Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. “Fire is pervaded by heat — but is body pervaded by mind?” Ven Jampa Gendun uses provocations like this to lead students through the four pervasion relationships in this 47-minute Collected Topics session. Working through live student debate, he distinguishes four logical forms: A is pervaded by B; A is not pervaded by B; A is pervaded by not-B; and A is not pervaded by not-B. Examples move across form, color, consciousness, sound, space, and impermanence, with students proposing objects and fielding immediate challenges from classmates. He also revisits the three-versus-four-possibilities framework from the previous week, showing how to test whether two categories are mutually exclusive or stand in a three-possibility relationship. Suited to students actively working through the Collected Topics curriculum with prior grounding in the basic ontological categories.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 37 CT 1988 07 05.mp3
UUID: eb0e52f3-8abd-4d43-9242-ee00613f64ec
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-07-05
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 47.1 minutes
Words: ~3,169
An existent which is a thing. Consciousness is the subject. It is not an existent which is not consciousness. It is not is not an existent which is not consciousness. That sounds better.
It is not an existent which is not consciousness. It is not an existent which is not consciousness. Why? Because of you if you just if you cross these out, because it it is an existent which is consciousness. And then b?
And not a. Space. Space. Space is a subject. It is an existent which is not consciousness.
Space is a subject. It is an existent which is not which is it is not an existent which is a thing. Yeah? It’s good. I think it’s coming.
It was just a little maybe a little bit more complicated. With respect to existence which is a thing and form which is not, not a color. What is the pervasion? Okay. Let’s look for something which is both.
Sound. Sound is the subject. It is an existent which is a thing. Sound is the subject. It is a form which is not a color.
Yeah. Everybody getting a hang of this. Okay then we say A is not B. Anybody else? Visible form.
Visible form. Does everybody agree with that? Visible form? No. Okay.
You debate with Rudy. Because? Because is a color. Because it is a form which is not a color. Yes, it’s right.
That’s good. Very good. You get too far already? So what is that? Ran off the tracks.
Okay, so we’re taking this whole thing. You take visible form as the subject. It is not a form which is not a color. I mean this is your this is your thesis. Visible form is the subject?
It’s not it’s not form which is not a color. Because it is not a form which is not a color. Now you blurred the head. Know? It is not it is not not form which is not a color because it is form which is not a color.
And we’re looking for not. So why? Visible form is a form, but it’s not a color. And we want something which is not not a color. So what’s the only thing we can put there?
Color, that’s right, Sue. Color. Or you know you can put it, yeah you can say color or give an example of a color. So color is a subject, it is not a form which is not color. So you could say why?
Because it is form and it is a color. That’s challenging but I mean it’s kind of just working, playing with this around your mind. It’s just there’s nothing that you don’t know. It’s just getting used to working with the idea. It’s kind of loosening up the idea.
So, oh how about B? B and not A? Something which is form which is not a color and not existent which is a thing. So what? It has if it’s this B thing, whatever we choose for B has to be what?
It has to be form and not a color. And whatever we choose for A must be an existent not an existent which is a thing or not an existent which is a thing. Not an existent which is a thing. So what does that mean? It can’t be an existent with a thing.
Has to be an existent which is not a thing. It means it would have to be a thing or non thing. What is it called? Non thing? It has to be a permanent phenomenon.
So this has to be a form which is not a color. This has to be a non thing. Is there anything? There’s nothing. Yeah?
Everybody fall a little bit? If something whatever is B, whatever this B thing, know, we’re trying apples, oranges, people, consciousnesses, space, it has to whatever it is, it has to be both form and it has to be not a color. So we could say, Well, if it’s form or not a color, maybe it’s consciousness. You know what I’ll just say for the moment because consciousness is both form and it’s not a color. But up here it has to be not a, right?
So it has to be something which is in existence which is not a thing. So it has to be in existence but it can’t be a thing. Not an existent which is a thing, not an existent which is a thing, which is the same as saying existent which is a not thing or non thing. So it has to be a non thing doesn’t it? Like space or something.
So is there anything which is Consciousness is not a non thing. There’s nothing we could put down here which would be this too, would a non thing. Therefore there’s nothing. So then what would be the pervasion here? So there’s no common locus.
If something is A, there’s something which is A and not B, but what? But there’s nothing which is B and not A. So what is that? Three possibilities. So you can yeah?
Three possibilities. Why? First off there’s a common locus. So if there was no common locus then it would be what? Mutually exclusive.
Right? There’s no common locus and it’s mutually exclusive and then we’re finished. If there’s a common locus then it can be either one of three things, but one of three possibilities left over. What are they? So if it’s a common locus then it’s either mutually inclusive three possibilities or four possibilities.
So then we check. If we say, well if this object is A, is there something which is A and not B? Yes. Answer is yes. If there is something which is B and not A.
Something which is B and not A. Yes, in this case no. Then we would have to go on further wouldn’t we? Is everything that’s AB? Is everything that’s BA?
