Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Dogs, cats, and oil trapped under the ocean all appear in this 32-minute logic session as Ven Jampa Gendun guides a small group of students through the formal debate framework of Collected Topics. Working in a Socratic style, he leads the class to distinguish four possible relationships between any two concepts — mutually exclusive, mutually inclusive, three possibilities, and four possibilities — using dog and animal as the opening example, then applying the same analysis to substantial cause of fire versus direct cause of fire. Students propose and defend candidates (lightning, a match, air, a person lighting a fire), and Gendun probes each one until the class arrives at a precise answer together. Well-suited to beginners in Buddhist logic who learn best by working through concrete examples under guidance.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 54 CT 1988 08 30.mp3
UUID: b5ad90b8-2f93-4114-ab6a-8d819fc2a2ed
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-08-30
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 31.9 minutes
Words: ~2,588
With respect to substantial cause of fire and direct cause, what is the pervasion? What do you think, Brian? Ron? I’m sorry. I can’t I’m not writing very clearly.
With respect to dog and animal, what is the pervasion? One is I totally lost. Give it give it a guess. Somebody somebody help. Yeah.
Somebody help Rowan. Linda, you help Rowan. Okay. How how is she gonna how does how is she going to determine? Explain to her how she can determine what is the pervasion.
I can’t record them. You’re not doing this. So first we want to see we’re we’re gonna see if they’re, if they’re mutually exclusive. Yeah. Mutually inclusive.
So you go ahead, Linda, you’re doing very well. That’s that’s right. Okay. Doberman as a subject? It is a common locus between dog and animal?
It follows it? Yes. Okay. Though when it’s the subject, it is a dog? Yes.
Though when it’s the subject, an animal? Yes. Okay. Think okay. So now you’ve so it’s not this first one.
If if things are mutually exclusive, there’s nothing which is both. Like in these pictures? There’s there’s a those little, the diagrams? They’re just completely separate. Two things in like hot and cold.
There’s nothing which is both. Maybe I shouldn’t Stone and Okay. So there’s nothing with so this we know okay. It’s not that. Then we have to go on.
Someone else talk to her? So what? Other way, is there anything which is an animal which is not a dog? Sorry. Say that again.
Say that again? Well, the first question is, is there anything which is a dog which is not an animal? If there if there isn’t, then that rules out four possibilities. Isn’t, possibilities. Mhmm.
Which are the two intersecting circles. Mhmm. Is there anything which is an animal which is not a dog? Which is not a It’s a cat. That means we can I guess we’re mutually inclusive, doesn’t it?
Yeah. Yeah? Yeah. Do word mutually inclusive. Like a and b?
Mhmm. Anything which is a must be b. Anything which should be b must be a. It is same thing, Omar. You know what I’m So our dog and animal, same thing?
Dog and animal. Pause it the time again. No, no, no, no, no. So we’re we’re trying to know, see, and it’s A and D. Everything which is A is B.
Everything which is B is A. Yeah? So as Alastair pointed out as you answered, they’re like a cat. It’s an animal, but it’s not a dog. So that means they’re not what?
Oh, see. They’re not mutually exclusive. That’s right. And then go ahead. Then we’re going So now we’ve eliminated this.
Now we’ve eliminated this. Now we’ll go ahead. Now let’s just try to figure out whether it’s three possibilities or four possibilities. We’ve excluded mutually exclusive, mutually inclusive. Yeah.
Would you want to explain the Brian again? All dogs are animals, so that excludes four possibilities because for four for it to be four possibilities, you’d have to be able to find a dog which is not an animal. Three possibilities? What is the relationship between these two? Is it three possibilities or four possibilities?
That’s right. That’s right. That’s good. So then when we were debating, I would say, With respect to dog and animal, what is pervasion? It is not Then I would just the way we just to format, we say I say, It is not three possibilities.
