Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The paradox that a white horse is not white — valid within the Sūtra School, yet contradicted by everyday convention — is the memorable centrepiece of this 40-minute session by Ven Jampa Gendun on Buddhist logic. He works through the three qualities a correct reason must satisfy (property of the position, positive pervasion, and counter pervasion), drilling students with live debate exchanges: Is sound impermanent because it is selfless? Is a dog red because it is an animal? Each example sharpens the two-and-only-two responses available when rejecting a reason: not established or no pervasion. The session closes with a brief contrast between the Sūtra School’s strict logical conventions and the Middle Way School’s acceptance of common worldly usage. For students actively practising debate.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 45 CT 1988 08 02.mp3
UUID: 78e55c56-dab6-4faa-a4dd-00adf0d501be
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-08-02
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 40.5 minutes
Words: ~4,049
Three divisions. So these are just showing you the various divisions. Okay, existence is the property of the position in this syllogism. Now is it the positive pervasion? What in order to be the in order to be positive pervasion, what does it have to be?
So every instance of the reason must be provided by the predicate. In this case, it’s every why? And also things. So not existence itself. If an object is inexistent, it is not pervaded by being permanent.
Posit that object? Space. Space. Good. Space is the subject.
It is an existent? Yes. Why? I can’t see space. What did you say?
What did you tell me about? Have you seen space before? Object of valid cognition. Is space an object of valid cognition? To me, I can’t see it.
Space does not exist. Space exists, but it’s not Does not exist because it’s not the object of a valid Therefore it does not exist. It exists? It does not exist because it’s not the object of a valid cognition. That’s the definition of existence.
If something exists it must be the object of valid cognition. Is that right, Rudi? Now how can I cognize space when in full obstruction? You walk in When light burns out, what you say? Globe?
You say globe burns out? When a globe burns out and your electricity goes off and you’re going like this. You’re going like this. I can’t see space. I can’t see nothing.
Okay, but do you know there’s space? You can feel it. Can see It’s like the sense consciousness, is it? No. Look.
I I can’t hear it, feel it, smell it. I can’t touch it. How many Feel that you can move through it. How do you feel it? I can move, swing through the water, but not through the space.
How do you feel that? Do you think maybe I’m moving? When you go against the wind, then you feel something you Think in space. But that’s not space. That’s not space.
It’s wind. But you stand here. You tell me how you cognize or or how your consciousness takes from space. It’s only through imagination. By elimination.
Like, I feel that I can’t go through that, but I can go through space. That’s. I tried to find out. How many ways many ways are there validly how many valid ways are there to understand an object? Through six consciousness.
In in general, we say what? Direct perception? Oh, in general. Correct? And Correct.
And what? Inference? So we can understand space through inference. Can you see this? Can you see the If you’re down in the valley, you see the fire on the path?
Yes. You can see the fire? On the fire on the path, no. That’s only You can’t see it, smell it, taste it? Anyone else feel it?
No. But you can understand it’s there, can’t you? Use inference. Use inference. So we can understand the existence of space through inference.
Is that just two things here? Is it two valid ways of knowing an object? Is it only two within Buddhism? Two ways. So sound is existent because it’s object of valid cognition.
Oh, space is the subject. It is not impermanent. Okay, he said the positive pervasion was not established. Why? Because every instant of the reason is not an instant of the predicate.
And you gave the example of space and we said space is existent. Why? Because it’s object of valid cognition. Space is a subject. It is not impermanent.
Why? Because it’s not momentary? Because it’s momentary? Because it that’s because it’s permanent, you could say. Mhmm.
You could say because it’s not momentary? Yeah. This is when you it’s up to the individual what what types of reason he wants to get. Yeah, that’s right. So so this is this is we haven’t we haven’t really come across this yet in in our debates.
That is this, you know, we we would when when these instances did come up we weren’t quite sure what to say. Because existence is the property of the position. It is applicable to sound. Sound is existing. But somehow this isn’t a correct reason establishing this thesis.
Now we can begin to understand the cause is not the positive pervasion. Every instant of existence is not pervaded by the predicate impermanent. Another let’s see. Okay. Let’s just take another one.
So we’re debating. I present the thesis sound as a subject. It follows that it is impermanent and perhaps if you don’t accept that you say, Why? Because it is selfless. So we check out whether reason satisfies both the first two qualities of being property of the position and positive pervasion.
Is the reason selfless in this syllogism the property of the position? Why? Because sound Because sound is sofas. So it is it is the property of the position. Is is it the positive pervasion?
