Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 47-minute session, Ven Jampa Gendun unpacks Buddhist formal debate logic by walking through the classic syllogism “sound is impermanent because it is a product.” He first breaks down the three parts — subject, predicate, and proof — then examines what makes a reason correct: it must apply to the subject (property of position), every instance of it must be pervaded by the predicate (positive pervasion), and it must satisfy counter pervasion. A second example, inferring fire from smoke on a distant mountain pass, introduces reasoning by existence rather than identity and the concept of slightly hidden phenomena known only through inference. The session is interactive throughout, with students testing edge cases such as “because it is a dog” and debating whether mutually inclusive terms count as synonyms. Suited to students beginning the Collected Topics curriculum.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 44 CT 1988 08 02.mp3
UUID: eb94e0ac-f684-4356-a911-37d42a9a3a66
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-08-02
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 47.0 minutes
Words: ~4,813
So I thought we’d begin to go over what is meant by the use of syllogism in the course of debate. So in order to come to an understanding of what a correct reason is, in order to understand the nature of a correct reason, it is necessary to understand the context in which it functions. Buddhist logic makes use of the three part syllogism in presenting a reason by which a thesis about which there is doubt or contention can be validly established. The three parts are the subject of the thesis, the basis of doubt or contention, the predicate of the thesis, the property being attributed to the subject, and the reason, the evidence presented, in order to establish the thesis. So first we’ll begin with that and understand each of the various parts of a syllogism.
So a syllogism is a thesis, a statement about which we provide some proof. So as our example we’ll take that first syllogism that’s presented there. Sound as the subject. I’m going to change the wording slightly. It follows that it is impermanent because it is a product.
So that’s a three part syllogism. The entire thesis with the proof is mixed up with syllogism has three parts. So the thesis is, so somebody makes a statement, Sound is impermanent. That would be a thesis. Sound is impermanent, but we’re not sure.
So the thesis is that sound is impermanent. That would take in the subject. And this is sometimes called the predicate. Predicate. A predicate is some property or quality which you are applying to the subject.
The man is big. The weather is raining. Whatever. Some property we call a predicate. Which some quality we’re applying to the subject.
Sometimes it’s called the predicate of the thesis. So the subject and the predicate taken together form a thesis. So just the subject of the thesis, the predicate of the thesis, And then the last line is the is can be called the proof. The proof or, you know, you said the reason or just simply the evidence which establishes the thesis. So we have a thesis which is made up of a subject and some quality which we’re trying to apply to the subject which is the predicate of the thesis.
In order to establish that validly, we have to supply a proof or that is to say we have to give a reason. So this makes up a syllogism. It has three parts: the subject, the predicate, those taken together to make a thesis, and then the proof for the reason which establishes the thesis. You know, there has to be some doubt or some contention like, you know, whether sound is impermanent or not. We’re questioning that.
And so, you know, in the course of a debate, we say sound is the subject. It follows that it is impermanent. And if you were not to accept this, would say, Why? And then the debater would have to go on and supply proof or a reason to establish his thesis. And then he might say, for example, because it’s a product.
Everybody understand all the parts? Subject, predicate, and the proof. So, in this syllogism, sound is impermanent. It’s the thesis about which there is doubt or contention. Sound is the subject of the thesis, the basis of doubt or contention.
Impermanent is the predicate of the thesis, the property of being attributed to the subject. Sound is the subject and product is the reason, the evidence presented in order to establish the thesis. So then it goes on to give another type of example. Consider the smoky mountain pass. There is a fire because there is smoke.
Okay, so again, There is fire on the smoky mountain pass is the thesis. On the Smoky Mountain Pass is the subject of the thesis. There is fire as a predicate of the thesis. That is the property we’re trying to apply to the subject, which is On the Smoky Mountain Pass. And there is smoke is the reason.
So that’s just another type of syllogism. It has all three parts of the syllogism the subject predicate and the proof or the reason. So then okay these are the parts of a syllogism so we have some idea what a syllogism is. Now just because you know a syllogism doesn’t have to be you know, we could put here because it is a non product. So it’s still a syllogism, isn’t it?
It’s still got it has a subject, a predicate, and a reason. But we would say, Oh no, reason not established. We say, This is not a correct reason. It’s not a valid reason. It doesn’t prove that sound is impermanent.
Non product does not prove sound is impermanent. But it’s still a syllogism. It doesn’t have to be a correct syllogism in order to be a syllogism. It’s still a syllogism because it has a subject, a predicate, and a reason or a proof. Now we want to know, well if that’s the case, how do we determine whether a reason is a correct reason and therefore is a correct syllogism.
