Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Can sound be consciousness? That live debate question anchors the opening of this 47-minute session with Ven Jampa Gendun, where students test syllogisms on sound, color, and form to practice the two criteria for a correct reason: property of position and positive pervasion. The session then turns to an introductory survey of cause and effect — the seventh topic of the lesser path of reasoning — where Gendun defines four types of cause (direct, indirect, substantial, cooperative) through concrete examples of fire and smoke, clay and potter, and seed and corn. He closes by showing why the distinctions matter: the debate over rebirth ultimately hinges on whether the brain is the substantial cause of mind or merely a cooperative one. Suited to students already working through the Collected Topics curriculum.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 49 CT 1988 08 16.mp3
UUID: 5840735a-7cef-4a22-954e-4614dc75e918
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-08-16
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.8 minutes
Words: ~4,051
What is the the seventh? So the lesser path of reasoning has eight divisions. Does anyone know what the seventh is? Cause and effect. That’s right.
So the introductory are the abbreviated small explanation of cause and effect. That’s right, really. So the there’s just a few. Well, maybe before we go on to that, if if let’s ask ask if there are any questions. Betty, did you you have some problems with syllogisms?
I’m still learning to detect it two weeks ago. Two weeks ago. And did did you have any specific problem that you can remember? Unfortunately, didn’t bring the notes that we could take. How did we take it?
Was with syllogism. You can have a mental image of space. And so it’s it’s there. Was was it in generality or was it in so I just no. It was in the.
Sound. Space being permanent or imperm or permanent? The way I wrote it down was that someone said it was impermanent, and then further on, it was stated that it was permanent, and it depended on the individual as to what space was. I’ll hear you. Sound and consciousness.
Sound as the subject, is it not consciousness? Because sound is not clear and known. Is that it? It was in that area there. Yes.
So what is the so we have a syllogism. Sound is the subject. It follows that it’s impermanent because of being a product. In this syllogism what is the thesis? What is the proposition or the thesis?
That sound is impermanent. Okay, that sound is impermanent. This is what you’re input. That’s right. So this is Sound is the subject, and permanent is the predicate.
That’s the quality which is being attributed to sound. And these together make the proposition or thesis that’s what you’re trying to establish. And product is the reason. The reason or the proof is the product. So we can So in order for this to be a correct reason So this is the reason.
Anything can be a reason. Anything which is selfless can be a reason. But within a given syllogism, in order for a particular reason to be a correct reason, it must have two qualities. What were the two qualities? First quality?
When we’re trying to establish whether a particular reason is a correct reason in a given syllogism? That’s right. So does is is product the property of the position in this particular syllogism? And what? What is this?
So a product can be applied to sound? Why? And the second quality it must have? Okay. So what does that mean in this case?
That a product is always impermanent. If an object is a product? It’s pervaded by? So any object that we take, you know, X, Y, or Z, if it’s a product, then it must be impermanent. And all these, whatever it is dogs, cats if it’s a product, then it must be impermanent.
If the reason, it must be the predicate. If it’s a product, it must be impermanent. So if the reason in any given syllogism satisfies these two qualities, then it’s a correct reason. So we give the reason: color. So, Alistair, sound is the subject that follows that it is impermanent because it is a color.
Is that a correct reason? It doesn’t have the property of position. So in your debate, what would you answer? Reason not established. Reason not isn’t Betty, why isn’t this the property of the position in this why isn’t color the property of the position in this particular syllogism?
So what does in order to do the properties of position, what does it in general, what does it have to what is the relationship between the reason and the subject? The reason is applicable to the subject. Subject. And in this case, it’s not applicable. So is is color applicable to sound?
No. Why? Just in general, roughly. Is It’s not an instance of a general idea. Is sound a color?
Yeah. So sound is not a color. How about how about the positive pervasion? Anybody? I think color is impermanent.
So it has the second quality, positive positive pervasion. If if it is a color, it’s pervaded by being impermanent. So that’s okay, but the the first quality, it is it’s not the property of the position. pervasion is pervasion is established. Yeah.
