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 guides students through live debate on causation from the Collected Topics curriculum, opening with the question of whether the potter is a substantial cause of the pot and whether the clay on the wheel counts as its direct cause. Students take turns constructing and attacking syllogisms, working through the distinctions between substantial, direct, cooperative, and indirect causes using clay, potter, fire, and wood as test cases. The debate establishes that substantial cause and direct cause stand in a four-possibilities relationship, not mutual inclusion or exclusion. The session closes by wrestling with double-negative pervasions, illustrated with a lighthearted detour through Vegemite and Australians. Suited to students actively practicing formal Buddhist debate logic.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 50 CT 1988 08 16.mp3
UUID: 3bf68954-e063-4190-86a1-a3522f34c4ad
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-08-16
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.9 minutes
Words: ~4,133
Just chance or close the pot? Pot is the subject, it follows that he is within the continuum of the he is of the pot. Yeah. Yeah.
He’s he’s within the continuum. He’s within the pot. And so the potter the potter is the subject. He is transformed into the the substance of the pot. So when he’s finished making the pot, there’s no pot the potter left.
Then he doesn’t become a part of the pot? Does the potter become a part of the pot? No. He becomes a part of the pot because he’s substantial. He is the substantial cause of pot.
Look. Some people say that about food, you know, that some of the people’s energy goes into food. So I suppose some of his energy could go into that pot, but he’s not completely transformed into it. Yes. It does.
Definitely a connection between the potter and the pot and the clay and everything. Yeah. There’s definitely a connection. But what is what is it that But not the physical, only a mental. There’s connection.
Yeah. The cause and effect. Yeah. We’re talking about whether it’s cooperative Yeah. Or substantial.
So is the is the potter the substantial cause of pot or the cooperative cause of pot? But he is the co of his cause. He’s not the And also the substantial. He’s also the substantial. So what is the How to direct.
Is the cooperative Potter is the subject. He is not the substantial cause of the pot? Potter is the subject. If potter is not the substantial cause of pot? I I get picked up because I still think as long as the mind is involved, it’s it’s something impossible.
Can’t get rid of this next time. The mind is involved. Is the mind being transformed into the pot? The mind of the potter? Is it sort of made into the pot?
Well, it’s not only the hands which formed the pot. His mind is involved as well. But does the mind somehow get formed into the pot and then get all mixed in with the clay? With respect to substantial cause and direct cause, what is the pervasion? Anybody?
It is not mutually inclusive. Must be free possibilities. Which pervades which? Okay. You wanna Kippel, you wanna debate Alastair?
So who’s who’s holding which position? I think Alastair says it’s four possibilities. With respect to substantial cause of part and direct cause of part, what is the pervasion? Full possibility. So cloudy is the subject.
That’s all I said it is. But substantial cause of pain and direct cause of pain. Exit. What’s this here? Posit do I have to go through and do the others now?
Or I mean To establish? Pervasion. To establish this for for possibility. Yeah. To establish that.
Yes. And you said you accepted the common locus? Because I mean, you were you were you said Well, obviously, because I’m not. So then you have to show that clay is not a common locus? Okay.
Is clay a substantial cause of Clay is the subject? Clay is the subject. And is it a substantial cause of pot? If clay is the subject, is it a direct cause of pot?
Why? Because it directly produces power. Close. Okay. Because it doesn’t directly produce the pot.
As a subject. It is it does not directly produce the pop because it needs the action. It needs to be acted upon to directly produce the pot. Otherwise, the clay could just sit in the ground. I mean, if you take the the piece of clay that’s on the wheel.
Just the piece of clay that’s on the wheel. Take that. That’s cheating. But even if it’s on the wheel, okay. So clay, okay, clay on the wheel needs the action of the potter to be to to be a direct producer of the product.
So So what what was your answer? That I just accept? So then you’re saying that Yeah. But then when I go on to to wrap it up, he won’t agree with me. That’s alright.