How do we what how can we understand? How can we establish that this reason, for example, product is in fact a correct reason establishing the thesis that is sound is impermanent. So there has to be three qualities to a correct reason. It has to as it says here, a correct reason the definition of a correct reason is that which has the three modes, that which has the three modes or, you know, three qualities. It has three qualities.
And these three qualities are property of the position, positive pervasion, and counter pervasion. So we use the same example as a basis. So the first mode of these three, which is property of the position, is a reason the property which is present in all members of the class of the subject. Or more simply, a reason which is applicable to the subject. Okay, so, you know, it becomes very technical.
What is the correct reason? For our purposes, we can begin very simply. We can just say that the reason must be applicable, must be able to apply the reason to the subject. Okay, in this syllogism, what is the reason? Product.
Okay, what is the subject? Sound. Sound. So can we apply in this syllogism, can we apply the reason to the subject? Can we apply product to sound?
Yeah? Why? Because is product. Therefore, we can say, yes, the reason does apply to the subject. Whereas, for example, if we had non product here, then in this case, can we apply the reason to the subject?
Why? It just doesn’t apply to it because sound is not a non product. So this would not fulfill the first quality of a correct reason. Non product would not be the property of the position. Why?
Because it does not apply to the subject. Therefore, it can’t be a correct reason. The correct reason must have all three qualities. Must be a property of the position. It must be a positive pervasion.
It must be a counter pervasion. In this case, non product is not a correct reason because it is not a property of the position. Why is it not a property of position? Because it does not apply to the subject. Why?
Because sound is not non product. There’s no way we can apply non product to sound. Whereas in the case of product, that’s applicable to sound because sound is a product. Yeah? How about because it is form. Is that a property of position?
The reason form — is it the property of the position in this syllogism? So what am I asking? To sound? Yeah, does reason apply to the subject? The reason form, is it applicable to the subject?
Sound. Is form applicable to sound? Yes, because it’s sound is provided by form, isn’t it? Sound is form. Sound is form.
That’s right. Sound is form. Yeah? It’s suitable to be form. So the reason does apply to the subject.
Therefore, in this syllogism the reason formed is the property of position of this syllogism. So whenever we’re working with a syllogism and we want to know whether a particular reason is a correct reason for that particular which establishes this particular thesis, the first thing we check is the property of the position. You’ve been doing this already, but you haven’t known in detail exactly what you’re doing. Let’s take another for example. Consciousness.
So does the reason consciousness establish this thesis? Is consciousness in this syllogism the property of the position? What, is consciousness applicable to sound? In what way? Of the senses.
It’s together with the senses, isn’t it? Sound? In the sense, it disconnects. Is sound consciousness? No.
Sound is form, thing. Oh, there is my I didn’t mean to start. Yes. What? Sound is not consciousness.
No. No. It’s form. Sound. Sound is form.
Does that have to be a direct relationship between truth and the subject? Is it like consciousness is not a direct relationship with subject? Okay, that’s a good question. There must be really there’s two possible ways that the reason and the subject can be related. One is we’ll call it is ness.
That is to say, sound is consciousness, sound is form, sound is impermanent, is, yeah? And there’s another way, existence. And this you’ll see in the second syllogism when we say that smoke exists on the smoky mountain path. Smoky mountain pass is not smoke, but the smoke exists there. So it must be related in one of these two ways.
It must be applicable. The reason must be applicable to the subject either by way of is ness or existence either of these two ways. So in this case, is consciousness is it applicable to sound? First, is sound consciousness? I’ll check the isness.
Is sound consciousness? No. No. Why? Sound is the subject.
It follows that it is not why is it not consciousness? Sound is the subject. Why is it not consciousness? Because consciousness is not formed. Sound is formed.
Because? Give a good answer. Give me another answer. Sound is the subject. Why is it not consciousness?
Because it’s not knowing. It is not clear and knowing. It’s not clear and knowing. If something is clear, it must be non physical, must be non form. Yes?
Because you could just simply say, Because it’s non form. Or the best answer is to say, Because it’s clear and knowing. That’s the definition of consciousness, isn’t it? And So sound is the subject. Why is it not consciousness?
Because it’s clear and knowing. And sound is not clear and knowing. Is sound clear and knowing? If you hear sound, then you know. You hear sound.
Does sound know? Sound doesn’t know. Consciousness knows. It’s clear? Does sound hit clear?
Does sound clear? Sometimes. You can. How about dog? Sound is the subject.
