Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. “Omniscience which is green” — the impossibility of that subject is where Ven Jampa Gendun anchors this 47-minute class in Buddhist formal logic. Working through the Collected Topics curriculum, he trains students to treat complex logical phrases as single units that can be negated or affirmed as a whole, rather than pulling them apart word by word. The session works through the four types of pervasion — mutually exclusive, mutually inclusive, three possibilities, and four possibilities — using progressively harder examples: pot, definiendum, Australians and men, then thing-which-is-it and form-which-is-it. Students debate aloud, make and retract claims, and the teacher repeatedly identifies the real obstacle: not confusion, but panic. Suited to students already engaged in the formal debate curriculum.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 38 CT 1988 07 12.mp3
UUID: a3da66bc-cd8b-4aee-8965-254e1ea94100
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-07-12
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 47.0 minutes
Words: ~4,360
Something which is a thing which has this quality activity. 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. The thing which is not green and not thing 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. This is the training that’s involved in this. So there’s this example. What follows in this example 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?
And is If an object is A, it is not pervaded by being B, posit, so object of knowledge. So they’re saying, Okay, take the subject as object of knowledge. It is an object of understanding of an omniscience which is what? Which is object of knowledge. So 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. You see, just as with 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.
But omniscience, know, 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? Green an object of understanding of omniscience which is green? 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 about 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 is A, it’s not pervaded by being B, positive, objective 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, you know, these are just, are just A and B. This is happening 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 this 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 complicated B. If an object is B, it is not pervaded by A. Posit, pot. B? Pot is the subject.
Is it B? Okay. Explain to why? Why is part b? Can you see that?
Now you said it is pot, right? It is referring to pot in this case. So why is pot be? 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. Right?
There’s a consciousness which is not thought. So 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. It’s not that.
It’s not I mean, I understand it’s working with it’s becoming used to what? Not panic. 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 wanted But if you sort of begin to go with some method, then you can work with it. It becomes a little bit clearer. I guess it’s panic, isn’t it?
And this ego panic, so it’s a technique. So this is 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 panicking, I guess. Why? Okay, I tell you. Why B?
In this latter case, If an object is B, it is not pervaded by A, posit, pot. Why B? Why is pot B? Because pot is an object of understanding of an omniscience which is not pot. I mean, 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 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 nots around here. Posit, definiendum. That’s what the Okay, definiendum. Everybody remember what a definiendum is? Anybody remember the definition of a definiendum?
It’s a name for definition. The name for a definiendum? Yeah, that’s what did he say? That which has the three qualities of an imputation of existence or something like that. But that’s right.
I 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 a definiendum and not a definition? Because it’s the name we give for this thing. It’s the name we Yeah. So part 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? Yeah.
That which illustrates the definition. That which illustrates the 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 perform the function of holding fluids is what we call a 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? Guess so. Why? It has a definition. It has a definition.
Yeah, so anything which has a definition is a definiendum. Omniscience has a definitum therefore omniscience has a definition therefore it’s a definiendum. So definiendum as a subject, is the object of understanding of an omniscience which is a definiendum. Why B? 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 pervaded 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 are three possibilities. Which prevents which? That object. So let’s take this is a, b, right?
A and b. You said if if an object is A, it is pervaded by B? How would you Would you like to change that? You like to if if an object is b, pervaded by a. If a is not pervaded by b.
Okay? Mhmm. So let’s see if this holds up. If an object is a form which is an object 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 where you write or where.
Oh, it’s going to have to be the same thing. We’re taking one object and it’s going to have to satisfy form which is the Well, let’s just try pot, okay? Let’s try pot. Okay, pot is the subject, it is a form which is a pot. Pot is the subject, it is a thing which is a pot.
Now, anything Is everything which is a form which is it pervaded by there being a thing which is it? What? Anything which is B No, this is You have to Like this is one thing here. There’s one thing here. We’re calling this B and this A.
And now anything which is B, an object is B, does it have to be A? That’s what you said here. Can be something silly, not not form. Really? Doesn’t even have to be a thing?
It’s not. So what do you think? It’s not prevailing. So it’s not it’s not three possibilities? There’s positives, that object that you were thinking of.
Form which 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. Okay, but if we write it out, saying that if B is you’re not agreeing with us. Not anymore.
Okay, Then it’s not pervaded. B is not pervaded by A. Okay, B? I was just saying that if an object is B it 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? It is not pervaded, pervaded by being a thing which is not form. Is that 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?
