is not form is pervaded.
Form which is not form. Anything which is form which is not form, is it pervaded being a thing which not form? It pervaded by being a thing which is not form? Pause that object. Object.
Form which not form? Posit a form which is not pervaded by being a thing which is not form. You’re saying whatever is A, this is A, this is B. You’re saying whatever is A is not pervaded by being B. Pause at the object.
Which is A and not B. Is no object which is A. That means A is pervaded by B. Then A is not pervaded by B. Sure, posit that object.
Which is not a table. Which is not a table. Which is not a table. It is form which is not form? Table which is not a table.
Can you have a Why? A form which is not form, it’s not form. Why is it not form? Is it a form which is not form, not form? Why is it omniscience which is a pot not omniscience?
Why is an omniscience which is pot not an omniscience? Why is a consciousness which is a pot not a consciousness? Or is it a consciousness? A consciousness which is a pot, is it a consciousness or not a consciousness? Because pot’s not the definition of omniscience.
Because pot is not the definition. No. It’s not a proper object. Does it exist? Is there a consciousness which is a pot?
No. So then, therefore, it’s not a consciousness because it doesn’t exist? Yes. Consciousness which is a pot is not a consciousness because it’s not clear in knowing because it doesn’t exist. It doesn’t exist.
When something is a consciousness it has to exist. Therefore a consciousness which is a pot is not a consciousness. You can posit subjects like a table which is not a table and it doesn’t exist, but it may work out in your reasoning process and your logic that you have to make statements like that of things which don’t exist because you might negate you might have some negative particles out here, a table which is a table or a table which is not a table. So you still have to be able to work with them, but you have to understand it just that you’re working with something that doesn’t exist. The table which is a table is not because it doesn’t exist.
It doesn’t have four legs. A table which is not a table, doesn’t have four legs. I mean, you can make statements about it. Can you just go So And then, what is with respect to Austrian and man, what is the pervasion? I don’t know if there’s one or Okay.
How do we begin? What is the first step? What is it? Locus. Okay, that’s good.
Is there the common locus between Austrian and man? What would you say? Kimball? Yes. Okay.
Kimball. So what does that tell us? There’s a possibility of four different types of pervasion. If there’s a common locus, then what we can exclude? Okay.
We can exclude what? So something which is mutually exclusive, there’s no common locus. So we found a common locus. So we can exclude can exclude and meet the exclusive. Then what do we do?
Margaret, did you follow that one? The first step? Yeah. So the first step is do we see is there something which is both? We’re just calling that a common locus.
And if there is something which is both, then we can exclude mutually exclusive. You know, that’s these two categories which, you know, they have no overlap. There’s nothing which is both. They’re completely separate from one another. If we can’t find a common locus, then our work is finished.
We can say they’re mutually exclusive. Example, Margaret, what would be an example of two objects which are mutually exclusive? Something which are unrelated to each other. Man and woman? That’s right.
Man and woman. Man, woman. There’s nothing which is both. Does that mean? Okay.
Okay, now what would be the next step? Anybody? Okay, so we ask a series of questions. If an object is A, we’ll call this A and B. If an object is A, is it pervaded by or necessarily B?
If A, then B. Yes or no? Yes, no? Yes, no. If b, then a.
Yes, no. That’s Don’t you, what do you think? If an object is Australian, then is it necessarily a man? Yes. Yeah?
Do you agree with that, Margaret? For example, then? I don’t know. Okay, no. If an object is a man, is it necessarily Australian?
No. Okay, So what does that tell us? So we had three remaining possibilities of types of relationships mutually inclusive, three possibilities and four possibilities. So if the answer to what? If the answer to what?
To both of them were yes, then which would it be? Which Which would be? If every case of A had to be B and every case of B had to be A, then it would be mutually inclusive. It would be like Everything in which A is also B. What would be an example?
Margaret, can you think of two objects which are mutually inclusive? Woman and human being. Does every case of human being have to be a woman? Some people might think so. So. I would like to think so.
Every case of woman, if they’re mutually inclusive, every case of human has to be a woman. So what do you think? Do you think every case of a human being is a woman? Every everything which is a human being is a woman? So can you give me a try another example?
Consciousness and clear and knowing. Which is consciousness has to be clear and knowing. Anything which is clear and knowing has to be conscious. So we don’t have two to put it simply two yeses or that is to say, you know, whatever is A has to be B and whatever is B has to be A. That’s not the case.