Why? Because every instance of selfless is not an instance of impermanence. Yeah. Or if we say that’s shorter, Selfless is not pervaded by impermanence. So in every instance of selfless is not an instant of impermanence.
Positive that object, every object which is selfless is not necessarily or not pervaded by being impermanent. For example? Space. Space is the subject, it is selfless. Space is the subject, it is not impermanent.
Why? Because it permanent. So here the positive pervasion. Selfless is not the positive pervasion in this syllogism. Therefore it is not a correct reason we can give to establish the thesis that sound is impermanent.
If somebody says sound is impermanent because it’s selfless, you would say what? We would answer, No pervasion. So when the positive pervasion is when a reason is not the positive pervasion we answer, No pervasion. When the reason is not the property of the position we say not established. Those are the only two answers we give.
These are the reason if we don’t accept the reason. The only two possible answers, no other answer. The reason does not establish that thesis, it must not establish that thesis because of either of two reasons. One, because the reason is not established, that is to say it’s not the property of the position, or there’s no pervasion, that is to say it’s not the positive pervasion. There’s only two answers.
So we can you know, there’s a third quality, doesn’t it? It says the counter pervasion. And this automatically we don’t even have to think about this one. This simply means, you know, it’s just for our purposes we don’t even have to think about it. It means the negation of this is pervaded by being the negation of this.
The negation of the reason is pervaded by being any object which is a negation of the reason is is pervaded by being a negation of the predicate. Anything which is not selfless is pervaded by being not impermanent. So if the positive pervasion applies then the counter pervasion applies. And so we don’t even have to consider that third quality. Just these first two.
If these first two qualities of a syllogism are established, if the positive pervasion and the property of the position are established, if the reason is the property of the position and it is the positive pervasion, then it’s a correct reason and we have to accept it. First we check the property of the position whether the reason is applicable to the subject. And if it is, then we pass on and check to see whether every instance of the reason is an instance of the predicate. And if it is, then we have to say it’s the correct reason. So we can we can just play around with a few.
For example, you know, let’s say the dog is the subject. It is an animal. Now let’s say it’s let’s make it incorrect. Yeah. Where do we it is it is a it Dog is the subject, it is red.
It is red because it is an animal. So we have what what is in this we have a syllogism, three part syllogism. What is the subject of the syllogism. Dog is red. Is that the subject?
Dog. Dog? Dog is dog is the subject? Predicate? Why?
Predicate something is a property we’re trying to apply to the dog. And this together is the thesis. What is the thesis of the syllogism? Yeah, that’s what we’re trying to prove. The dog is red.
What is the reason? It’s an animal. Because it’s an animal. Okay. Now we to check.
Is this the correct reason or not? If somebody says to us, you know, dog is a is a subject and it’s red, we say, Because it’s an animal. Okay. So there’s two possibilities. The first is the property of the position and the or just say the pervasion since Okay?
Okay. We want to check to see whether animal is a correct reason establishing whether the dog is red where the dog is red. Okay. Is the is animal in this is it the property of the position in this syllogism? In this no.
Is animal is the reason applicable to the subject? Does it apply does the reason apply to the subject? Yeah. So animal apply animal applies to dog? Why?
Dogs are amazing. Okay, so this is okay. But, okay. Is animal the pervasion? Is the pervasion?
Is animal the positive pervasion in this syllogism? Nothing. No pervasion. Why? Because all the instances of animal aren’t made.
Yeah. Whatever whatever in every instance of the reason, animal is is not an instance of the predicate red. Posit that? Posit that object? That instant?
Dog. Okay. Blue dog is the subject. It is an animal. It is animal.
The blue dog is the subject. It is not red. Why? It’s blue. Something that if an object is blue, is it pervaded by being not red?
pervasion applies and the negative pervasion apply, then why do they have that to If it’s not if it’s not necessary to explain now, then leave it. This is the Dharmakīrti You know, Dharmakīrti wrote a book called Commentary to Dignāgā’s Compendium of Valid Cognition. And the second chapter goes into what is a correct reason. There’s four chapters in the book. The second chapter goes into what is a correct reason and it goes into tremendous detail.
And this is kind of the tip of the iceberg. But what you ask is a good question. I don’t know. It has something with the way the mind operates that the understood quality. But I know no instance where if it’s not the positive pervasion if it is the positive pervasion, then it’s it’s not the counter pervasion.
So it’s, again, it’s an instance of mind training, like having negative two negatives which mean a positive, but it’s to get the mind flexible. No. What I mean is is the way the mind is operating in order to come to an inference. It it it does check out the negatives. It checks out if an object is not an animal, it is not pervaded by being not red.
