Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. To understand a table, the mind grasps it as the opposite of non-table — and Ven Jampa Gendun uses this everyday fact to show why realizing emptiness demands such deliberate, step-by-step work. In this 43-minute talk, he traces the three Buddhist learning activities (study, contemplation, meditation) and explains how all conceptual thought operates through exclusion: we know what something is by building a mental image of what it is not. With ordinary objects this negation is automatic; with subtle phenomena like selflessness, identifying the object of negation — what the misconceived self actually feels like, especially in moments of fear or threat — must become a conscious, separate step before understanding can proceed. The session closes with a review of debate practice across the established Collected Topics curriculum: form divisions, isolates, isness and is-notness, and the generality-instance relationship. Suited to students actively working through this traditional logic curriculum.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 42 CT 1988 07 19.mp3
UUID: 5eedba33-31c2-479f-bcf5-f0444a41e631
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-07-19
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 43.3 minutes
Words: ~5,001
In, as most of you know, Tibetan Buddhism, they’re they’re always talking about the three activities of study or listening, thinking or contemplating, and then meditation. These are the three activities necessary. The three processes by which one comes to an understanding of the Dharma, comes to realizations. You know, during this process, we go from first a very rough conceptual understanding or maybe no understanding. We first off, we hear the words, know, like, in my sense, emptiness, and it kind of bounces around inside our our head and goes out that one ear and out the other.
This is like, you know, people have all their mistaken ideas about what emptiness or selflessness might be. And then they hear it a few more times. And first, so this is the process of study or the process of hearing. Getting an idea of what the subject is about. These subtle objects such as impermanence and selflessness and emptiness.
And then we start to think about them. We start to use our reasoning. This is developing what? First we develop a very rough concept in the sense that we’ve been talking about mental images. First we learn the term generality.
We just hear the name of something. We don’t quite know what it is. We hear the word emptiness or selflessness or subtle impermanence. Then we begin to develop the meaning generality, connect up with some actual image of what they’re talking about. What is this thing emptiness?
What is this thing selflessness? So now we have some idea about what they mean when they say emptiness. And then we begin to develop a more clear and clearer image, mental image of, for example, emptiness. And then we begin to actually meditate on it, try to integrate it, try to experience it. So we go from conceptual understanding through the entire process to finally what ultimately we want to get at is a direct perception, non conceptual understanding of emptiness.
So we’ve been talking about Linda. So we’re going be talking about mental images and conceptual thought consciousnesses. Do you have a pillow? Would you have a get you a pillow. Oh, alright.
Here, here, get one for you. So we’ve been talking about mental images, thought consciousnesses, conceptual consciousnesses, how they come to know their how they come to an understanding, how they are valid ways of approaching what we ultimately want to attain as a direct perception of very subtle phenomena, very subtle objects such as subtle impermanence, selflessness, and emptiness. Because it’s only the direct perception of, for example, emptiness which is able to completely eliminate ignorance in its seeds. Conceptual understanding does not have the force, the power to be able to do that. Ultimately, we have to have this direct perception, but it’s very much a part of especially Tibetan Buddhism is that we can approach the direct perception through concept, through study, through reasoning, activities of hearing or that is to say studying, contemplating, thinking, and then finally meditating on it.
Rather than and as I mentioned last week, most of my teachers, they often use the analogy of without study, without listening to the teachings, then meditating is like climbing a mountain with no arms. It’s difficult to get anywhere. We don’t quite know what we’re trying to find out, what we’re looking for. Thought consciousness know the actual objects, but they know them by way of a mental image through the medium of an idea about the object. And we’ve talked about how the thought consciousness operates, about how the mental image comes about through the exclusion of everything that it is not.
Everything other than that which is being represented. You know, we may not be aware, probably aren’t, of most of the mental images which arise and are making use of them constantly throughout our waking moments. Know, for example, now mental images are constantly arising in our mind and being superimposed upon direct perception. Because of this way, this eliminative process, we can best describe meaning generalities. We talked about meaning generalities, the way in which our idea of something abstracts a particular quality or character and makes a generalization out of it, like tree.
And a tree can apply to a tree in the north, can apply to a tree in the south, it can apply to an elm tree, a gum tree. It can apply a tree lived a hundred years ago or lived a hundred years in the future. So it’s always making generalizations, especially with respect to nature, time and place. It’s not specific as making generalizations. So we call it meaning generality.
