Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Why can’t the brain be the substantial cause of consciousness? That question surfaces near the end of this 46-minute Collected Topics class, where Ven Jampa Gendun works through Buddhist logic’s framework of cause and effect in a lively Socratic exchange. He distinguishes direct from indirect causes — wood and fire versus the forest — then substantial from cooperative causes, with a clay pot and its potter as the central example. A sustained detour through iron ore and car-making tests whether students can apply the definitions independently. The class closes with live debate practice: students take turns as respondents, fielding syllogisms such as “a dog is an animal because it has four legs” and identifying where the reasoning breaks down. Suited to students in a formal Collected Topics curriculum.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 52 CT 1988 08 23.mp3
UUID: daf64afa-a3b3-4001-99d2-b3b93dfc0286
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-08-23
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.5 minutes
Words: ~3,803
If we take the example of fire, what is the direct cause of fire? Wood. Wood? Wood? Okay.
What is the indirect cause?? Tree. What is the subject? Why is it the direct cause? It’s substantial cause because it keeps continuing itself.
I can’t explain. Why is it the direct cause? Because it directly produces the fire. And why are the trees in the forest the indirect cause of the fire? Indirectly produces the fire.
Then there was the second pair was substantial cause and cooperative cause. If we take an example as a basis, illustration of the pot, what is the substantial cause of a clay pot? Clay. Clay is the subject. Why is it the substantial cause of pot?
Because it keeps continuously producing this pot or what? It? Again, I can’t say it is what’s used. Because it’s really Produces the continuity of the pot. That’s right.
Doesn’t the potter produce the continuity of the pot? As a cooperatively, of course, yes. Why? Then just being the and producing the continuity of the pot doesn’t mean something that’s a substantial cause. Does it?
Why is the clay the substantial cause of pot? Because it’s the same mode. The same mode? In what way? Yeah, that’s coming very close.
You can’t say that it’s the same. Is the clay and the pot, are they the same entity? The clay which is the cause of the pot and the pot, are they the same entity or different entities? The clay which produces the pot, is that the same entity or a different entity than the pot? How did we determine whether two things were the same entity?
Is a pot in a pillar? Pardon? That which is different than the same. That which is different than the Is there anything which is different than the same? They the same entity or different entities?
They’re different. So they’re the same entity? Why they’re different entities? Causes. Different substantial causes?
Because the pot is made from clay and the pillar is not made from clay. It’s made from other metals. So it’s hardly the same Did you make a clay pillar? No, you can, yes. I wouldn’t recommend.
I think. Let’s see. Yes, you can. Yeah? That makes the sense, doesn’t it?
How about Fire and heat. Are these two the same entity or different entities? How do we determine whether two things were at the same entity? They appear the same to a direct perceiver. Yeah.
So platen pillar? They appear differently to direct perception. Fire and heat? They appear the same. Bring your hand.
So just to direct perception, they appear one. They appear the same. If they do not appear different to direct perception, then they’re the same entity. They’re not the same, they’re the same entity. Same entity but not the same.
Not the same. How do we determine whether two things are the same? Or different? Is dog and dog different or the same? He who knows remains silent.
She even knows. Are dog and dog different or the same? Think they produce the same mental image. So if they appear not different to conception, then they’re the same. If they appear not different to direct perception, then they’re the same entity.
So why is clay substantial cause apart? What was the definition of substantial cause? So how would you put that if you were to place that on the example that we’re trying to use of clay and pot? I’m confusing direct and substantial causes. Yeah.
Okay, well first let’s go through substantial and then we’ll go through the difference. So clay is the principal producer of its own substantial effect that is the pot within the continuum of its own type. So is clay and pot, are they of the same type? How about the potter? The potter and pot?
It’s a different type and there’s also a different continuum. It’s not within the continuum. So whatever substantial cause has to be the same type as its effect and be within itself is within the continuum. It itself, the potter does not enter into the continuum of the pot. He does not become part of the pot.
He finishes making the pot, he walks away. Takes off his apron and goes home. Whereas the clay, if you take away the clay, you have to take away the pot. The clay and the pot are one entity. Same entity.
The potter and the pot are different entities. And then the cooperative cause. What is the cooperative cause of pot? The potter. Pottery.
So the pottery is the principal producer of its own cooperative effect that is the pot and is not within the continuum of its own type. Not in that continuum of its own type. So what is the relationship between is the difference between direct cause and substantial cause? I can’t see a lot of difference. No?