Okay, so we exclude mutually inclusive. If we had one yes and one no, if some A’s were B’s and all B’s were A’s, there would be one yes and one no, then what would be the possibilities? Three possibilities. What would be an example of three possibilities? Thing and Thing form.
Thing and form. Form. Some things are forms. All forms are things. Or in other words, if it is a form, is pervaded by thing.
If it is thing, it is not pervaded by form. For example, sound, consciousness, yeah? But here we have two no’s. So if it is A, it’s not necessarily B. If it’s B, it’s not necessarily A.
So that leaves with four possibilities. So the pervasion between with respect to Australian and man, the pervasion is four possibilities. So let’s try to solve this. With respect to thing which is it and form which is it, what is the pervasion? So we’re just it’s the same idea.
We’re just working with two objects, A and B. A can be very complex, very simple, and we want to know how these two objects pervade. What is the relationship? So I mean it’s the same basic idea. It just looks a little more complicated.
We’ve seen in form were three possibilities. Now this is a little more complicated subject you have to remember. Thing, which is it? It is the object we’re going to posit, so we have like an unknown here for the moment. So with the relationship to thing, which is it?
and form, which is it? What is the pervasion? Come on. Well, I’m just wondering if it’s the same, you know, positing the same object, then why I mean, isn’t it just like, with a relationship in the same form? Form?
You think so? There should be three possibilities, right? Then you see no difference. Say for example, thing which is table and form which is table. Yeah?
How about, I mean, like, if we said consciousness, consciousness? The form which is consciousness. The is consciousness. Well, that’s beside the point, isn’t it? Yeah, you’re saying there’s no difference between the pervasion I said thing and form the relationship between thing and form and the thing which is it and the form which is it.
It should work out the same. There shouldn’t be any difference. All right, yeah, I see. But if you put by the form which is consciousness, yeah, right. What do you think that what is the relationship between A and B?
You can just guess. About mutually exclusive? It should be exclusive. The thing which is it, with respect to a thing which is it and form which is it, the relationship is not mutually exclusive because there is a common locus. Is that?
Reason not established. Reason not established. Yeah, reason not established. Table, table. Table is the subject.
It is the thing which is it. It the thing which is a table? Table is the subject. It is form which is a table? Table is the subject.
Is both thing which is a table and form which is a table? Can’t see. Can you run through that again? Table is the subject. It is a thing which is a table?
Table is the subject. It is a form which is a table? Table is the subject. It is both a thing which is a table and a form which is a table? Table is a subject.
There’s a common locus between thing is a table and form which is a table? Table is a subject. With respect to the thing which is it and form which is it, the the pervasion is not mutually exclusive? Is the relationship? Mutually inclusive.
Mutually inclusive. If an object is a thing which is it, it is pervaded by being a form which is it? Consciousness is a subject. It is a form which is consciousness? No.
It is because it’s the thing which is consciousness. I’m sort of agreeing. Okay. So, the pervasion between thing which is it and form which is it is not four possibilities because you cannot posit something which is both. Reason not established.
Posit. Table. Table. Okay. Both.
Table. Come a little bit. Alright. And then what do we do? Table.
Pause it something which is neither. Space is the subject. It is not a thing which is space? Space is the subject. It is not a thing which is space?
Space is the subject. It is the thing which is space because it is space. Have to get that later, but anyway that’s Space is the subject. Why is it a thing which is not space? Space is the subject.
Why is it a thing which is not space? Because not a thing. If it’s not a thing, it can’t be a thing which is anything. Space is a subject. It is not a form which is space?
Why is Why? Okay, A not B. If an object is a thing which is it, it is not pervaded by being a form which is it. Consciousness. Consciousness as a subject is this thing which is consciousness.
Accept. Consciousness as a subject is not a form which is consciousness? Accept. Why? Because consciousness is not a form.
Form. Ah, very good, good. If an object is formed which is it, is not pervaded by being a thing, which is it. If an object is form, which is it, it is not pervaded by being a thing, which is it. I’m sorry, my brain is frozen.
You said relationship has four possibilities, so it has to be both neither A is not pervaded by B and B is not pervaded by A, so now we’re getting down to this last one where B is not pervaded by A. Whatever B isn’t necessarily A, positive object. Color is the subject. It is form which is color. Color is the subject.
It is not a thing which is color. Is color a thing, Linda? Consciousness a subject. Is this form which is consciousness? Form which is consciousness, that’s the question.
Oh, I think you mean this.