I’m specify. He gave a reason, didn’t he? Repeat your syllogism. The definition of syllogism in English is incorrect. Alright.
Clay is clay is an example. Clay is a subject? Clay is a subject. It is not the direct cause of pot because it does not directly produce pot.
What is another status? What is another status? The class, the subject, it does not directly produce pot because it needs the action of the potter to be a direct producer of pot. Are you you should I shouldn’t add that that that last little bit because It’s an easy action required. So you’re saying.
So so the direct cause so clay cannot be a direct cause of pot because the direct cause of pot is both clay and potter. Okay. So how have we lost as a surgeon? Because? You gave what reason do you want to stay?
Because it needs to be formed. It Needs to be formed. Needs to be formed. Man, you said maturation. Oh, that was for a different reason.
Okay, how about this reason? It’s the same sort of thing I’m getting at. About this one? Clay is not direct cause of pot because it needs to be formed into the pot, right? Formed into the pot.
Because, because, it needs to be formed into the pot. Okay. So what is is the is the property the property is the reason established? Yes. Is pervasion established?
No. So what would you No pervasion. No pervasion. So what is that say what is he saying? He’s saying no pervasion.
He’s saying So what is he saying? He’s saying that needing to be formed into a pot and not direct cause of the pot. If an object needs to be formed into the pot, it is not pervaded by not being a direct causal pot. If an object needs to be formed, if A, this is A, this is B. If A, then no pervasion, then, you know, if there’s pervasion it must be B, then B.
If an object needs to be formed into pot, Alastair is saying it’s not pervaded by being not the direct cause of pot. My mind’s found, Joe. For example, does wood need to be formed into fire? Need to be what? What do you say?
Transformed? Let’s say transformed. Does wood need to be transformed into fire? Yeah, sure. So, but is wood not the direct cause of fire?
Yeah. So simply because something needs to be transformed into its effect doesn’t mean that it’s the direct cause of that effect. For example, wood and fire. Wood needs to be transformed into fire, but it’s not pervaded by being not the direct cause of fire. Okay.
So you is this do you see your reason? Mhmm. There’s no no pervasion? Just because something needs to be formed into a pot doesn’t mean it’s not the direct cause of pot. Yeah.
That’s okay. I think when I started, I wasn’t anywhere at all. That’s fine. Then it’s fine. So there’s obviously between all these causes, there’s a number of different relations.
Yeah. What is the so between substantial cause pot and direct cause of pot, what is what is the point? Alastair is saying it’s four four possibilities. So you can run through this. You can run through this.
What wanna go ahead and finish you can finish the debate? Mhmm. So what have the code says? I’ve covered that there is the common locus. So the so there’s the common locus?
Play on the wheel. So so play, I’m gonna rule as a subject. And it follows that as a substantial cause of pot. You know? The first is not there’s not always a direct cause of pot.
Exit. Positive. Okay. How on the wheel that is that does not give rise to pot. Clay on the wheel that is not acted upon.
Okay. Clay on the wheel is not the direct cause of pot. Okay. What’s the goal with? If if if it is clay on the wheel, then it’s not pervaded by being the direct cause of pot?
Clay on the wheel is not pervaded by being the direct producer of pot? Clay on the wheel, Clay is not the cause of pot? Clay is the subject. Is not the cause of the pot because it is not the indirect cause nor the direct cause of pot. Clay is a subject and is it Clay is a subject.
It is the cause of pot. Accept. It is the direct cause of pot. Clay is a subject and it’s cause of pot because it is a direct cause of pot. Clay is subject, is it not the direct cause of pot? Why?
It is the direct cause of pot. If something is a cause, it have to be either the direct cause or not the direct cause? Accept. To play as a subject, Is it the direct cause of the part? It follows that it’s the direct cause of the pot?
What? It’s the direct cause of the pot. If something is the cause of the does it have to be either the direct cause of the pot or the indirect cause of the pot? It must be either. Like clay could be.