It does check that out automatically when it’s because it’s working with you know, we talked about mental images working with negations, eliminations. So this is just in line with how the mind actually is operating in order to come up with an inference. But as far as the logic isn’t concerned, we don’t have to be we don’t have to be concerned with it. If it is a positive pervasion, it’s it’s the counter pervasion. So let’s try another one.
Okay. Dog is the subject, it is red. It’s okay. Okay. It is not red.
Then I would come back and say, it is not red. Okay. It’s okay. Let’s hear some more. Okay.
Is. The red dog. The red dog. The red dog. That’s the subject.
It is red because it is Because it is a dog. Is a red dog. No. Let’s see. That’s sweet.
Is it red is is We’ll take a white horse. Is the white horse white? White horse is the subject? White horse. White horse subject, it is white.
It is not white because it is not. It is not white because it is not a color. So is this reason established or is not pervasion or is it a correct reason? Why why Horace says it’s subject? It is not white because it’s not a color.
Not the whole list. So there’s there’s only two answers you can give. Yeah. There’s three answers. Either you accept it as a it’s either it’s a correct reason, or if it’s not correct, then it’s either not established or not established, the reason is not established or no pervasion.
Yeah, that’s all you can say. White horse is the subject. It is not white because it is not a color. It’s just a correct reason establishing that white horse is not white? No, Linda?
No. Then why? Why? It must be either not established or no pervasion. There’s no other possible answer.
Okay. Check out the first one. Is it is not a color? Property the position. So and it’s the property of position.
Okay. So is it is That’s established. No. That’s that’s the two parts, right? It has to be property of position and pervasion.
Is is the first part established? No color is applicable to white horse. What do you think? Now this is for you to decide. Not a color.
It’s a pervasion between that and white horse. Is that right? No, we’re just thinking whether is ness or existence and does is not a color applicable to white horse? Is white is a white horse not a color? Or is it a color?
Is white horse a color? It’s not color. It not a color. It is a color? No, it’s color.
Well, you’ve got the bracket right around not a color. Isn’t white not a color? Is white a color? Is white horse a color? No.
No. It’s not a color? It’s not a color. Okay. Okay, so the property of position is satisfied.
Then we check the pervasion. Is every every every object, every instance of the reason pervaded by being instant of the predicate? Not pervaded. Okay. If an object is not a color, it’s pervaded by by being by being not white?
Is not pervaded by being not white? This is A, and I will call this R for reason. And this is P. So every instance of R is pervaded by being P. And then no pervasion.
No pervasion. And every instant of r is not pervaded by being an instant of p? Okay, so what is p here? Not white. So every instant of not a color, every object which is not a color is not not white.
It’s prohibited by being not not white. And then, every instant another color is pervaded by being white? Not the lighter? I’m just You said not pea. What is pea?
Not white. Not not white. If something is not a color, is it necessarily not white? No. So, posit that object.
Posit an object which is not a color and is not not white. So you’re saying there’s no pervasion, you say that it doesn’t have to be not white. I’m saying if something is not a color, then it has to be not white. It must be not white because it’s not a color. If something is not a color, it must be not white.
If you say, No, there’s no pervasion, then you say, No, there is something which is not a color but which is white. Is any object which is not a color, isn’t it necessarily not white? Is there anything which is a color not white? Anything which is not a color but white? Anything which is not a color which is white?
Oh, okay. White is a color, so So if it’s not a color it can’t be white, can it? If something is not a color it can’t be white. So anything which is not a color must not be white. So, is this pervasion?
No pervasion. No pervasion. Because white is the color. If something isn’t formed, it must not be sound. So if something is not a color, if an object is not a color, then is it pervaded by being not white?
So is the pervasion established? Is this the correct reason, establishment? That white horse is not white? Why else? The reason is not at all.
Reason is not applicable. Sorry. Can’t say you’ll bat. Is not not a color is the reason is not applicable to white horse? Why?
Because white exists on a white horse. White exists on a white horse. White exists on a white horse. Then we can say then a sweater just like a sweater exists on you? I think just for some clarity, you know, if we were to have existence, it must be we would have to say, And a white horse.
This would have to be the subject. And a white horse, there is color. Or there is a saddle or something. Because not a color exists everywhere. I mean, not a color exists everywhere.
Space exists at everywhere. Color. So what do you think? This is the correct reason. White horse is a subject.
It is not white because it is not a color. Is a white horse not white? White is white. Is a white horse white? White horse is white.
It’s not white because it’s not a color. Then, is it then a not a color is applicable to white horse? Not color is applicable to white horse? It’s not applicable to the white horse. And white then a white horse is a color?