It takes the object and makes the generalization in connection with the object. Therefore, as we have said, it doesn’t have the full it’s not able to understand all the rich details of its object. But it has the advantage of being able to consider objects which are not present at that moment. We don’t have to, in order to think about a table, have to have a table present. Whereas in the case of eye consciousness, for the eye consciousness which apprehends table to arise, we have to have an actual table present.
So it has advantages and disadvantages. So, this meaning generality, because it serves the purpose of excluding everything that is not, it’s most accurate to describe it, for example, in the case of a table, as the appearance as opposite of non table. The mental image of table is the appearance as the opposite of non table. I’m going to connect this up into something a little more meaningful. If we were to investigate the manner in which these images operate, it eliminates everything that it does not represent.
This is why we can call all these various colors and types of tables they are all opposite of non tables. Whether they’re short tables, two legged tables, four legged tables, they’re all opposite of non tables. So first we eliminate non table, and then the opposite of that is taken as our mental image of table. So that appearance as the opposite of non table is what we understand table through. That’s the image that we make use of when we consider, you know, put the book on the table in the next room.
The image, when we’re a direct perception is perceiving all these direct colors and forms, then our mind is continually imposing, checking up with these forms, trying to interpret them, and then it matches up something which is opposite and non table. And you say, Ah, that’s the table. I’m going put the book there. And this is how we get through the world. So this way of operating and this mode of operating may not be particularly significant with respect to the image of a table, for example.
It’s significant from the point of view this is how we recall or recognize objects. We recall and recognize objects using these mental images. But it’s highly significant when we come to more subtle types of objects. And by subtle types of objects subtle types of objects, as I have said, which we, an ordinary person, in order to understand initially, must use reasoning. We call these hidden phenomena.
There are three types of phenomena: obvious phenomena, slightly hidden phenomena, and extremely hidden phenomena. Things like obvious phenomena are things that we can understand initially for the first time and depends upon sense consciousness, for example, direct perception, like this table. It’s an obvious phenomena. Slightly hidden phenomena are such things as emptiness, selflessness, subtle impermanence, which initially initial understanding arises in dependence upon reasoning. In general, we say reasoning.
And then extremely hidden phenomena are things like that, for example, from generosity arises wealth. That is the relationship between causes and their effects. And this is an extremely hidden phenomenon. It’s said initially that we have to understand this in dependence upon valid doctrine or valid scriptures. This image building process, the way it operates, is particularly important when we get to subtle types of objects such as emptiness and selflessness.
The way we become, for example, acquainted with the meaning of selflessness. You the word and it just kind of rolls around your mind. You know quite what it means. Maybe it means selflessness, maybe it means not to be selfish or something like that. You don’t have any self.
But anyway, some kind of idea probably comes in your mind, maybe the word just echoes around in your mind perhaps. But anyway, we have to build up very carefully a very clear mental image of what selflessness is. So in order to do that, in this development of mental images, as we said with ordinary objects like tables, first we’re going to build up a mental image through a limited process. We’re going to eliminate everything that the object isn’t. We’re going eliminate non selflessness or non self.
And then the opposite of non self is we will come to an understanding of what selflessness is. So we have to understand what the self is first. And then that, we’re going to negate that in developing this mental image of selflessness. Selflessness is the absence of the misconceived self, isn’t it? Of a type of self which is misconceived.
That absence of a type of self. And this self has many, many, many qualities which is the object of this misconception, you know. From a very gross, very coarse understanding to a very subtle one, you know, we begin with the understanding that the self is or that is to say, the misunderstanding the misconception that the self is permanent, that it’s partless, that it’s unitary, that it’s substantially existent, that it’s truly existent, that it’s inherent existent, which is the most subtle. But we begin with the most gross qualities of the self. So we’re building up an image of what the self must be like.
And ultimately we’re going to negate this self. We’re going to say, This type of self doesn’t exist. The absence of this type of self is what we mean when we say selflessness. So in this process of eliminating, you know, we’re eliminating what is not the self. We never want to eliminate too much nor too little.
If we eliminate too much and we say, Well, there’s no self at all, then of course this is falling to the extreme of annihilationism, you know, where we say our nihilism, for example. And we’ve eliminated too much where our mental image is too broad of the self which is to be negated. It’s taking in too much, You know, just like a child when he’s developing the understanding of what a horse is and he sees a dog and he points to it and says, Horse. And so his mental image has taken in too much, so he has to be corrected. And you say, No, that’s not a horse, that’s a dog.