The indirect cause and the direct cause of part. The clay on the wheel? That’s the subject. Is it which is it? Direct cause of the pot or indirect cause of the pot?
The clay on the wheel immediately before production. What’s the direct cause? Direct cause of the pot. So whatever is clay on the wheel is pervaded by being a direct cause of the pot? Was the understanding that pot is that dried?
Was it then then Then clay is not if if it’s clay if it’s a if it’s clay on the wheel, it’s not pervaded by being a cause of pot. Makes sense. If it is if it is clay on the wheel, then it’s not pervaded by being a cause. If it’s clay on the wheel, it’s not pervaded by being a direct cause. It’s not pervaded by being a cause of pot.
For example, wood. Wood wood is not the is not is not pervaded. If an object means wood, it’s not pervaded by being the cause of fire. Dry wood, kindling. Dried, kindling wood.
Why? Because it’s not pervaded by being either the direct cause or the indirect cause of wood, of fire. Dry kindling wood is the subject. It is pervaded by being the cause of fire. Exit.
It’s pervaded by being the indirect cause of the indirect cause of fire. Exit. And clay on the wheel is pervaded by being the direct cause of the pot? Yes. Okay.
It doesn’t have you know, for something it doesn’t have to be actually I mean, clay on the wheel is the direct cause of the pot. But it doesn’t mean it actually has to produce it. Right? So the clay ends up being a direct cause, substantial cause, and cooperative cause. Cooperative cause? No.
It can’t be a cooperative cause. So what is so it’s the what? It’s a substantial cause. Clay on the wheel is the common locus, which means substantial cause and direct cause. Okay, then.
Go on further. K. Then you check on both provisions. Alright. If an object is Alright.
Yeah. So it’s pervasion one way, it seems. If it not if a clown of the wheel is a substantial cause of the problem, is it not pervaded by being the direct cause of If if an object is the substantial cause of pot, it is not pervaded by being the direct cause of pot? Yeah. So I’m asking.
Then you can ask me to pause it for that minute. Yeah. Say a, a not b. Well, we we don’t necessarily have to stick to the same example all the time. If could I have said clay on the wheel as a subject, is it pervaded by being a substantial cause of pot?
So the clay on the wheel is a subject. Is it not pervaded by being the direct cause of it? Why? Well, I’m trying to establish. It seems that if you let us war, that means I don’t accept what say.
Mhmm. Okay. He doesn’t accept your thesis. Mhmm. He doesn’t accept your thesis.
Well, he was the one who said it was four possibilities. So I’m sort of trying to say to him, look, clay on the wheel is the subject. It’s a substantial cause of pot. Is it? No.
So he’s saying, it we just wanna find out, is there a common locus? Is there something which is both a and b? So he’s positive. Yeah. We got that.
So there’s common locus. We move then we just move on. Okay. If an object is a Mhmm. And it’s not provided by being b.
We wanna see if it’s mutually exclusive. Mutually inclusive. So if it’s not, you know, so if an object is A, then is it pervaded or not pervaded by B and B? So he said since he said it was four possibilities, he’s saying it’s not pervaded. So you want to find out what object he’s talking about.
So if an object is a substantial causal part, it is not pervaded by being a direct cause of pot. And then he agrees and posit that object. So do we have to establish our permission? Sorry. Does it direct cause of pop?
Is it not pervaded by being a substantial cause of pot? Yes. It’s a. Is there any one direct cause? If if I thought I thought there was only one thing which directly produced the pot, and then your cooperative causes.
So it seems to be part of the cooperative cause and not a direct cause. Oh, or I should say should I say reason not accepting? Mhmm. Potter is the subject. He is not a direct cause of pot.
Pardon? Not direct cause because the core core cause is the cooperative cause. Not pervaded by being. Think you have to spell that out for me. So what do you say what do you say now?
