Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The classic syllogism “sound is impermanent because it is a product” anchors this 44-minute session in which Ven Jampa Gendun teaches the fundamentals of Buddhist debate logic. He defines the three parts — subject, predicate, proof — then explains what makes a reason correct: it must be the property of the position (applicable to the subject) and satisfy positive pervasion. Students practice live, answering “reason not established” or “no pervasion” to test cases involving dogs, space, and form. Gendun then introduces three classes of correct reason — effect, nature, and non-cognition — illustrated by smoke on a mountain pass and unseen fire on a dark ocean. The session closes by opening the topic of generality and instance.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 46 CT 1988 08 02.mp3
UUID: 324d05fd-a299-441e-abef-0872e1a36507
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-08-02
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 44.1 minutes
Words: ~3,844
Last week we were looking at the this handout on which gave a little information on syllogism. So just does everybody have a copy of that? No? Okay. Let’s see.
There’s two. Are those two sheets different? Yes. Okay. Yeah.
Yeah. Okay. Good. Everybody has. So we’re just going to review.
So sound, I’m just sound is the subject. It is impermanent because it is a product. So it’s a three part syllogism. This entire statement is is a syllogism. So we what is this what is the subject?
Sound. Okay. Sound is the subject. And impermanent, what is that? Predicate.
Predicate. What is the meaning of the word predicate? What predicate? Yeah. It’s some quality that we’re applying to sound.
Property of sound. Yeah? Yeah. The predicate is some quality, some attribute, some quality that you’re applying to sound. And what is the what is this called because it is a product?
Product? What is product? Reason. Reason. Actually, technically, we call it a proof.
Proof. Technically, it’s a proof. You can have a reason doesn’t have to be a proof. And also, should note that a proof doesn’t have to be a correct proof. You can have an incorrect proof.
Okay. What is sound? Is it permanent taken together? What are we calling that? Thesis.
So the thesis sound is impermanent, and we’re trying to establish it by way of the the proof product. I think that was all. And the definition of correct proof? First of, what is it? What is the proof is is mutually inclusive with what?
What is proof is mutually inclusive with what? If something is if something is approved, what does it have to be? A A property. How about like, the horns on a rabbit’s head? Are they a proof?
They’re not approved. That. Do you think? Think they’re not a proof because they’re not a proof. Sound is impermanent because it’s horns on a rabbit’s head.
Then is it a proof. It can be an incorrect proof. That’s right. So anything can be a proof. Anything can be a reason.
It doesn’t have to be not necessarily. Just because something is a reason or proof doesn’t mean it’s a correct proof or a or a correct reason, but anything can be a proof. And what was the definition of correct proof? Do you remember? So it’s on this sheet here.
On page on the back of the first page. The correct reason is is defined as that which is the three modes. Three modes. Now which is now which is three modes. So, you know, for our purposes and for in general, we can just, can be concerned with the first two because the third the third is just the opposite.
The reverse of the second. That is the what they call it, counter pervasion. And if there’s positive pervasion, there’s always counter pervasion. So, we okay. The first the first mode, that means if whatever this is, if it is a correct reason.
A correct reason can be anything, ain’t it? But within a certain syllogism, like, is dog a correct reason? Is dog a correct proof? That how? Is it
Yeah. No. Dog is not a correct proof. Subject. No.
Just dog by itself. No. There’s nothing. There’s nothing. There’s no reason.
It’s not a proof. It is a correct alright. If I say, form. Is form a correct proof? You can’t judge whether it’s a correct proof or not until there’s a reason attached to it.
Then it’s not a correct proof. It’s not a proof. It’s not then we say anything could be a proof? Is can’t anything be a proof? Yeah.
If if a reason’s applied to a subject How about it? It has to be it has to be applied. Then form form itself isn’t a isn’t a proof. Wouldn’t say so. It’s a proof because it it proves that sound is impermanent.
In that case, it’s being used as a proof. It’s being used for some reason. Okay. And I guess product product approved? Most would have thought things would have had to be in relation to something else before they can be determined.
So there’s a there’s a difference between the proof which establishes that and proof. That’s not maybe it’s not important to go into. Proof which establishes that, which establishes that thesis and proof in general. Proof which establishes a thesis and proof in general. Just because something can be a proof without being a proof which establishes a particular, thesis.
We have that use of the word in English, I see. Of what? Of the word proof. Something being proved without being proved in the thesis. Is there such a thing as incorrect proof?
An invalid proof? Isn’t the connotation though that it’s always proof of a particular? Then you say a proof is always correct. Proof is always correct? If it is a proof, it’s always it’s a correct proof?