Or since we already had one now, so there are some As which are B, which are what? Which are A and B. If it’s A then. How did we go through to determine whether something was three possibilities or four possibilities? Let’s take form.
Take a very simple example. Form and thing. First we look for a common locus. A and B. Yeah.
What would be a common locus? Form and thing. Table. Then we see if it is A how did I put that? If it is A, is it pervaded by being B?
If if if Is that the way I put it? If A? The other one debating three and four possibilities. Yeah here it is debating three possibilities. Oh maybe you’re right.
I put it very oh yeah here. Okay. Yeah the bottom of them. Okay so the bottom of this Collected Topics. You’re right.
So in determining the pervasion between A and B, first if you can find an object which is both A and B, we exclude mutually exclusive. Right? There’s something which is both. If something which is mutually exclusive there’s nothing which is both. But here, if we can find something which is both then we can say, Well it’s not mutually exclusive.
Then we check. If an object is A, is it pervaded or is it necessarily B? So if something is formed, is it necessarily a thing? If A, then B. So if something is a form is a necessary thing?
Necessarily? Pervaded by being a thing? So this is what? Yes. Okay, then we go on.
Yes or no? If the same object If we pick an object, pick an object which is form if it is form and then it’s a thing, then it’s pervaded by being a thing. How is it that object? Table. Okay.
Table is the subject. It is form. It is a thing. Okay. Table is the subject And if same object is b, it is pervaded by a.
Okay then. It’s not the same object. Doesn’t exist. Okay, if something is a thing is it pervaded by being a form? So the answer is what?
No? What? For example, For example, consciousness. So if one answer is yes and the other is no, then what?
What is the relationship between form and thing? Three possibilities. That means you have a relationship like this. You have form in here and you have thing. Whatever is inside this circle is completely pervaded by the largest circle, pervaded by thing.
Whatever is thing isn’t necessarily in this circle. There’s things outside this circle. So it doesn’t have to be form. So whatever is a form has to be a thing. Whatever is a thing doesn’t have to be form.
There’s things out here squirming around. Maybe we’ll go over that some more next week. You just take a look at that. It’s a little bit complicated. Not the information just because they’re complicated subjects.
You might think about this. A is pervaded by b, a is not pervaded by b. A is pervaded by not b. A is not pervaded by not b. So there’s just playing around.
Maybe we can Everybody try to think of examples which would satisfy all these. You know A can be anything, B can be anything. But something an A which is pervaded by B. And then an A which is not pervaded by B. And then an A which is pervaded by not B.
And an A which is not pervaded by not B. So would two people like to sit and answer questions while everyone else puts the question. Any volunteers? So we have we have a volunteer in the crowd. We step what was your name, please?
Step by. Let’s give her a big hand. Let’s take take a look at this sheet that we handed out last week. Last week we were looking at thisness and thatness. As you remember.
Let’s let’s let’s I asked to do a little bit of homework last week. A is pervaded by B. So does everyone feel confident that they could give to satisfy this statement that they could give some object which is A and B? John, Jean? Have a problem.
Don’t What you want to just kind of off the top of your head? Fire was the first one. Fire is pervaded by heat. A is necessarily B. A is pervaded by B.
Yeah? Kimball? Does everybody agree with that? Anybody disagree with that? Can you show a counterexample?
Something which is fire not pervaded by heat? Could be, but just for the moment we’re discussing whether fire is pervaded by heat. Fire is pervaded by heat. Is that true, statement or false? One, What do you think really?
Fifty fifty? What do you think, it’s true or false? Anytime you have a fire? I can’t. Say, you can’t have heat without fire.
That’s my They can. How about the how about electric heater? Yes, Margaret, what do you think? You think fire is pervaded by heat? I don’t really understand.
Okay, in any case of fire? Any type of fire that we can imagine? Is it necessarily heat present there? Yeah? Do I have to?
Yeah, Yeah, think so. I think so this fire is pervaded by heat. Does everybody kind of get a feel for that? So, if there’s something which is a, whatever a is, if an object is a, then it must be it’s necessarily b. If an object is fire, then it must be heat or necessarily heat.
So this would, you know, if we just do a little diagram. So this would be A, B. So it’s just like, you know, everything inside this circle has a quality of B, And everything inside this little circle has a quality of A. Anything which is A is pervaded by B. Like pervaded by B.
Like Can someone give another example? Body and mind. Is body pervaded by mind? So if an object is body, is it necessarily mind? No.
So is body pervaded by mind? So whatever is body. For example And in any living body the mind is present. Okay, that’s a good point.
So we have so you’re saying that any place there’s a body there must be mind. So rather than is, you’re talking about existence. Yeah? So, know, any place there’s a sentient being there has to be mind. Any place there’s a body there has to be mind.
But is any object which is body, is it necessarily mind? You know, because body’s body. Yeah, it’s not mind. So, can you give another example? How about if we just say A is form, for example?
