Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The image of backing a debating opponent toward a cliff — blocking every escape route until contradiction becomes inevitable — anchors this 13-minute debate-training session by Ven Jampa Gendun on the Collected Topics curriculum. Working through the sample syllogism space is permanent because it exists, he walks students through the two checks every debater must run: whether the reason is established for the subject, and whether the reason pervades the predicate. Counterexamples involving consciousness, form, and momentariness are tested in real time, with students offering responses. Gendun also explains the chain-of-syllogisms technique — how a skilled debater holds an entire debate’s pathway in memory and works backwards to expose the root contradiction. Suited to students already studying formal Buddhist logic.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 51 CT 1988 08 23.mp3
UUID: 3e315138-e4ea-4817-b52d-889f55237dbb
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-08-23
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 13.3 minutes
Words: ~1,384
Impermanent. Part is the subject. It is formed because it is impermanent. Contradiction.. Why?
Because everything which is impermanent doesn’t necessarily have form. If it has I wouldn’t If an object is impermanent, it is not pervaded by being formed. An object is impermanent, it is not pervaded by being formed. For example? Consciousness is a subject, it is impermanent?
Except. Why? Because it arises from moment to moment. Consciousness is subject. It is not formed?
Except. Why? Because it is clear. That’s clear. That which is clear is pervaded by being not formed?
Except. Space, it is permanent because it is consciousness. So we’re seeing Of course, we’re checking out the property of the position. Position. Or or, you know, simply stated, is this is the position?
Is this is the reason? Is it applicable to the subject? If it’s not, then we the reason has not been established? Reason established? Okay.
What do we call it? So space of subject is permanent because it is conscious. Anybody? Space is subject. Is not consciousness?
It is consciousness because it is clear. If an object is clear, it’s not pervaded by being consciousness? Why? An object is clear, it’s not pervaded by being consciousness. Why?
Because consciousness is both clear and So in order if if a if a if a object is consciousness, it must be both clear and knowing? Yes, sir. And then the the boy who forgot the consciousness of the boy who just forgot his his umbrella, as a subject, It’s not consciousness. Consciousness of the boy who just forgot his umbrella is the subject. It is not consciousness.
Why? Because it’s not knowing. Because it is not knowing. The that is the subject. The boy who just forgot his umbrella as a subject, conscious of the boy who just forgot his umbrella.
It is knowing? Accept. It’s not it’s not not knowing because he forgot his umbrella. Okay. Trying to push down there too far.
Spaces is only is permanent because what I say consciousness? Because it is it is what we call that. Okay. Yeah. Existence.
Space is subject is permanent because of it. It is existent. So this is what do you think, Linda? Okay. Try the first.
I’m trying to look at whether it exists. Okay. Does existence is it applied to the subject space? Okay. So we said the the reason is established.
Okay. Now we checked the pervasion. Now every case of this reason, any object which is the reason, I must be be pervaded by This is called the predicate. Predicate. So is is any object which is existent, is it pervaded by being?
Does it necessarily have to be permanent? No. Are you sure? Yeah. So what would you answer if I get if this syllogism was presented to your spaces and subject follows it as permanent because it is existing?
We establish the reason. What is the second there’s two possible answers. First is is a reason not established? Established? Or?
pervasion? No pervasion? Existence? Every object which if an object an object is existent, it must be pervaded by being permanent. If an object is the reason, it must be pervaded by being the predicate.
This is the predicate. Subject, predicate, reason. If an object is is the reason, it’s pervaded by being the predicate. If an object is existent, is it pervaded by being permanent? So what?
There’s there’s what? No pervasion. No. Is is there a pervasion? If an object is existent, it is not pervaded by the impermanent?
What do you what do you think? If an object if an object is existent, is it necessary is it is it necessarily pervaded by being permanent? For example? Okay. That’s fine.
Thing. Thing is the subject. It is an existent. Why? What is the I mean, could give that in, and it’s true.
What would be perhaps a more precise answer would be to get the definition of existence. Thing is the subject. It is existence because? Entity. Not today.
Because it’s the object of valid cognition. Okay. What’s valid cognition? Definition of existence. Object of valid cognition.
Is subject, it is the it is existent because it is the object of valid cognition. So then you’ve got you you form the new syllogism, and then you could go on to debate that. And then maybe maybe that reason is not established, maybe there’s no pervasion in that. And then you’d have to go on to form another syllogism. And so you go you can it’s like becomes a chain, and and then then you get and then finally you get the guy to agree, and then you start working back through all these various syllogisms that he gets to basic premise.
Because, you know, we started with this syllogism, we formed it and said, space as subject is permanent because it exists and he could say, no pervasion. If an object is existing, it’s not pervaded by being permanent? Yes. Thing is the subject. It is existent because it is an object of valid cognition.
No pervasion. Because not if an object is an object of valid cognition, not pervaded by being existent. You form another intelligence, then you’d have to prove that. And then he could dispute that, and you’d have to prove that. Finally you have to get him at some point when he has to contradict himself.
And then you start then you go back forward. You use that consequence to show that how now now he has to contradict himself here, now he has to contradict himself here, here, here. And finally, you get to the root, his root statement, and you said and he has to contradict himself. It’s like they say it’s like, you know, here’s a cliff, you know, the cliff. And he he wants to first he goes first he’s trying to get away, and he goes this way, and you block that way, and then he goes this way, and he goes this way, and finally he has to jump off the cliff.
Has no choice. Anything he says, he’s going to have to he’s going to contradict what is his former statements. So this is let’s make it this chain of syllogism. And sometimes, you you might have to take fifteen minutes just going back through this long chain of syllogisms. The debaters, they keep keep these all in their mind, you know, the entire pathway that a debate might have taken for the last hour, you know, and then they have to work their way.
They work their way. Finally, he says, okay. And then you start working, you’re going back That must be embarrassing. Yeah. It’s embarrassing because he gets a hundred defeats in a row.
Everything he says after that is a defeat. Because he just says that everything he says after that point is just been one long contradiction. They don’t say anything. They just No. No.
No. No. They they develop tremendous memories. Yeah. It’s amazing.
I mean, it’s amazing. They were like computers. The way they can and they have the speed. There’s different types of wisdom that comes very apparent. Some people are very fast, some people are more profound, some people have great memories.
But some people are very extremely fast. There’s a lot of dramatics involved. If you have to take a long time to answer or put your questions, it’s not quite as as dramatic as someone who just it makes a lot of jumping up and down. Thing is the subject. It is existent because of the valid cognition, because the object of valid cognition.
Thing is the subject. It is not permanent. Why? Because it’s momentary. That’s momentary.
If an object is momentary, is it pervaded by by being not impermanent? If an object is momentary, it’s pervaded by being not permanent. That’s right. That’s That’s good. Okay.
Then you could go on to debate that. You could go on to normal. Normal. Then they say, yeah. Not just this moment there is pervaded by being not permanent.
Maybe not not permanent. Know. Does anybody do two would two people like to sit and be the respondents? Any volunteers? How about maybe?
So let’s work.