Proof. One is just proof by itself and one’s proof of a thesis. That’s what I’m trying to look at. Yeah. So what is the definition of proof?
What is the definition of correct proof, for example? Something which irrefutably establishes a Okay. So, doesn’t the product irrefutably establish the a thesis? It does because it established the thesis sound as impermanent, which is a thesis. But in existing isolation, it doesn’t It’s not coupled with the thesis therefore it can’t be approved.
That’s only when it’s actually used as a as a thesis. You won’t. It’s not When it’s by itself, it’s not being used as a proof. Okay. I don’t know.
So in looking at what is the correct proof, we have to it has to have what two qualities? It’s property of the position. Yeah. K. What with respect to this syllogism, what is the property?
So is And this syllogism is product property of the position. So, is is in this in this syllogism, is product is product the property of the position in this syllogism? You’re saying why why is product of the why is product the property position in the syllogism? The sound is a product. Okay.
So we can say most simply because sound applies to the product. Product applies to sound. Product applies to sound. And why? Because sound.
Because sound is a product. Okay. So the and the first, the the property of the position. Position. The that means the reason or the proof is applicable to the subject.
It can be some in one in one in some way applied. In what two ways are they possible to apply? Business or existence. Either by way of isness or existence. In this case, in in which way?
This plot product being applied to the subject. Isness. Since sound is a product, therefore, we we can say that sound that product is the property of position of this in this syllogism. So that’s the first mode. What was the second?
Second quality of a correct proof. Positive Positive pervasion. Is product the property of the pervasion in this syllogism? Why? Because product applies to all in the predicate.
It might because any case of the of the proof, any instance of the proof is an instance of the predicate. Anything which is a product, any object which is a product is an instance of the predicate impermanent. If it is a product, it’s pervaded by being impermanent. It’s pervaded, pervasion, per positive pervasion. If if an if if an object is a product, it is pervaded by being impermanent.
Okay. Let’s let’s play around with this. So, if if if if an object is proof, is pervaded by being the predicate. In this case, if product if an object is product, it’s pervaded by being impermanent. Let’s put something else here.
Let’s put form. Okay. So a is form a correct proof? I think I just used the word reason. I think that’s simpler.
Okay? Is form a correct reason establishing this thesis in this syllogism? Is form a correct reason establishing the thesis of this syllogism? So first, so it has two qualities in order to be a correct reason. Look at the first quality.
Is form the property of the position in this syllogism? Anybody? Pretty easy, I would think. Is is form?
Is the reason form? The property of the position in the syllogism. What does the property of position have to be? Okay. Is form applicable to the subject?
Okay. In what way is it applicable? It has to be either applicable by way of is ness or existence? Existence. Existence.
In what way do you mean that? Yeah. So it would be sound is form. Yeah. Form is applicable to sound because sound is form.
Okay. So, in this form is form is the property of the position in this syllogism established in this thesis. Form is the property of position established in this thesis. Is it the positive pervasion established in this thesis? Does it have the second quality necessary in order to be a correct reason?
Is form the part- Which way does it say? If an object is the reason, it’s pervaded by being the predicate. So is this the is form the the positive pervasion established in this thesis? I think so. Does everybody agree?
If if an object is formed, is it pervaded by being impermanent? Yes. Alright. So then form is is the property of the position and the positive pervasion, establishing this thesis. Therefore, it is a correct reason.
Yeah. Establishing this thesis. Permanent. Okay. Let’s try another one.
Is dog a correct reason establishing that thesis? Sound is impermanent? Okay, what is it? In order to be a correct reason, it has to have how many properties? One, two. Okay, yeah.
We’ll just simplify. That’s right, though. Okay, and this does the reason dog? Is it the property of the position? Why not?
Because the dog isn’t sound. So the dog is what? Not applicable? Isn’t the first one. Can’t be applied yeah.
It’s not the proper position because dog cannot be applied to this subject. But what is the subject? If it would say at sound Yeah, if we had dog as a subject then this reason could be applied to the subject. Dog at. Does that mean that if there’s no applicability, can it be known that isness?
I would say yes, just off the top of my head. Yeah, it means that it can be applied to the subject. So what? Dog is what? Dog is not a correct reason establishing sound is impermanent because?
Because it’s not applicable to sound. Because, yeah, it’s not the property of the position. Not the property. So if we were debating, what would be the respondent, the person sitting down, the person who’s answering? What would be his if the debater said if the questioner said, Sound is impermanent because it’s a dog, What would be your answer?