If an object is form, is it pervaded by anything else? Does it have to have something else as its quality? It must have another quality. Any sound has this quality. Okay, if A is sound, as A is form, form is pervaded by what?
Example. Form is necessarily what? Form is necessarily That’s a good one, okay. Color? Yeah, so color would be this A and then everything and form would be B.
Which is a color is necessarily a form. This A is color and B is form. Anything in here, in this small circle, is color and form. But anything outside of it is merely form. It’s not necessarily color.
It’s not color. Can you name something, Margaret? Something substitute for A in here and B? Just for example, where you say A was consciousness? Consciousness is necessary.
So having necessary qualities which always goes together. Consciousness is pervaded by thing. Consciousness is A, thing is B. Whatever is a consciousness is necessary. Thing.
That’s right. That’s good. Then A is not pervaded by B. Reading? Form..
Color. Form is not pervaded by color. Anybody disagree? Any? Form is not.
So if an object is formed, it is not pervaded by color. It is not pervaded by color. If an object is form, A is form and B is color, So a is form. B is color. It’s a b there.
So anything so you know, there are some forms which are color but not all forms are color. Can anybody name a form which is not color? Sound. Sound is not so sound is out here somewhere. It’s not a color.
A is pervaded by B. A is pervaded by not B. Linda? Want to go for it? Give it a go.
Give it a guess. Just think of some object here for A. Let’s say form, okay? Form is pervaded by not being, by being not something. It has to be not something.
Form. So something which is necessarily not form, not a quality of form. You have an object here form and there’s many different qualities. It’s a thing that it could have the quality of sound, color, existence. But there’s certain qualities that it’s pervaded by not having.
It necessarily doesn’t have its quality. Some quality which definitely has no relationship, has I can’t say no relationship, Which form has no quality? Okay, form is pervaded by not permanent. Anybody agree? Why?
Because form is pervaded by permanent impermanent. That’s right? That’s good. Everybody agree with that? Form is pervaded by not consciousness?
Whatever is a form is not consciousness. That’s right. Form is not pervaded by not be. Alastair? My consciousness is that which is clear and knowing?
Clear and knowing. Whatever is a consciousness is not pervaded by not being. Whatever is consciousness is not pervaded by not clear knowing. Why? Because it’s pervaded by clear knowing.
A is pervaded by B. A, whatever is consciousness, is not pervaded by being not clear and knowing. Can anybody come up with another one? If we say we’ll put form here, that’s A. Form is not pervaded by?
Not. Not being eye consciousness. That’s what I look out, but I’m not sure about it. No? It’s not fine.
What do you think, Dan? I just get up here and use my facial expressions. You think there’s a missing inclusion? It’s not mutually inclusive. So all eyes because is not visible.
Is whatever is a form, is it not necessarily not consciousness, or is it necessarily not consciousness? Or is it not necessarily not consciousness? Necessarily not consciousness. So it’s not necessarily not consciousness. Necessarily not consciousness.
Therefore it’s not not created by being not consciousness. It’s not created being not it’s not not created. Okay, well we have some form here. So this thing is necessarily not consciousness. So it’s not this thing.
It’s not this thing. It’s not that thing. It’s pervaded by being not consciousness. It’s this one here, this third one here. It’s not this fourth. Form, consciousness..
Can someone give another example of this fourth? A is not pervaded by not B. Is not pervaded by not not impermanent. Form is not pervaded by impermanence. So can anybody do the permanent?
Not permanent. So you say impermanent? Not permanent, impermanent. Impermanent. Form is not pervaded.
What? Form is not pervaded by being what do you think there’s here? Permanent? Permanent? Why not permanent?
So form is not pervaded by not impermanent. That means, yeah? Form is not pervaded by permanent. Is it different? Form is pervaded by impermanence and form is not pervaded by permanent.
Is there any difference between those? No. Form is not necessarily permanent. Form is necessarily impermanent. How about if we said a man, an Australian?
Man is not necessarily Australian. Man is necessarily not Australian. Are they different statements? Man is not necessarily Australian. Man is necessarily not Australian.
So those are quite different statements. So here it doesn’t show up, but there would be cases where we’d see quite different statements. But the man isn’t necessarily Australian. So is that a good example to take for that thing to substitute? It worked.
Worked. Well, because you told us. Don’t know whether because fall is impermanent, but a man isn’t necessarily Australian. That’s right. So I don’t know whether that’s a fair way of checking that thing.
The the what she substitutes for a and b work here. But we’re talking about what is the difference between A is not pervaded by Is that equal to A is pervaded by not b. Are these equal strings? Can we substitute a and b in both? Can we always substitute a and b in one statement and it’ll work in this statement also?
So in this case, what? Form and permanent. Form is not pervaded by what do we say? It is not reinforced and permanent. Are these the same?
Are those the same? A is not pervaded by? So in the last week we were working with this idea. Yeah? But we were looking at things which is green, for example.
With respect to thing which is green and existent, what is pervasion? What’s the object?