How about let’s get to let’s try this. And permit. Oh, I just said that. Check. Permit. Sound is the subject and it follows that it is permanent because it is form.
Reason not established. Reason not established. Does everybody agree with that? Yeah? So is the second quality not established?
So why isn’t it established? Why isn’t form? I’d say reason not established. But the reason is established because what? The property of the position.
There’s no positive pervasion. Why is form not a positive pervasion? Form is not provided by being permanent. No. Whatever whatever is form, if if an object is form, it must be provided by being permanent.
If an object is if an object is formed x y z, it must be also it must be pervaded by being permanent. If if if it’s to you know, whatever is the reason, it must be pervaded by the predicate. So, is that the case? If an object is formed, it’s pervaded by being permanent? So then the positive pervasion form is not the positive pervasion.
Therefore, what would you answer in debate? I said, Sound as a subject that follows that it is permanent because it is form. What would you answer? Well, would say there is no pervasion. Oh, there is no pervasion?
So there’s no pervasion. Is for the This is pervasion. Okay? This is one. Let’s try another one.
Consciousness. Sound is the subject that follows that it is permanent because of being consciousness. Really? What do you think about that? What would you what would you answer?
So is consciousness is it applicable to? It is applicable. Is sound consciousness? Sound is consciousness. I can realize it’s like.
Then everything is consciousness. Is sound clear in knowing? The sound. I know it’s sound, isn’t it? Uh-huh.
See? Not the exactly one, but I hear the sound. So everything is sound. So it’s clear knowing more. So is sound non physical or is it physical?
It must be physical because it’s form. So is it consciousness? It belongs to the world of consciousness. Certainly sound is not consciousness. It’s my inner consciousness.
Whatever is consciousness if an object is consciousness, doesn’t it have to be clear and knowing? No. It can be like a hidden phenomena. It’s not clear, is it? What’s the definition of consciousness?
It’s clear knowing. So what is the relationship between clear and knowing and consciousness? With respect to clear and knowing and consciousness, what the pervasion? It must be inclusive. So whatever is consciousness must be clear and knowing.
Yeah. So is sound clear? Non is it nonphysical? But it’s nonphysical. It is nonphysical.
Yeah. I said said it before, but when I hear the sound, I can’t touch. So it’s not physical for me. I can hear only. None physical.
It’s not a tangible object. Can’t touch it. Can’t smell it. I only can hear it. You confused me.
So I confused you about it. No. It’s it’s alright. But this is physical. Pardon?
Is it physical or not? What do you think? Sound. What do we mean when we say physical? It’s a product.
Anything which is a product is physical? Well, anything but is physical is impermanent. So sound is impermanent. Is That’s all. It has something to do with my body, Yeah.
Or I won’t. No. No. So is sound physical or nonphysical? I said physical.
Yeah? So then it’s not it’s not non physical. It’s not non physical. But it must be physical. It’s not So it’s not it’s not nonphysical.
It’s not nonphysical. It’s not it’s not clear. Why is not why is not nonphysical, not clear? Not nonphysical. It’s not clear.
But when we say physical, we mean clear means clear means physical? I mean, clear means nonphysical? Clear means non physical? Something which does not obstruct. Does sound obstruct?
Like, do sound waves can they, you know, have a force? Do they have a force? Like on your eardrum or something? Yes. Yes.
So, they have some kind of Ball? Yeah. So they have the quality of obstructing. So they’re not they’re physical. They’re not clear.
They’re not non physical. Clear means non physical? Why clear, non physical? What does the word clear mean when we talk about consciousness? Well, a valid cognition.
A valid cognition. So valid cognition. Where do go? So everything that’s a consciousness is Everything that’s a that’s yeah. So what does the word clear mean?
That’s what I said before. What? Everything together. Every What I can recognize with my eyes, with my ears, and everything. So stones are clear?