It follows it is impermanent because it is a dog. This is established this is reason in this thesis the property of the position. The position, this is the position. The subject is going to be called the position. This is a property, which you’re applying to position.
So you’re trying to apply this property to the position or trying to somehow apply dog to sound in this case. So sound is the subject who follows that it is impermanent because it is a dog. Is this the property of the position in this syllogism? So what do we check for first? It has to be applicable in one of these two ways either isn’t or existence.
So is sound a dog? Is there any way that we can apply dong in the sense of existence to sound? Well, I was afraid of that. Well, they were Turn it into house. Turn it into house.
But it it dog barking, that’s not dog, is That’s good. Actually, when we talk about existence, we’re talking about place and then something like that. Actually, here we’d have to have something like at the place, at the sound. And here we’d have to, There is dog. Here we’re talking about rather than existence, we’re talking about being or is ness.
So is dog the property of the position in this syllogism? San is the subject. This follows that it is impermanent because it is dog. Not All right. So, if something is not the property of the position, we simply say reason not established because his reason is not established.
And then your reason that your particular reason doesn’t establish this thesis. Dog does not establish the thesis that sound is impermanent. However much you want to use that as a reason, it will never establish that sound is impermanent. You will never understand that sound is impermanent by way of the reason dog. Because?
What do you think? Business? Why? Well, because like you said, if you could say it was at something, I know it’s not at. But there’s no at in the subject.
We’re not talking about at the sound. We’re talking about sound itself, aren’t we? Like in the next syllogism, we’re going to say, Consider Actually, that should be It should read, On the Smoky Mountain Pass. It should read, Consider on the Smoky Mountain Pass. You’re talking about some place, existence at a place because we’re not talking about whether the Smoky Mountain Pass is smoky, is smoky.
We’re talking about at the Smoky Mountain Pass or on the Smoky Mountain Pass, there is smoke. So it should read on the Smoky Mountain Pass. So in which one of these is product? Is product the property of the position in this syllogism? Yes.
And why? Because it’s applicable to sound. It’s applicable to the subject? Yeah. In what way is it applicable?
So it can be reason can be applicable in either of two ways. And in which way is it? It seems to me that it’s not the existence one because it’s not it’s not at the place. So it must be the other one consciousness. So why is that?
Because? Sound is because sound isn’t? Okay. So it isn’t. Sound is a product.
Let’s try another one. Okay. This sound as the subject? It follows that it’s impermanent because it is a color. Does the reason color establish the thesis sound as impermanent?
Why? So the reason is not established? The reason is not established. Because? Because sound.
Is it because color is not a thing? Because color does not apply to the subject? Sound. Because? Because sound is not a color.
Because sound is not a color. Why is it not a color? How about sound is a subject that follows that it is impermanent because it is momentary. So does the reason momentary establish the thesis that sound is impermanent? What is the definition of impermanent?
Momentary. Okay. So what is it? It’s not synonymous. I mean, it’s mutually inclusive, isn’t it? Any Yeah.
So the sound momentary is applicable to the subject sound because sound is momentary. This momentary is the property of position establishing this thesis that sound is impermanent. All right? Do you mean it’s not synonymous in the sense that if they admit impermanent, they would have said impermanent. And momentary isn’t impermanent, but they’re mutually inclusive.
Momentary is Is physical. Impermanent. Is that a synonym for improvement? Or in this sense, is that just mutual I wouldn’t use I mean, yeah, I use the term mutually inclusive rather than synonym. There’s only a few times when it’s technically different, but it’s better to use the technically correct.
Because I’ll show you why. Things which are mutually inclusive aren’t necessarily synonymous. Right? For example? Can anybody give me an example?
Something which two things which are mutually inclusive which are not synonymous. Definition and definitum. Definition and Are they are they mutually inclusive? Yes? Whatever is the definition, is it?
Yes? And whatever is the definition, is it? Is part of definition? What is what? It’s part of definition?
It’s part of definition? Yes. It’s a it’s a definite it’s a definition because it’s a definite. So it’s part of definition? We didn’t see this before.
No. It’s part of definition? No. No. But aren’t you saying anything that which is a deaf a definite end should be must be a definition because they’re mutually inclusive?
So if part is a definite end, it must be a definition. Why it not a definition? Because it’s a definiendum. So they aren’t inclusive. Does anybody know?
Two things which are mutually inclusive which are not synonymous. Maybe you won’t think. For example, like cause and effect. These are mutually inclusive? Obviously, they’re not sanana, are they?
Pause it. So, if something is a cause, it’s pervaded by being effect. If something is effect, it’s pervaded by being a cause. Anything which is a cause must be an effect. Anything which is an effect must be a cause.