If an object is a cooperative cause of pot, a cooperative cause of pot is not pervaded by being not a direct cause Just because something is a cooperative cause apart doesn’t mean it’s it cannot be a a direct cause apart. Okay. That’s what he’s saying. You don’t have to accept that.
That’s what when he says not not no pervasion. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Okay.
Well, that’s where you could go back. I mean, of these points could be debated further. Clay in the ground. It is the, you know, you could go back. Clay in the ground is the subject.
It follows that it’s the essential cause of pot. Why? Because it is the principal producer of pot. And? Accept.
Within the continuum. Or as in as in the continuum of the time. Yeah. Have a different type. It’s been here.
Which if clay in the pot clay in the ground is the subject. It is not the direct cause of the pot. Why? Because it does not immediately precede pot. Or you can say because it’s indirect cause of pot.
Either one. Because it does not immediately precede its effect pot. It doesn’t So a number of things can immediately proceed. Yeah. So the clay on the ground, first it has to be taken out of the ground, transported to the to the his wheel.
So it’s not You couldn’t say wheel was it. Could you say wheel was directly clock? I think so. But what is I still haven’t found the whole company. Is it like coffee?
Yes. Okay. It’s a cooperative. It’s a cooperative cause, but it’s also a direct cause. So this there’s direct there’s indirect and cooperative.
So these are these all have have a relationship of what? Four possible. Yeah. So these all have substantial cause and indirect cause, cooperative cause and indirect cause, cooperative cause and direct cause and indirect cause. They all have a relation a pervasion of four possibilities with one another.
So you do like four circles. It’s like they’re all like this. And one is walking. Yeah. Just let me get I’ll give you the rest of this the meaning of Oh, we didn’t get to that, did we?
Maybe we can do that next time, division of effect. Maybe we can So is clay on the ground even a direct cause of the pot? Because it’s immediately preceding clay on the wheel. Substantial cause? Cause. What do you what what would you say to him?
If he said if I said pot is the subject, it is not the direct cause of pot because it’s the substantial cause of pot. That’s a good that’s if you understand this thing, clay on the ground. Clay on the wheel. What would you say on the ground? Clay on the ground.
In the ground. In the ground. It is not the direct Indirect. Indirect cause. Cause it is substantial.
Cause of substantial cause. Okay. There’s a syllogism, right? So what would be your would be your answer? Clay on the ground is the subject.
Follows that it is not the indirect cause of pot because it is not the substantial cause of pot. So? Well, the first one is a positive pervasion between clay on the ground and substantial cause. That’s Not not pervasion. Oh, sorry.
Property. Yeah. Yeah. So that’s okay. That’s okay, isn’t it?
Yeah. But, what? I can’t think on that signal. If if an what? That’s right.
Why? If an object is substantial So this I mean, before you if someone would given you this answer, you wouldn’t wouldn’t have Because the reason is established. But before we knew this, we understood pervasion. Couldn’t there were times when we didn’t quite know how to answer, and this was because we hadn’t learned the pervasion yet. There’s no pervasion.
Just because something is an object is a substantial cause of doesn’t mean it cannot be the indirect cause of thought or the direct cause of thought. There’s no pervasion. Can you help me on that second bit? If so you just say, you know, call this a, call this a and b? Yes.
If an object is if an object is a? Yes. It is what? Not? Not, not.
It is not pervaded by B. And what is B? Not, not the indirect cause. So if an object is A, it is not pervaded by B. If an object is a substantial cause, the pod is not pervaded by B, not the indirect cause.
There’s no pervasion. In order for there to be a pervasion, then you have to be if it’s a, then must be b. It’s really funny. Since I got two negatives, my brain just screams. You know?
It’s like it just jams. This is one unit here, this is one unit. This whole thing is one unit, that’s V. So I can understand it’s sort of on the face of it, but somehow, know, sort of gets to these If A, then must be B. In this case, it’s not B.