Denny? With respect to direct cause and substantial cause, what is the pervasion? Is there a common locus? That way we should put it on the cause of part. We’ll say part, okay?
Part. The substantial cause of part. Do they have a common locus? You know, you want to be a little more specific, the clay which is formed into the pot. The pot.
And then okay, so if an object is a direct cause of pot, is it pervaded by being a substantial cause of pot? An object is the direct cause of pot. Is it necessarily a substantial cause of pot? Second? Are some of the names of the different types of direct causes apart?
We know a few already. What are some of the direct causes of pot? Name some of the direct causes of pot. Yeah, direct causes of pot. Clay.
Anything else? Water. Anything else? Heat. Wheel.
Heat. Hands? Okay, these are some of the possible direct causes of pot. Now are all these necessarily substantial causes of pot? No?
Like for example? Hands. Hands, wheel. So these are all directly direct cause of pot, but they’re not all substantial causes of the pot either. For example, we said something direct cause.
We’ll call this AB, okay? Just for abbreviation. A not B. What could we put? Direct cause of pot and an object which is direct cause of pot which is not the substantial cause of pot.
That’s right, wheel. Potter’s wheel. Okay, let’s try it the other way. Name some of the substantial causes of pot. Anything else?
Anybody? Anybody? Another idea? Do you have something to say to me? No, I think you can make a out of this pure clay.
We can make a pot out of the clay which is formed into the pot. That’s why I was a little more specific. How about the clay on the riverbank? Clay on riverbank. Let’s try that one for example.
Okay, clay on riverbank, is that a substantial cause of pot? Why? In what way? Is the clay in the riverbank the direct cause of the pot or the indirect cause? Does it directly produce the pot or indirectly produce the pot?
How about if we say car, okay? We use an example of we say iron ore. Iron ore. Is iron ore a cause of car? Why is it a cause of car?
Why iron ore the cause of car? Substantial cause, direct and substantial cause. What is the definition of cause? Which produces? Does iron ore produce a car?
No. Iron ore does not produce a car. A car is not made out of iron ore? Yes. Iron ore produces a car?
No. Machines, men, and many many other things produce the car. The substance substance iron ore. Iron ore itself doesn’t produce a car. Iron ore does not produce a car.
No. So, clay doesn’t produce a car? It’s a good work. You need to know a cause. You need to know Oh, it’s another cause.
Is it a cause? Is iron ore a cause of car? Yes. Substantial cause. Iron produces car?
No, it doesn’t. What’s the definition of cause? That which produces. So, does iron ore produce car? No.
Then iron ore is not a cause of car? It can’t be. Okay, iron ore is not a cause of car. Then iron ore is not a substantial cause of car. How do we get these things right?
Because how can a direct or substantial cause produce a car? In this case, the iron ore, how can it be? You need other things. You need something more. Maybe you’re right, Rudy.
That’s not the question. You know, we might need other things. We need rubber and we need factory and we need many cooperative causes. But is this a cause? Is this one of the causes?
One of the causes. Okay, so it’s a cause. Okay. Iron ore is a cause of car? It’s going.
Okay. Is iron ore a direct cause of or indirect cause of car? Direct cause of car. Iron ore. Does it directly produce the car?
No, it doesn’t. Does the iron ore have to pass through some stage before it? Would that make it the direct or indirect cause of car? Goes together. Or it’s just something more.
You can’t say this island or that’s the car. That’s too simple. Car has many, many, many causes. Hundreds of thousands, thousands of causes. Yes.
Question. One of those causes is iron ore. So that iron ore which is the cause of car, is that an indirect cause of car or a direct cause of car? It’s a direct cause of car. Then the iron ore itself does not have to change into anything else before it becomes car.
Yes it does. It has to be changed into something else. Then iron ore itself does not directly cause the car. For example, we have to make the iron into refine it, make it into steel. But it keeps going as iron ore.
Not how you Substantial cause, substantial cause. We’re not talking about whether it’s substantial cause, whether it’s direct cause or indirect cause. Well, while you ask me now I must say it’s indirect. Did I talk you into it? So iron ore would be Would be a direct or indirect cause of car?
Substantial cause or cooperative cause of car? Substantial. Substantial. Okay. And not a, not b?
Anybody? Grass. Grass. Which kind? Don’t answer.
Green So the green grass is not a cooperative cause of making pot? Not a cooperative cause of pot? We’re working with substantial. Is that a substantial cause of pot? It’s not a direct cause of pot.