Like a pot. Pot? Momentary Momentary impermanent. So I was just showing you that mutually inclusive doesn’t mean synonymous.
Anyway, it’s better to use the term mutually inclusive so they get used to using it. Okay. So this is we’ve been using this all along when we say reason not established. We haven’t really thought about how we haven’t seen how I mean this can go into very elaborate detail. For example is the reason impermanent, the property of the position establishing that these sound is impermanent?
Yes. Does it help you in any way come to an understanding that sound is impermanent? Impermanent? If I say sound is impermanent, you say, Why? Because it’s impermanent.
It’s impermanent. Just take my word for it. It’s impermanent. Does it help you? Question: why is it impermanent.
Yeah, but he just told you because it’s impermanent. So it goes into right now we’re just saying applicable. But what we mean by applicable can go into very great detail, that’s not necessary to go in at this time. Impermanent would, in fact, not be the property of position. It doesn’t help us understand the thesis even though permanent is applicable to sound in general.
So that would be getting into more detail than we need to go right now when study signs and reasoning. Can go into more detail. That’s a process, though. Mom, why do I have to do that? Because you have to do it.
You know, people use that. But that doesn’t do that. That’s cool. That’s cool. She’s raising raising her voice a little bit.
It’s not unreasonable. Okay. So there’s this by way of is ness, applicability, by way of is ness. Now we look at the other type In this example, on the Smoky Mountain Pass as the subject. Subject.
There is fire. Because there Because there is smoke. Okay, this is just another three part syllogism. But here, rather we’re talking about business, we’re talking about existence. Whether something exists or not, not whether something is something or not.
So we look at this and we say, Okay, we a thesis. What is thesis of this syllogism? What is the thesis? What are we trying to prove? There’s fire that there’s fire.
Are we trying to prove there’s fire or something else? Yes. We’re trying to prove fire because of smoke. What is the What is the complete thesis that we’re trying to establish? Subject and predicate in the Smoky Mountain Pass.
Is fire. That’s right. So the thesis taking this subject and the predicate together we’re We’re trying to prove there is fire on the Smoky Mountain Pass. That’s what we’re trying to prove. You know, you’re down here in the valley and you wonder, you know, if there’s a fire way up there on that mountain pass.
And you say you were sitting there wondering, you know, you’re talking to somebody, I wonder if there’s smoke on that pass. You say, Yeah, there’s a fire on that smoking mountain. There’s a fire on that smoking mountain. That’s because there’s smoke. Yeah, there’s smoke, so there must be fire.
And you can see the smoke. You can see you can establish through your direct perception, through eye consciousness that there’s smoke on the mountain pass, and then you go on using some of your reasoning. And if there’s smoke there must be fire. Therefore, then you infer there must be fire on that smoky mountain pass. Why?
Because there’s smoke. So at first it sounds like a rather silly type of reason to try to prove that smoke’s on that there’s to use smoke on a smoking mountain pass to establish fire, but there is some reasoning involved and some sense in it. So if we said I don’t know, like rain. It could be raining, I guess. But it’s difficult to Okay.
And it goes Okay. No. It’s difficult to I mean Okay. We said valley. Valley.
Okay. Does Does the reason because there is a valley? Is that the property of the position established in the thesis that there is fire on the Smoky Mountain Pass? No. Why?
It’s a place you cross over. Yeah, valley is not applicable to On the Smoky Mountain pad. A valley does not exist on a pass. This is pretty obvious perhaps, but anyway it’s an example. It means that you moved as a file.
No, yeah. So, the first thing we do. Oh. Whether the property of the position. Whether the reason applies to the subject.
You know, we don’t even have to worry about this for now. This part here, the predicate. We’re just trying to see does the reason apply to the subject? If that doesn’t, then we’ve already we don’t have to go any further. We say reason is not established.
I was just gonna say, what if you say because there is a past? Because there is a past. Okay, yeah. Why not? Anything can be a reason.
You can put anything as a reason. Most people do. Because there is past. There is a past. Okay, that’s great.
So in this syllogism, does the reason because there is a path, is that the property of the position in this syllogism? Applicable to the first one, but then we have to go on the second one. Yeah, that’s right. But it’s the property of position. The first quality property of position is satisfied.
So, you know, that’s all we can say at this point is, yeah, okay, pass does apply to On a Smoky Mountain Path. There is a past On a Smoky Mountain Path, no problem. But that doesn’t mean it’s a correct reason. We have to have three qualities in order to have a correct reason. We just have one.