So he’s constantly clarifying his mental image of what a horse is. Likewise, we have to be constantly clarifying what our image of the self is. So we neither want to make it too broad, in which case we go to negate it, we say, This Self doesn’t exist or it’s absent, and we’re going to negate what actually does exist, that is to say, the conventionally existent Self. Nor do we want to make it too narrow. We don’t want to make it we want to will be something left over which still needs to be negated.
So it has to be just right. That would be the case of falling to the extreme of permanence. Permanence. Ordinary naming process, ordinary developing of mental images like tables and dogs and things and horses, This eliminative procedure goes on almost unconsciously with respect to tables, etc. But in the case of selflessness, emptiness, these subtle objects, it proceeds with extreme care through the investigation.
For example, in the higher tenets, our discussion is from the point of view of what? The Sūtra Skull. From the higher tenets, for example? The Middle Way Consequence School. Middle Way Consequence School, that’s right.
The ultimate truth does not appear to direct perception. In the Sūtra School, ultimate truth is an object of direct perception for ordinary persons. But in the higher schools, for example, mind only school and the middle way school, the ultimate truth is not an object of direct perception for ordinary persons. Nor is it an object of understanding for untutored or untrained thought consciousness. You know, with someone who hasn’t learned, hasn’t studied about, for example, ultimate truth or emptiness.
He who hasn’t gone through some eliminative process before in order to realize it. Yeah? Something like that. That’s the way it is. It’s just been made of it, so it’s not what you’re going looking for.
But you have to look if you think it’s there, it’s not there. You think it’s Yeah. Yeah, we have to Well, we actually have to look for it to find out that it’s not there. So in using reasoning to get at, for example, emptiness, we have to first we have to carefully identify what is the self in terms of one’s own experience, In order to understand what is exactly negated in the view of selflessness. So one has to cultivate one’s own sense of self.
For example, when I get very afraid, when I get very upset, when I get harmed, when I threaten, fear, what actually am I feeling? How does myself feel at such moments? We have to get a clear sense of the feeling of I. You know, this sense of it has many qualities, you know. Feeling the sense of this I, you know, feels permanent, it feels independently existent, feels substantially existent.
We actually have to be able to identify this within our own experience to develop a mental image of how our self exists. And this self becomes the self which is to be negated. This is what we’re going to refute. Unless we have a target to aim at, that is the conception of itself under the influence of ignorance, then there’s nothing for us to negate. There’s nothing for us to understand that doesn’t exist.
So we have to develop that is, we have to begin just in developing a mental image, we have to develop a mental image of self, how we actually experience the self, our own sense of self, before we can ever understand selflessness. So this development, this identifying process has to be done very carefully and clearly. You know, it’s the most important and the most difficult step in the development of inference, in coming to an understanding of selflessness and emptiness, is simply identifying the object and negation, what is to be eliminated. In this case, the process of we’re doing this all the time, actually. When somebody points and says, This is when your mother says, This is your hand.
So we get a sense of what hand is, but it’s not quite clear because another time we may point to our foot and say hand. We may associate it just our idea of our image of hand takes in too much. So then we have to keep correcting it, making it clearer and clearer. And we may have misconceptions. We may think this is a hand.
So we have to keep investigating again and again, developing this image, a correct image of how we actually experience our sense of self. And this is the same process we’re doing constantly with all the various objects, except because emptiness is such a subtle object, we don’t even know what is to be eliminated. You know, we can say, this is a table, and then we can fairly readily eliminate. We understand very quickly, understand very readily what are the objects to be eliminated. But in the case of emptiness, which is an absence of, for example, a truly existent self, we don’t even know what we’re supposed to be eliminating yet.
We have to consciously eliminate these other factors until we understand what selflessness means. So it’s much because of the subtlety of emptiness. So this process of realizing emptiness is kind of like a slow motion enactment of what routinely do in the course of identifying all these various objects, very simple like tables and things like that. So in coming to know anything conceptually, one also implicitly and simultaneously identifies what the thing is not. When we identify table, we simultaneously identify what is not table, because that’s how we understand table, by understanding that this object is the opposite of not table.
So we have to understand what is not table. So to know a chair is to eliminate non chair. Emptiness, because it’s so subtle, that it’s not immediately apparent what it’s not, what is to be negated. We can understand fairly quickly what is not chair, But it’s very difficult for us to understand what is negated, what is to be eliminated in understanding what is truly existent, which is say that which is the factor, is things are absent of, that which is negated. That is the opposite of not truly existent.