Why is it not a direct cause of pot? The grass does not directly produce pot. The grass does directly produce Then it indirectly produces pot. Why? Because it doesn’t directly produce pot.
So what would you answer to that? I give you a syllogism. Okay? What did we say? Grass is the subject?
No pervasion. That’s right. Good. No pervasion. Just because something is not the direct calls upon doesn’t mean it’s indirect calls upon.
There’s no pervasion. Could be. Okay. So this there’s just a little bit more to this abbreviated explanation of cause and effect. It’s not much it’s just the other side of cause and effect.
That is the effect. The definition of effect is anybody guess? What is the definition of effect? That which is produced. That which is produced is the definition of effect, that which is produced.
And that has two pairs of by way of division there are two pairs of effects. What would be the first pair? And the second pair? Second pair of effects? Must be substantial.
There you go. Geniuses today. Definition Can anyone guess what the definition of a direct effect is? What is the definition of a direct effect? That’s the definition of direct effect?
Produced is the definition of direct effect. Definition of indirect effect? Anybody want to take a wild guess? Good. That which is indirectly produces the definition of indirect effect.
Okay, definition of substantial effect? Yeah, that which is principally produced. Has its own substantial effect within the continuum of its own type. No, that couldn’t be right. That which is principally produced as its own — I think yours is better. Come on..
That which is the principal product I think that’s better. That which is the principal product The principal product of its own substantial cause within the continuum of its own type. That which is what did I say? That which is the principal product of its own substantial Principally produced by its own substantial cause. That was its principally produced.
Is that what I said first? The principal product of its own substantial cause within the continuum of its own type. The principal product of its own substantial cause within the continuum of its own type. And then cooperative effect would be what? Definition of cooperative effect?
I know what you just said except that they’re not in you. Not quite. It’s close. The principal product of its own cooperative cause, not within the continuum of its own type. So those are the definitions.
What is the meaning of direct effect? The direct effect arises immediately subsequent to its cause. The direct effect arises immediately subsequent to its cause. Indirect effect arises after the immediate subsequent effect. The indirect arises after the immediate subsequent effect.
Sorry, what was one? The indirect effect arises after the immediate subsequent effect. After the immediate subsequent effect. Okay, what is the direct effect of wood? Fire?
Fire is the subject? It is the direct effect of wood? Why? Because it arises immediately subsequent to the cause of wood. Okay, good.
What is the indirect effect of wood? Smoke. Smoke is the subject and is the indirect effect of what? Why? Makes sense.
It’s not the direct what do we say about the definition of that? It’s not that which is directly produced or that which is indirectly produced. What is the direct effect of potter? The pot. Yeah.
An indirect effect? What is Okay, so does everybody get the hang of that? You’re doing that. What is the relationship between cause and effect? With respect to cause and effect, what is the relationship?
What is the pervasion? Each enclosure. Inclusive. Anybody agree? Does anybody disagree?
Everybody agree? Yeah? Whatever is a cause is an effect. Whatever is an effect is a cause. Is Is smoke the cause or the effect?
Yes. Smoke is the cause or the effect. Oh, no. It’s the — it’s the effect? It is the effect because it’s the effect.
Smoke of a study, smoke, it’s the cause of fire or it’s the effect. Because every every course has an effect. You know? But I can’t explain more. So that if an object is an effect, it’s not pervaded by being a cause.
Good. A good thing. Aren’t cause and effect mutually inclusive? — Cause and effect are not mutually inclusive? I don’t know.
What do you think? What if you actually think about it? Which makes sense? Is there a common locus between cause and effect? What is the effect of thing?
Thing is the subject. It is a cause? What is its effect? What’s the effect of thing? Thing is a cause, therefore it must have an effect.
What is that effect? Product. Product is the effective thing. Just guess. Does everybody have any questions about cause and effect, this little bit that we presented?
Substantial cause, indirect cause? You know? As to same type. Yeah. In my case.
Yeah. What type? What was the definition of how did we determine type similar in type? If you take something away, like if at a later stage you take, I think it’s sort of connecting the same. And if I if you take if you you take the other example away, then and the later examples of the moments that are coming, they must be at the same type.
That’s not very clear. If you take the earlier you If you have two two things They are at the same if they are at the same time. How do we know whether two things are of the same type? Well, for example, clay in the pot. If you eliminate clay, or clay which is made into a pot, then you eliminate also eliminate the pot.
So therefore, they must be at same type. Are potter and pot the same are the same type? They’re If you eliminate the potter, don’t you eliminate the pot? There’s no one to make the pot. What do we say?