We just have the first one. But that’s the first one we check out. It’s most obvious initially. Okay? Now the next one we haven’t been doing.
So you’ve been using syllogisms and you’ve been saying sometimes reason not established. And what you’ve been doing is seeing whether the proof or the reason applied to the subject in some way way usually by way of isness. This is what you’ve been doing. Then you answer quite brilliantly, Reason not astounded. But there have been times when, as you may have noticed, when the reason did apply to the subject but there’s something fishy about it.
So this this is a And we didn’t go into that. We kind of avoided that anyway. And now we Yeah. Phenomenon. That’s right.
It’s a hidden phenomenon. It’s it’s what is it? It’s a slightly hidden phenomenon? Or slightly hidden phenomenon. Yeah.
Because you see something. We can establish it through reason. Yeah. You cannot see it with direct perception because you’re in the valley. Yes.
And then the valley comes into it. Yeah. That’s right. That’s right. Very interesting.
Yeah. We use reasoning to establish slightly hidden phenomena. And anything that can be a slightly hidden phenomena. But like with fire, to the person who’s standing there next to the fire, it’s not a slightly hidden phenomena. It’s obvious phenomena.
He sees it with his eye. But to a person in the valley, him, it’s not an obvious phenomena. It’s a slightly hidden phenomena. Yes, he establish its existence by way of reasoning, not through direct perception. So, okay, then the second mode or the second quality is called positive pervasion.
It’s a reason the property of which is present in all cases similar to the predicate or in other words, a reason every instance of which is pervaded by or necessarily instant of the predicate. Let’s go back to the first syllogism. Sound as subject. It follows that it is impermanent. It follows that it is impermanent.
Because it is a product. So product is the property of position in this syllogism. Product is applicable the proof for the reason product is applicable applies to the subject’s sound. Now, is it the positive pervasion in this syllogism?
In order to be the positive pervasion, every instance every instance of the product must be an instance every instance of the reason must be an instance of the predicate. It must be a pervasion. If an object is the reason, it be necessarily or pervaded by the predicate. So in this case, if something is a product, if an object is a product, it must be pervaded by or necessarily impermanent. Okay?
If it is the reason if it is the reason it must necessarily be the predicate Necessarily or pervaded by. We’ve been saying pervaded by the predicate. So in this case, is product the positive pervasion in this syllogism? If an object is a product, is it pervaded by being impermanent? Yeah?
Everybody see that? Is that because it’s been created as a product? Whatever is a product is necessarily impermanent. Whatever is what is the definition of product? It’s correct.
What is that? Anybody? That which is that which arises in dependence upon causes and conditions, something like that. That which arises out of causes and conditions. So that which is so the definition of product is that which arises out causes and conditions.
So that which arises out of causes and conditions is necessarily momentary. Or it is what is the definition of impermanent? That which arises, abides, and disintegrates from moment to moment. Yeah? Or momentarily abiding.
Yeah. So, whatever is arising, abiding, and disintegrating from moment to moment arises out of causes and conditions and vice versa. They’re virtually inclusive. So, whatever is a product is impermanent. If an object is a product, it’s pervaded by being impermanent.
Therefore, in this first syllogism, product is the positive pervasion. What happens if we How about we use this as a reason. Sound is the subject. It follows that it is impermanent because it exists. Because it exists.
It is an existent. It is an It is an existent. Okay? So first, this presented with this syllogism. Somebody says, Sound is the subject.
It is impermanent. It follows that it is impermanent. Why? Because it is an so first we check the property of the position. Does is does this existent the property of position in this syllogism?
Does existent apply to the subject? So sound what? Because sound is an existent. Why? Why is sound why is sound in existence?
Existent and then permanent phenomenon thing. It is an existent. I’m just trying to show it is an existent. An existent is a thing. I mean it’s not a thing.
It’s an object. An existent. In English, becomes a little more complicated. It’s just because What I’m trying to get is a while ago, I remember there was some kind of technical thing where if you said and before something, it was impermanent, but if you said the, it was permanent a couple of weeks ago. The the dog?
No. That’s something that I I can’t remember the example. You know, Tibetan there’s no and there’s no and a and the. There’s no article which we have in English. So, and bring this over into English.
You know, I would rather, you know, not use any articles, but it sounds strange, but maybe we should get used to it because we always use articles. Sound as the subject, sound as subject. Because it is existent. And you could even say, Because it is an impermanent. These are objects.
Impermanent is an object. Existent is an object. It is an impermanent. We would say, It is impermanent. Isn’t that more like an adjective rather than a noun?
Anyway So what about that