Coming to an understanding of emptiness, we have to understand what is not emptiness. So we have to understand truly existent, or a truly existent self, for example. And then the opposite of that, then we’ll know what emptiness is. So we have to first, just like in coming to understand these of all the various objects, come to an understanding of what is the object of negation. And this we understand through, in the case of the self, through our own experience, coming to an understanding of what a truly existent self would be like, how do we actually sense it.
And then once we know that, we eliminate that, and then we understand emptiness or selflessness. So it’s the same process, but because selflessness and emptiness are such a subtle phenomena, we actually have to constantly make effort investigating what is to be eliminated, what is not emptiness. Just like we have to come to an understanding of what is not table in order to understand what is table. So this negating process becomes a what is to be negated must be identified. It becomes a separate step in the procedure of coming to an understanding of emptiness.
Whereas in all these others it’s simultaneous. The understanding of not table is simultaneous with the understanding of table. The opposite of not table is table. But in the case of emptiness, selflessness, we actually have to go through a first step, that is understanding what is not emptiness. What is the object in that thing is negated, or the opposite of not emptiness is what we is to say, true existence is to be negated.
So this gives you an idea of why, from the Tibetan Buddhist standpoint, it’s necessary to go through all these steps of thinking, first hearing, learning, studying, and thinking, contemplating, reasoning, and then finally meditating. And the initial step, the most important in coming to an inferential understanding, conceptual understanding, thought consciousness with regard to any phenomenon is understanding what the object isn’t, because this is the way we develop our mental images. And we use mental images conceptual consciousness use mental images in order to understand something. We use our ideal order to understand an object. In coming to a correct mental image, we have to correctly understand what the object is not, what is not table.
We don’t want to eliminate too much nor too little in order to come to a correct ideal or mental image. And this occurs almost simultaneously with ordinary objects, that is to say, knowing when a table is understanding that it’s the opposite of not table. But in the case of very subtle phenomena, first we have to go through a long process of understanding what the self is not, what is not selflessness. That is to say, what is the self? How do we experience the self?
We have to develop a very concrete, clear image of what the self is, then we understand the absence of that is selflessness. Then we come to an inferential understanding, a thought conscious conceptual understanding of emptiness, selflessness. It’s of some use to persevere and some give give you some method to work with. We had some homework. What was the first one?
The human The form. And second? Maybe before we do that, I thought, you know, maybe we review what we’ve done so that you can and then then we’ll get and then get to this. So, you know, the first of the of the eight subdivisions of established base is what? For subdivision?
Color. Color. Yeah. And then after that was what? Second?
So in established base I’m just checking on established base, we went through this, you know, we went through this all these various divisions and and all the various phenomena which make up the knowable which exists. And we went through all the all the divisions and the and the definitions. When you’re debating, for example, you could go through and say, With respect to selflessness, how many divisions are there? There are two non existent and existent. Then what is the definition of existent?
It’s good to keep in debating, to keep recalling the definitions, keep bringing them to mind. You know, with respect to thing, how many divisions are there? There are three: form consciousness and non associated compositional factors. And then what is the definition of form? What is the definition of consciousness?
What is the definition of non associated compositional factors? So you could move through that, and then you could debate some of the debates with respect to form and thing. What is the pervasion? Are there any questions about established base in particular? And what is the third subdivision?
Identify an isolate. So then you could, you know, with respect to the isolated thing, how many what do we say? How many phenomena are equally pervasive How many phenomena are equally pervasive with isolated thing? And then you can debate upon that. Can use and work in your debates, know, what is the relationship between thing and isolated thing?
Otherwise, you identify isolated thing if you don’t play with it, if you don’t work with it. What is the the relationship between isolated thing and form? What I’m trying to point is that in the course of your debates you can move through all the information. You have quite a lot of information to work with, yeah? So you just don’t forget everything that you learned up to now, sort of, I put that aside, keep going back and reusing it, re debating it, but kind of fit in new information that you’re being presented all the time.
So you’re sort of seeing how these things always fit together, recombining everything that you know and coming up with maybe some new understandings. So there are these four phenomena which we put pervasive with the isolated thing, for example. So you could work those into your debate. Don’t set aside an isolated thing because maybe you don’t think it’s important or you don’t understand it, but keep bringing it back up and debate. And what was the fourth?
Reverse of being and reverse of non being. Okay. Reverse of being and reverse non being. Reverse of being and reverse of non being. So, okay.
Reverse of being and reverse of non being. Any questions on isolates? Identifying isolates in particular? Probably. Yeah.