Yes, sir. A white horse is a white horse is a color? Yes, sir. White horse is a White horse is color. Okay.
I can understand now. White horse white horse is not a sentient being? It’s not a sentient being because of the color. May I say something how I can understand? Okay.
I consider myself under the racial ideas a white man, but I’m not a color. Mhmm. So it’s the black man, not a color. Is a black man black? Well, he is black.
Does That’s not a color. Or does he have black skin? Black skin. Yes. Same black skin.
So you have white skin? Yeah. Are you white? Aren’t you just this white? No, that’s good.
Didn’t accept it in my car. But good, white men in Asian terms. So what do think? Is the white horse white or not white? No.
It’s It’s a horse. But it’s not white. It’s white. Is the white horse a horse? I’m using a convention.
But the rights to go ahead, but it doesn’t generality and and Being a instance. Being a color does not exclude being a sensitive thing. Or is the skin is is the skin of a white horse hit sort of the the what do you say there? The hair of a white horse? Is that suit a hot coat?
Is the coat of a white horse it’ll be here? So but but the coat of a horse is not the horse. Is the coat of the horse the horse? The coat of the horse is not the horse. So just because the coat of a horse is suitable to be a color does not mean the horse is suitable to be a color.
Because Okay, this is what we went over and over when I was learning this and it’s a big it’s a big Tibetan joke. No. I mean, they keep going over they run this one in the ground. They keep going over and over. Okay.
I mean, according to, you know, the school that we’re learning, Sūtra School, a white horse is not white. A white horse is not white because it’s not a color. That’s perfectly good reasoning, good logic. A horse is not a a white horse is not a color, it’s not white. In order to be white, it must be a color.
And it must itself be a color. And a horse is a sentient being. It’s a non-associated compositional factor. Is a white horse a horse? A white horse is a horse?
Yes. No problem. But in the upper school, in the highest school, the middle way school, it’s quite there’s a saying that we do not contradict what is well known in the world, what is popular in the world. See, what does the Sūtra School say? Well, people just misuse the language.
They’re misusing their logic when they say a white horse is white. But the Middle Way schools say we do not contradict the world. The Buddha said, I do not contradict the world. People call white horse white. That’s perfectly okay.
So it would be acceptable to say it’s acceptable to say that. But strictly but within the Sūtra School, strictly speaking they say, No, this is misuse of language and it’s not correct logic. So we are sticking to the Sūtra School in our discussion. So in this discussion of white horse is not white because it’s not a color so we cannot logically in the Sūtra School we cannot say a white horse is white. But in everyday common uses we say a white horse is white.
And as far as the middle way school, we’d say that’s perfectly okay to talk in that way because we understand what we mean by that. We say this horse in the field is white. It means the same thing. Horse that I see in the field is white. The field.
Just white. It’s divided. Clearly, it is also white. Don’t go around telling people White horse is not white. White horse is not White horse is not white.
But why? But strictly speaking within the Sūtra School, white horse is not white. I mean, because of the I mean, no. I mean, the kids because you’re just twisting people’s minds around because, you know, when you start saying things like a white horse not white, then you’re going against what’s your your common sense, aren’t you? But as far as the proof, it it appears that it can’t be unless you say a horse is suitable to be a color.
And you can’t go very far with that. Now if was that the same with that golden pot and the pot thing? A a gold pot. The gold pot and the pot thing that in the middle way school, would that be accepted? The golden pot would be accepted as being the pot because there’s no in the world?
Golden pot is a gold a gold pot is a pot. There’s no problem. But I think it wasn’t the other one. It gold? It’s a gold pot.
Gold. Yeah. There was one time we had to do think those things. The golden. Oh, but and but. Why?
Sorry? Why isn’t golden part isolated part? Is not the isolated part because? Mean, there are four phenomena which are mutually pervasive with with isolated part. If you just remember the first one, then it will be It will be clear.
What what is the first one? The the There’s four phenomena which are mutually pervasive with isolated pot. What is the first one? The Same pot. Same as pot.
Okay? So golden pot is not the is not the isolated pot because? It’s not the same as Pot. It’s not the same as Pot. Why is it not the same as Pot?
Because it’s because it’s different than Pot. How’s that for how? A golden pot is an isolated golden pot. What’s the reason? Is a golden pot?
Golden pot is the subject. Is it an isolated golden pot? Because it’s the same as golden pot. Okay. So this should we take a look at the homework?
Alright. So we debate on it? What was it? What what were they? So much time.
So oops.