Stones. Tables. Tables. Yes. To me.
Oh, I mean, you oh, you see they’re clear to you. Not they’re not obscured. I mean, I can see the physical form. I can have a little picture of it, and I make up my mind. How about the how about the the table in my kitchen?
Is that clear? Well, this is not clear clear to me because it’s a phenomena. So not everything is clear? Not really. Sorry.
Anybody else? Alex? What’s the question? The question about consciousness and sound, is it applicable to Why? Because sound is not a consciousness.
How about pervasion? Is it mutually exclusive? You have the pervasion? Yeah. But I’m also asking, is there is there a part is is consciousness the positive pervasion in this syllogism?
No. Not really. Why? Because, obviously, there was if it were consciousness, it would be necessarily impermanent permanent. So if an object is consciousness, it is not pervaded by being permanent.
Okay. Yeah. Does anybody have a good idea? Yeah, first you check the property of your position. Not established.
That’s right. Okay. So this seventh topic is quite short. It’s just an introduction to cause and effect. There’s a a more extensive explanation of cause and effect when you get to the middling path of reasoning.
So this just gives you some a few definitions to start to play with of a few types of causes. Actually, when I gave the talk on rebirth, I talked about a few of these. So the definition of cause is that which produces, that which produces is the definition of cause, that which produces. So is the relationship with respect to cause and thing? What is the pervasion?
Does anybody disagree? Anybody agree? Whatever is the thing is a cause? We don’t think. I hope so.
What kind of doubts do you have? Don’t think about it a bit. How about the the last moment of a candle flame? Is that a thing? The last moment of a candle flame.
Just before it’s ready to go out. You mean you mean the light? Yeah. A candle a candle flame. It’s just The flame.
Just about to go out. When next instant, it’s it’s gonna be gone. It’s starting go. Is that is that a is that a cause? To make snow or smoke.
Okay. So That’s right. So, cause and thing. Anything which is a thing is a cause. Anything which is a cause and a thing is a thing.
Everything that the thing produces is that which produces. So, cause has in this, you know, this is an abbreviated introduction to cause and effect has four divisions. There’s direct cause, indirect cause, and what I talked about when I gave a talk on rebirth, substantial cause and cooperative cause. So there’s direct cause, indirect cause, substantial cause, and cooperative cause. So the definitions of these.
Definition of direct cause is that which directly produces. That which directly produces. The definition of an indirect cause, can anyone guess? There you go, sure. That which indirectly produces.
That which indirectly produces. Okay, the definition of a substantial cause. The definition of a substantial cause is the principal producer the principal producer of its own the principal producer of its own substantial effect the principal producer of its own substantial effect within the continuum of its own type within the continuum of its own type. The principal producer of its own substantial effect within the continuum of its own type. So maybe I’ll go through these four and then we’ll talk about them.
The definition of cooperative cause. The principal producer of its own cooperative effect. The principal producer of its own cooperative effect. Not within the continuum of its own type, not within the continuum of its own type. The principal producer of its own cooperative effect, not within the continuum of its own type.
So let’s look at these things and try some examples. Okay, we’ll take as a basis of it. Fire. So is fire a cause? Fire is the subject.
It follows that it is a cause? Why? Because it’s a thing that is Or what would be another reason? What is the definition of cause? So fire is the subject that follows that it is a cause because it is that which produces.
Yeah. Okay, fine. So we talked about the first two types of causes, direct cause and indirect cause. Now let’s take as a basis smoke. Smoke is the subject.
So what would be the direct cause of smoke? The direct cause of smoke? Fire. Fire is the direct cause. And the indirect cause?
Can anyone guess? Wood? Yeah. Wood? Indirect cause.
Yeah. What would what would be another indirect cause of smoke? Air. Air. Air would be an indirect cause.
Oyster. No. Wet wet wood. Wet wood. Is is water is is water a cause of fire?
No. Then how can it be a cause of smoke? Well, we should not use a bucket. A little bit wet wood still can burn but smokes. Yes.