How about reverse of being and reverse of non being? What is that, the fifth? Fifth division? Or is it third, fourth, fourth subdivision? Is-ness and is-not-ness.
Okay, that’s So, this is all these things that reverse of being, reverse of non being, isness and is notness is just helping you train your mind. So it’s necessary, in order to train your mind you have to make use of these. Make use of them, yeah? That’s the state of being, isn’t it? What’s that, Jant?
Being or non being is the state of being. It’s like being cold or something like that. Yeah, being yeah, being like are you being yeah, being cold and being hot? And is ness is not ness, then what after that? In particular.
Generality in particular. So there’s a lot of different debates you can get into in that, in generality in particular. We didn’t finish the we didn’t finish. Maybe before we we go into this, we’ll we’ll we’ll finish looking at this last week’s handout sheet. Let’s just go through the debate.
There’s object of knowledge as the subject. Why is it a generality of thing? So we have two things. We have object of knowledge, object of knowledge, anything. So what is the relationship?
And obviously that some of this person is object of knowledge as a subject. Why is it a generality of thing? Because thing is an instance of object of knowledge. So if object of knowledge is the generality of thing, and thing is a particular What do we say? Instance.
Thing is an instance of object of knowledge. What do you say? If you are the child of your mother? What do you say? Sue is the daughter of her mother.
Her mother is the mother of zoo. Okay. So you have you can just reverse the relationship. Thing is a thing is an instant of object of knowledge. Therefore, objects of knowledge must be a generality of thing.
Thing is an instance of object of knowledge. Thing as the subject, it follows that it is not an instance of an object of knowledge posits the way of applying instance. How can we establish that thing is an object of knowledge, and there is a way of applying? This way of proving it is called the way of applying instance. An instance must have certain qualities in relationship to its generality, and this goes through those qualities.
Thing is the subject. It follows that it is an instance of object of knowledge because it has the complete way of applying the instance of object of knowledge, so that’s just restating the same thing. And then, okay, what are they? What is what is the complete way of applying the instance of object of knowledge? You know, what are these qualities which an instant must have in order to, be an instant of a particular generality?
You know, It has to meet certain criteria, certain qualities. Okay, it has three. It must have three qualities. If a thing is an instant of object of knowledge, then whatever this is, x, it must be an object of knowledge. Thing is an object of knowledge.
That’s first. Okay, we have three It must be the generality. In this case, object of knowledge. So x or thing is the object of knowledge. Second is that it must be the same entity with the object of knowledge.
We don’t know that quite yet why it is. Let’s explain down below. Must be the generality, must be the same entity. There are many phenomena which are not thing, which have a common locus with object of knowledge Such as, for example, phenomenon has a common locus, also definition. That means if I get rid of things, is still a phenomenon left over, you know why, would still have a common locus with object of knowledge.
By getting rid of this, I don’t get rid of everything that has a common locus with object of knowledge. Common other common locus. So these are this is the quick way of applying instance. So it goes on to explain a little bit further. Thing is the subject.
Why is the same entity? Okay. Now, you know, this first one is fairly easy. An instant must be an example of its generality. Now, whatever this thing is over here, it’s an instance of object of knowledge, it must be an object of knowledge. If a thing is an instance of form, it must be a form.
If it’s an instant of color, it must be a color. If it’s instant of person, it must be a person. Like a dog is not an instant of person, therefore it cannot be an instant of a person. So that’s his first quality. Now the second one is not a very obvious thing as the subject.
Why is it the same entity with object of knowledge? So in order for a thing to be an instance of object of knowledge, it must be the same entity. How do we know that something is the same entity? It goes on to explain. Because it is different from object of knowledge in the context of being the same entity, and if objects of knowledge are eliminated, thing is also eliminated.
Just to simplify that, number one, it’s different. If two things are the same entity, What do we mean when we say same entity? Roughly? It’s close. Yeah.
It’s close. Yeah. How about well, we we we we’ve actually we’ve mentioned this before. How do we how do we determine whether two things are the same entity? Remember?
How do we determine our cat and dog same entity? Anybody? No? They’re both animals, think. Doesn’t that make them same entity?
Well, they have the same entity with animals. Okay. A cat and dog same entity? No. Why?
Because cats and cats and dogs are not. How about cats and cats and dogs? No. How about how about about blue table? How about Alastair and Sue’s husband?
Alastair. What do you think, Graham? Well, I think it’s an aspect of my mind, but it has a reality outside of my mind.