Okay, You said sound is impermanent and if you disagreed you would say, Why? Let’s say for example you disagree. And then I would give my reason because it’s a dog. And you can there’s only two possible answers available to you at that point. What are the two answers?
Pardon? That’s one. And what’s the second one? I looked up no pervasion. No pervasion.
Okay. Those are the only two possible answers. Either if property of the position if the reason is not the property of the position, then the reason is not established. If the reason is not the positive pervasion, then there’s no pervasion. So your answer would either be reason not established or no pervasion.
So in this case what would you answer? What would be your answer? Both. Is this possible? Oh, it’s possible, yes.
Generally you answer, if it’s both then you would answer the first reason not established. The reason not established. Yeah, so the reason is not established. Is the positive pervasion does dog establish the positive pervasion of the thesis sound as impermanent? Does the reason dog establish the positive pervasion?
It’s the reason dog the positive pervasion establishing the thesis sound is impermanent. How do we do how how do we tell the reason is dog. How do we tell whether that’s the positive pervasion or not? Because it’s not applicable to the subject, to the subject. It has to be what?
Has to be applicable to impermanent. Isn’t dog applicable to impermanent? Yes. So that’s the best one. It does have the second reason, but doesn’t have the best one.
We can’t simply say applicable. We have to say if it is a dog and it’s pervaded by being impermanent. Isn’t that the you talk about the property position? No. Property position is Doing the positive pervasion.
Yeah. That the reason is applicable to the subject. Positive pervasion is that any case of the reason is pervaded by being an object which is impermanent or of the predicate. So in this case, the dog is the positive pervasion, but it’s not the property of the position so you would answer reason not established. I what we’ll do.
Let’s see. Let’s, let’s keep sound. It is impermanent because it is form. So we’ll just go around, okay? And you just answer either if not the reason is not established, you can answer not established.
Reason not established, there’s no positive pervasion, then you can answer no pervasion. Okay? So for example, I’m just going to supply different reasons. Okay, maybe I’ll just save it. Penny?
Uh-uh, a little confused. Okay. And what is the first thing you’re going to look for? What is the very first to see whether it’s the correct reason? The property of the position.
Okay. And how do we know whether something is the property of the position? Why? No? Okay.
It’s okay. Whether this reason is applies to the subject? Just the subject. Yeah. Does does permanent apply to sound?
Yes. Permanent? Oh, I’m sorry. No. It doesn’t.
So okay. Is this not a standard. Yeah. That’s fine. The part.
Aesthetic sound, it is a dog because it is a cat. Okay. Why? Because not sound. It doesn’t have the proper position.
I would Okay. So if you were just if I said why, then you say, if an object is sound, it is not pervaded by being dog. Yeah? That’s good. Ready?
Uh-huh. You tricked me. Now, one, you you you talk about a plea to subject them the other time to the question. What do I have to do first? Okay.
In order to be a correct reason, has to have two qualities. When you look for those two qualities, first you look for the whether reason can be applied to the subject. That’s the first thing you look for. So, say, yeah, that’s Okay. And then the second is whether if an object is the reason, it must be pervaded by being the predicate.
Okay? It must okay. So what’s the first tier? That is, what you call, not established. Okay.
Why not why? Because it’s not applicable to to subject. Because? Dog is not sound. Oh, what is it?
Dog is not Sound is not a dog? Sound is not a dog. The dog is not a sound. Okay. Good.
Betty? So sound is the subject, it is a dog because it is form. So that’s a syllogism. So we give a reason, and we want to know whether that’s a correct reason, establishing this thesis that sound is a dog. So the first thing we look at is to is to see whether the reason form can be applied to the subject, sound.
So can form be applied to sound? Okay. So that’s fine. And we have to look at the second quality, whether, you know, if an object is the reason, that is form, is it pervaded by being is that object pervaded by being the predicate dog? So if an object is form, is it pervaded by being a dog?
Is it necessarily a dog? Okay. So your answer would be? No No pervasion. No pervasion.
Yeah? That’s great. That’s good. Sound is the subject. It is a dog.
Why? Because it’s form. No pervasion. If form, it’s not pervaded by being a dog. Space?
Why? You say your answer was they’re not established, and I say why? I don’t know what way to express it. Why? Sound because sound without accent.
Because sound is not space. Sound is not space. Yeah. The subject is not the the reason. Sound is not space.
I have to say it’s not applicable. When you say not established, means you’re saying you’re saying it’s not applicable. And I say, why isn’t it? Sound because sound is not space. Yeah.