So, okay. This right. This has a meaning. We can say that the direct cause arises immediately prior to its effect. The direct cause arises immediately prior to its effect.
That’s the general meaning. And the indirect cause arises before the immediate prior cause. The indirect cause arises immediately before the immediate the indirect cause arises before the immediate prior cause. So if we take as our example smoke, we said that fire is the direct cause. Fire arises immediately prior to its effect, smoke.
Yeah? Fire rises immediately prior to its effect. That is, it rises immediately prior to smoke. Whereas we said air and wood, take wood, is an indirect cause of smoke because wood arises before the immediate prior cause. That is fire.
So wood arises immediately before fire, which is the immediate prior cause of smoke. So that’s not too difficult. So wood would be some of the direct cause, is it? Wood would be you know, with respect to smoke? So what is the relationship between wood and fire?
Is wood the direct or indirect cause of fire? Correct. So wood is the direct cause of fire and therefore is what with respect to smoke? Direct, that’s fire. It arises before the immediate cause of smoke.
The immediate cause is fire. And since it rose before it, it’s only indirect cause of smoke. It’s not the direct cause of smoke. Only the direct only the immediately arising only the cause which arises immediately before the effect is the direct cause. Okay, on the basis if we make all these statements on the basis of smoke, then we can say that wood is the first we give direct cause.
Fire is the direct cause of smoke because it arises immediately prior to smoke, which is which is its effect. Fire is the direct cause of smoke because it arises immediately before fire, which is its effect. So there’s a direct connection between fire and smoke and there’s only indirect connection between smoke and wood, smoke and air. Fire is the direct cause of smoke because it arises immediately before smoke, which is its effect. Yeah.
And what was that long before that wood arises immediately before smoke? No, wood. Wood is the indirect cause of smoke because it arises before the immediate a prior cause, immediately prior cause. What is the immediately prior cause? Fire.
So wood is the indirect cause because it arises immediately before the it arises before the immediate prior immediately prior cause fire. And it is the cause of fire. It is the cause of fire and arises before it. And fire is the immediate cause of smoke. Therefore, wood is the indirect cause of smoke.
So let’s take a let’s take table. What is the immediate cause of the table direct cause of table? Wood. Why? Why?
What is the indirect cause of a wooden table? Tree. You can say tree. Tree. What?
Sweater. What is the direct cause of a woollen sweater? Wool. Any indirect cause? Woah.
Woah? Any indirect cause? Me. Okay. So that’s not too difficult.
The substantial cause and cooperative cause. When I talked about the rebirth, I talked to, I gave, I used these examples. So, if we, in the basis of pot, What is the okay, substantial cause. A principal producer of its own substantial effect. Substance.
This word substantial means substance. You know, like its substance is being transformed. Whatever, By substance it doesn’t have to be a solid. It can be even consciousness. Whatever it consists of, that is being transformed into something else.
Within it’s end there, it has a continuum of its own type. Continuum of its own type. This will become clear when we use examples. Use the example of a pot. Does anybody remember what the substantial cause of pot is?
Of a clay pot? Mud. Okay, Okay. Wet clay. Wet clay.
Okay. We can say ceramic part, okay? We’ll say ceramic part. Clay. Clay is the substantial cause of part what?
Of ceramic part, why? Substantial cause? Clay is the substantial cause of ceramic pot. Why? Because clay is the principal producer of its own substantial effect, ceramic pot, and it’s within the continuum of its own type.
So what is happening here? You know, if we compare this to the potter, the person who makes the pot, Both of these are causes of the pot. The clay is the cause of the pot and the potter is the cause of the pot. But there’s big difference between these two types of causes. One is the cooperative cause and one is the substantial cause.
One is included within the continuum of the pot, continuum of its own type. Is a pot and a potter the same type? Ceramic pot and the clay? Yes. So there’s a continuum.