Form which is not form. Oh, is not pervading. Are you saying it’s not pervading? Okay. A form which is not form Okay, let’s try it, it’s pervaded.
Form which is not form. That anything which is form which is not form, is it pervaded by being a thing which is not form? It pervaded by being a thing which is not form? Posit form which is not form? Posit form which is not 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. Posit the object. The object which is not the Which is a and not d. There is no object which is A.
That means A is pervaded by B. And then A is not pervaded by B. Sure. Posit 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?
Why is it not form? Why is it a form which is not form, not form? Why is an omniscience which is a pot not omniscience? Why is an omniscience which is a 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 part, is it a consciousness or not a consciousness? Does it exist? Is there not is there a consciousness which is a pot? No.
So then, therefore, it’s not a consciousness because it doesn’t exist? Consciousness which is a pot is not a consciousness because it’s not clear 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. So 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. Doesn’t have four legs.
The table which is not a table doesn’t have four legs. I mean you can make statements about it. With respect to Austrian and men, what is the pervasion? Okay, how do we begin? What is the first step?
What is Common locus. Okay, that’s good. Is there a common locus between Australian and man? So what does that tell us? There’s a possibility of four different types of provisions.
If there’s a common locus, then what we can exclude? Okay. We can exclude what? So it’s only which is mutually exclusive, there’s no common locus. So we found a common locus.
So we can exclude can exclude mutually exclusive. Then what do we do? Then 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. For example, Margaret, what would be an example of two objects which are mutually exclusive? Something which are unrelated to each other. That’s right, man and woman.
Man, woman. There’s nothing which is both. 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 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. Yes? 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, 3P and 4P. So if the answer to what? If answer to what? To both of them were yes, then which would it be?
Which would it 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? Krista?
Woman and human being. Does every case of human being have to be a woman? Some people might think so. Would like to think so. I mean 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 human being is a woman? Every everything which is a human being is a woman? Yeah. So can you give me a try another example?
Consciousness and clear and knowing. Anything 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. And if we had one yes and one no, if some As were Bs and all Bs were As, 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 form. Thing and form. Thing and form. Some things are forms. All forms are things.
Or in other words, if it is a form it 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 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. Where is the relationship? So I mean it’s the same basic idea, it just looks a little more complicated.
So if thing and 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 pervasion?
Kemal? Well, I was wondering if it is the same, I think so. Then it 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 which consciousness. The form 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 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 the form which is consciousness, you’re right. What is the relationship between A and B? You can just guess. The thing which is it, respect to the thing which is it and form which is it, the relationship is not mutually exclusive because there is a common locus. What is that?
Reason not established. Reason not established. Yeah, reason not established. Let’s see. Posit, table.
Table is the subject. It is the thing which is it. Is it the thing which is a table? Table is the subject. It is form which is a table?
Table is the subject. Is it both a thing which is the table and form which is the table? Can’t see. Can you run through that again? Table is the subject?
Mhmm. It is a thing which is a table. Yeah. Table is the subject. It is a form which is a table.
Table is a subject, it is both a thing which is a table and a form which is a table. Table is a subject, it is a common locus between thing is a table and form which is a table? Table is subject. With respect to the thing which is it and form which is it, the the pervasion is not mutually exclusive? What is the relationship?
Mutually inclusive. Mutually inclusive. If an object is a thing which is it, it’s pervaded by being a form which is it? Yes. Consciousness as a subject.
It is a form which is consciousness? No. It is because it’s a thing which is consciousness. So we have Oh, he’s there out of the way. Okay.
There’s two left. Three. One? The next three. It’s not Four possibilities.
It’s three if you were saying that’s what you had if it was just four and three. 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. Positive. Table.
Table. Okay. Both. Table. Come a little bit.
Alright. And then what do we do? Table. Posit 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.
We 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? It’s not a thing.
It’s not a thing it can’t be a thing which anything. Space is a subject. It is not a form which is space? Why? A not B.
If an object is a thing which is it, it is not pervaded by being a form which is it. Consciousness as a subject is this thing which is consciousness? Accept. Consciousness as a subject is not a form which is consciousness? If an object is form which is it, is not permitted 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.
So said this 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.
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. Consciousness as a subject. Is this form which is consciousness? Form which is consciousness, as you said it. Magic?
Oh, I think you mean this. What?