Things like gum tree, maple tree. Are they at the same time? How about a black cat? A white cat. Why are gumtree and maple tree the same type?
Same entity. Are they the same entity? How about gum tree and maple tree? Do they appear different to direct perception? For example, your eye consciousness?
Or do they appear the same? Are gumtree and maple tree the same type? Why the same type? Because some of them naturally develop. It’s not perhaps a very satisfying definition, but that’s It’s sort of a common sense I mean, somebody could say like dog and cat.
We would not think of them as the same type, naturally. But if we learned a little bit, we’d say they’re the same type from the point of view of being animals. But without having studied that, learned about what animals are, it would not naturally occur to us that dog and cat were the same type. Whereas if we saw two different types of trees it would naturally occur to us or two different types of cars or two different colors of cats that somehow they fit into the same category they were naturally of the same category. But this is like an artificial category or an intellectual category that dog and cat are both the same type from the point of view of being animals.
But being the same tree seems like it has the idea of being more naturally occurring to us. This idea would arise in our mind very naturally. It wouldn’t have to be an intellectual idea that there’s something similar about that tree over there and that these are similar type even though they look quite different, different colored leaves or whatever shapes. There’s a feeling of similarity type, same with black cat and white cat. So you told me about convention.
Yeah. Where there’s no need to study and to have an intellectual understanding as opposed to where to think of these as the same type. You would have to study, Well, these are both animals. They’re the same type from the point of view of being animals. Well, these are just the same we would say these are naturally the same type.
These are the same type. It’s not very I mean that’s the best I can explain it. Not very satisfying perhaps. That’s why we were talking about when rebirth, whether the mind you know, were talking about one of the ways that is used to substantiate rebirth is that the mind is clear and knowing. And so it’s a substantial cause.
So everything has to have both a substantial cause and a cooperative cause. So the substantial cause of mind must be of the same type and therefore it also must be clear and knowing. Therefore the brain, which is matter, is not clear. It’s physical. Here clear can just mean non-physical.
Sometimes it means luminous. So the brain is physical. Brain is physical and neurons, for example, are unknowing, for example, are unknowing, unconscious. So they’re saying that because they’re dissimilar in type that the brain cannot be the substantial cause of consciousness. Because they’re dissimilar in type, one would not naturally think of something which was physical and non physical, one rising from the other.
You would not naturally think of them as being the same type mind and matter. Then you would have to go on to establish that in fact mind was non-physical. That’s the problem. So maybe we can someone maybe two people could volunteer to sit as the what do they call them? Respondents, respondents, respondents, people who answer the question, and then we can debate if you don’t have any questions.
Does everybody feel confident with the different forms of the syllogism? The two reason not established and no pervasion? Let’s see. I said take a dog. Dog is the subject.
It it is an animal because it’s a cat. There’s a syllogism on it. Dog is the subject. It follows that it is an animal because it is a cat. There’s two possible answers. Okay, okay.
Yeah. If an object is a cat, is it not pervaded by being an animal? It. Barks. It barks.
Yeah. Don’t know about it. It’s barking. Don’t know. Dog is an animal because it has four legs.
First check to see if the reason is established. See if the reason is applicable, applies to the subject. And then check the pervasion. Whatever is the if an object is the reason, is it pervaded? Is it necessarily the predicate?
So what would you answer? Why? There’s an instance of somebody having four legs and not being an animal. For example? That’s right.
Table is the subject that has four legs? Table is the subject that is not an animal? Why? Because it’s an animal. Why?
For example? Consciousness. Because it doesn’t have consciousness. Didn’t No. Then this would add some this would be going into more detail of the way No.
What? Because you it’s not there’s there’s no because the table has four legs. So it just depends on how you phrase the the what’s it called? The first thing, a dog is an animal because it has four legs. That’s like dog has how would you put it if you had anything which has four legs is an animal is what Sue answered.
Yeah. So you’d have to rephrase it. Anything which is an animal has four legs. Is that necessarily the same? Well, I don’t know.
There’s only one way you can state the you’ve only got one case to answer. Yeah. No. Yeah. So if this was given to you, somebody said, Dog is a subject.
I don’t know if you would dispute it’s an animal. But if the dog is an animal because it has four legs, then it’s assuming no pervasion. If an object has four legs, it’s not pervaded by being an animal. For example, a table. A table has four legs, but it’s not an animal.
How about That part is the subject. It is impermanent because it is consciousness.