By continuum, the potter, he makes a pot on its wheel and he’s finished with it and he takes off his apron and he goes home and has his supper. And he doesn’t become a part of the pot. He’s not incorporated into the pot, but the clay is. It itself is transformed and is changed into the ceramic pot. The potter is a cause of the pot, but he himself is not transformed into the ceramic pot.
When we used to debate, you know, we would say, well, you know, they took the potter and they ground them up. They killed them and they ground them up and they stuck them inside the pot, you know, things like this. Does he become the substantial cause of the pot? This is the kind of debate we used to do, just to give you an idea. So you can get the idea.
The clay, these are both principal producers. You know, a pot has many different causes. You know, water, fire. But we’re talking about the principal producers, the clay, the potter, and maybe its tools. These are both principal producers of the pot.
And they’re but one of these, the clay is actually transformed. It is within the continuity of the pot, its own type. So it itself is being transformed into the pot. After the pot is made, the clay is finished, it’s not there. But the potter, he himself is not he’s contributing to the production.
He’s producing the pot. He’s creating the pot. But he himself is not transformed in any way. Maybe he cuts himself and bleeds on the pot, I don’t know. Anyway, he himself is not transformed into the pot.
So there’s a different type. This becomes important when we talked about, when I gave that talk on rebirth, remember? The two types of, you know, whether the brain, you know, fact that rebirth comes down to the point of whether the brain is the substantial cause of mind or the cooperative cause of mind. This is what the question of rebirth comes down to, essentially. So we have to have a feeling, some idea of what are these two different types of causes cooperative cause and substantial cause.
The principal producer of its own substantial effect within the continuum of its own type. Okay, we’ll take another example. Corn. Okay. So we have What would be an example of a substantial cause of corn?
Seed. And a cooperative cause? Earth. Farmer. Now here we have to here there’s a little we have to make a little stipulation.
Why? Because you would think that the earth yeah, that’s okay. We don’t have to make Okay. Substantial cause and direct cause. Okay.
So what is the relationship? Substantial cause and direct cause. These are the things that you would start debating. What is the relationship between substantial cause and direct cause? With respect to substantial cause and direct cause, what is the pervasion?
Usually inclusive. Usually inclusive. You smile. So whatever is Okay, actually, the way I stated You’re right, Rudy. You don’t think so yourself.
Okay. Substantial cause of pot, we have to place it on a basis. Substantial cause of let’s let’s say fire. Let’s say part. Substantial cause of pot and direct cause.
Direct. Cause of thought. Okay. What is with respect to substantial cause of pot and direct cause of pot, what is the pervasion? Substantial cause of pot and direct cause of pot.
So is there a is there a Mutual inclusive again. Mutual inclusive again. Does everybody agree with that? Alistair doesn’t agree. Anybody else?
You want to debate with Rudy? So the substantial is the is the common locus, isn’t it? You’re saying if if an object is of substantial cause of thought, it is pervaded by being in direct cause of pot. Is that what you right? Yeah.
Yeah? Okay. See. An object is a a substantial cause of pot, it is not a direct cause of pot. Pot as the subject.
Pot as subject and then demonstrate the consequences which he’s left with. Can anyone give a counter-example? How about we take the potter as the subject. Potter as the subject. He is the direct cause of pot.
It follows that he is the substantial cause of pot because he is the direct cause of pot. The potter? Not the direct cause of pot. Ah, good. The potter is the subject, he is the direct cause of pot because he is that which directly produces the pot.
That which directly produces the pot. Potter is the subject. It follows that it is the direct cause of pot because it is that which directly produces the pot. Now, potter is a cooperative cause, isn’t it? The potter. And?
How can it be the direct cause of the pot? Because the potter is not the direct cause of pot. The potter does not directly produce the pot. He produces the pot. Does he indirectly produce the pot or directly produce the pot?
Directly. Directly produces the pot? Yes. And for the But that doesn’t mean it’s direct direct cause of the pot. Direct cause of the pot is still the question.
What is the definition of of direct cause?