Is it just because there’s negative in here? Yeah, I understand what you mean. But you just have to think of this not the indirect cause, it’s one unit. Don’t to me, that’s just what what I was saying with that whole thing. Why?
But I can’t understand. My brain turned off. I’m what, why? How does the second bit cause? Is there anything which is of substantial cause and is it an indirect cause?
Substantial cause of pot and is also an indirect cause of pot? Clay. It’s like the clay in the Clay on the ground. Okay, clay in the front so there’s no pervasion. It’s difficult something clay on the ground as the subject.
Clay on the ground. Wasn’t that what I originally said and he disputed? Could I really dispute it? Could you do that, really? I said I didn’t ask at the beginning.
Said, not a direct cause. That’s what I said. Not a cause. No. The was the indirect cause of being the pop, and I I thought they really disputed that.
And that’s why I got onto that thing. I don’t know. No. No. Did you?
Well, I said it’s not the direct cause. It’s the indirect cause. Well If you say something is not the direct If something is if if if an object if an object is what? If not the direct cause. Not if an object not direct cause.
Direct cause. Is it is it pervaded by? Not. Not. The indirect.
Not. Not. Direct cause. Cause. Not cause.
Not not indirect cause. Okay. You want you want to apply it to pot or just in general? Let’s make it a pot. A pot.
Not the indirect cause of pot. Anybody? Should we put A to B to it? Okay. A, Z.
If then B. If an object is a, is it pervaded by being b? If an object is not the indirect cause of pot, is it pervaded by being an object which is not the direct cause of pot? Then you put brackets in. Is that the next thing?
Well, this is one thing, this is a. Obviously what? Okay, not obviously. Now what do you think? Is this pervaded?
Is this pervasion whole? Is this pervasion established? Maybe you can do this. What happens when you do that? If an object is the indirect cause of pot, it’s pervaded by being not the direct causal part.
If an object is what? If object is not the direct causal part. If b, then A? If an object is not the direct causal part, it’s not pervaded by B in the indirect causal part. Why?
Pause it that object. Tree is not the direct causal part. It is not the direct cause of thought? Tree as a subject is not the indirect cause of pot? So in this case it doesn’t go the other way.
If if if an object is an indirect causal part it’s it’s prevented by being the not the direct cause of pot but if an object is not the direct cause of pot it’s not pervaded by being the indirect cause of pot For example, a tree. Tree is not the direct cause of pot, but it is not the indirect cause of pot because it’s not a cause of pot at all. With that not not, you can just grab the In in that case, I think yeah. I’m not going. I think I I think I need for myself, I think I must need a lot of practice in double negatives because it just sort of you know, you just get to that point and it just goes completely blank.
You know? Yeah. Yeah. I can understand. Yeah.
It’s just it’s just a matter of practice. Were there some cases some weeks ago where we found that if you had not knocked, that it didn’t necessarily just kick you out? It was not not pervaded by being knocked. I mean I mean, can we can anybody give an example? Give some give an example.
Say, Then we use basic phrase of man. So if if if an object is not pervaded by being not a man, then what? If an object is not pervaded by being not man. Or is that a big Australian? We got the Australian.
I see. If an object is not pervaded by being not Australian, then is it pervaded by being Australian? Is it pervaded by being Australian? If an object is not pervaded by being not Australian, is it pervaded by being astrayed? Can you give me an object which is not Yeah?
I’m assuming it’s not not Australian. So then we said for not Australian, you say American. Yeah. If an object is not pervaded by being American. But are Americans not pervaded by being not Australian?
Americans are pervaded by being not Australian. That’s what I mean. Yeah. So Americans are pervaded by being not Australian. They’re they’re not not pervaded by being not Australian.
But Americans are pervaded by being not Australian. Here it says not pervaded by being not Australian. Give me an example of this. What would be an example of this? Give me an object.
An object which is not pervaded by being non-Australian. Pardon? Vegemite. Vegemite. Is it Vegemite Australia?
Okay. But