That’s good. So then we have this this other type of see, consider yeah. As I said, that should that should read on the mountain pass, on the Smoky Mountain Pass. It doesn’t have the word on there. That’s a misprint.
Okay. On the mountain. On the Smoky Smoky Mountain Pass. On the smoky mountain pass, is fire because there is smoke. So if there is smoke is a correct reason establishing that on the on the smoking mountain pass there’s a fire, it must have these two qualities, property of the position and positive pervasion.
So does the smoke apply to On the Smoky Mountain Pass? Yeah? In what way does it apply? Has it can be by way of business or existence? I think it’s the second.
Yeah. Smoke it applies to on the Smoky Mountain because pass because smoke exists on the Smoky Mountain pass. On the Smoky Mountain pass. And then, okay. And then is is it the positive pervasion?
If if there is smoke, is it pervaded by being that there is fire? There’s a lot of debate about that. You have a smoke bomb or something like that. Anyway Depends on the definition of fire. Yeah.
They say that the smoke is that which arises from fire. Yeah. So that if there is smoke, there must be fire. This doesn’t doesn’t have to exist at the same time. The the fire the fire could have gone out, but there it is.
Anyway, fire is the cause. This is what’s called, you know, there’s many different types of reasons. This is where the where the the reason is the effect of the predicate. Therefore, you cannot you can understand the existence of the the existence of the predicate by by establishing the effect. By by knowing that there exists smoke, at that same place, there must exist fire because the if if if the effect exists at that place, then the cause must exist at that place.
There’s different classes of reasons. But you don’t run across this type of, But this is anyway, this is just to illustrate that there is two possible ways that the reason can be applied to the subject by way of either isness or existence. Yeah, this I don’t think we’ll go into these, but further down on those notes six, seven, eight, three types of correct reasons from the point of view of the nature. Correct reason of effect, correct reason of nature, and correct reason of non cognition. Yeah.
So, reason of effect would be this. On the Smoky Mountain pass, there is fire because there’s smoke. That’s a correct reason. That’s an an example of a correct reason of effect. The because smoke is the effect of fire.
Correct reason of nature, sound as the subject. It is impermanent because it’s a product. So if there’s if two things are of the same nature, then the presence of the of the reason. If the predicate and the reason of the same nature, then if the predicate is if the reason is present, then the predicate must also be present. So if if a object is if an object is a product it must be impermanent because those two are the same nature, same entity.
And then correct reason of non cognition. Consider on the ocean at night upon which there is no fire. There is smoke because there is no fire. There is no smoke because there is no fire. Because you don’t have you know, if if on the dark if on the ocean at night because you if there were a fire you could easily see it.
And because you don’t see fire then you can understand that there’s no smoke because if there was a fire you would see it and because you don’t see it there’s no fire therefore there can be no smoke. So that’s a reason by way of non cognition. The fact that you don’t see something can act as a reason for establishing that in this case that its effect doesn’t exist either at that same place. So there’s various types of classes of reasons. And when you study in the first year at logic at the dialectical school, you go in for about three months, you study different types of reason.
Just that’s anyway, that’s so important. Does everybody feel okay with that? Anybody have an idea of what? Maybe can’t. I meant the reason, not establishment, no pervasion.
Yeah. And we had that we we didn’t finish the homework last time. What do we think we were doing now? Oh, wait. We generality in particular?
Generality in incident. Was that the last one? Yeah. With respect to generality and instance, what is pervasion? Anybody?
I took you for a Did everybody get this? Did you get this camera? Oh, that’s the master. So with respect to generality and instance, what is the pervasion? Mutually inclusive?
So what do we start with? Start with what? Mutually exclusive. Yeah. So let’s see if it’s mutually exclusive or not.
So is there a common locus between generality and instant? What would that be, Betty? I caught your Is there something which is both the generality and an instance? Uh-huh. Think of some object, any object between one and ten.
Don’t tell me. It is a Think of think Just think of some object and see. Just test it. For example? Pot.
Okay. Let’s let’s take a look at pot. Let’s see a pot. And that’s I mean, that’s the best way to begin. Just just pick some object and see if it works.
So is pot a generality? What? What would be the simplest way to think about a generality? So if we say, we can say this big circle is a pot and this whole thing is a pot. Is there something that it’s kind of surround?
The what? A generality is what? It’s something which has an instance. Yeah? If it has an instance, then it’s a generality.
Yeah. So does pot have an instance? Yes. For example? What would be an instance of pot?