Which pervades which? Which pervades which? You know, if we have something like this, which is pervaded by which? Which is pervaded by which? You know, is this animal out here, and this is dog in here, or is this dog out here, and and this is animal in here?
Which is inside the other? We have this Which pervades which? Animal pervades too. That’s right. Animal is what?
Is outside in this little circle or the big circle? Which one? Do you have these two areas? Is the small area of the dog and the big area of the animal or is the big area of the dog in the small area of the animal? What do you think?
Now, know, let’s say we a farm, and we’ve got all the various types of animals herded together. Somebody says, Well, is in this now? We say that all dogs are animals, so we put all the dogs in one little pin. But outside this pin we’ve got sheep in here, dogs in here, sheep in here, cows in here. But all these together are what?
Animals. Animals. That even that we have all different types of animals in these small pens, but this whole all the pens taken together are all grouped together as animals. They’re all pervaded by being an animal. So the big circle is like the animals where they have all these different small pins enclosures inside this huge pin with all the different divisions of animals.
That’s right. So we would ask now we would ask which pervades which with respect to dog and animal? Animal pervades dog. Animal pervades dog. So how would we say that?
Anybody want to help? I say which pervades which? Let’s see it’s on this sheet, one sheet there. If a notebook is That’s right. If an object is an animal, it’s not pervaded by being a dog.
Positive. That’s right. Do you understand that, Brian? Okay. Positive that object.
Okay. Which pervades which? With respect to dog and animal, which pervades which? Animal pervades dog. So if an object is?
We just use this format. Level is a generality and instance? Like a dog is an instance of an instance. That’s right. That’s right.
Yeah. We’ve been using generality and instance all along. Whenever it’s three possibilities, it’s always a generality and an instance. That’s right. So which pervades which?
Okay, if a dog is a thing, it is pervaded by dog. An object? If an object is a dog, it is pervaded by being an animal. If an object isn’t an animal, it’s not pervaded by being a dog. Posit that object.
That’s what you’re losing when you say that. Okay. That just means to give an example. That’s just fancy talk for giving an example. Cat.
Cat is a subject. It is an animal. Cat is a subject. It is not a dog? Good.
Good, that’s fine. That’s good. It’s not so hard. You just have to know your cats and dogs. Three possibilities.
Okay, So what is the relationship we’re talking about whether it matches whether air was a substantial with direct cause of fire? What is the relationship between with respect to substantial cause of fire and direct cause of fire? What is the pervasion? So let’s take a look. It’s first worth checking out whether it’s mutually exclusive, right?
Mutually exclusive, right? So that means what is the first thing we want to look for, Brian? If they have what? Common locus. Common locus.
The same if there’s something which is both, an object which is both, a common locus. Okay, is there anything? Is there an object which is both a substantial cause and a direct cause? What is the subject? What?
What is the subject? It is the substantial cause of fire. Why? What’s the definition of substantial cause of fire? It’s continuum of being the direct cause of fire, is it?
You’re getting a little of the ideal. That’s good. Now, because it continues to fire. Who has it? Who has The substantial cause, but I can’t tell you if it is.
Oh, yeah. Principal producer of this wood. And? Principal it is the principal cause within the continuum of its own type. Now I’ve got but not yet in my mind.
So wood is what? Substantial is a is a is First off, it’s a principle producer, it’s in the continuum Yep. Of fire. That means the wood itself is being transformed. Yep.
Not like somebody who who lights the fire. Mhmm. Mhmm. He is a principal producer of the fire too, but he’s not transformed into the fire. That’s right.
Yeah? The get burned up. That’s true. He couldn’t light his own fire. Yeah.
Look at this. That’s right. So he could be both. Okay. So it’s not what?
It’s not mutually exclusive because we found a common locus. Now, is it mutually inclusive? Is is every object which is substantial causifier a direct causifier and every and and is every object which is a direct causifier of substantial causifier? So Alistair says no. Anybody else?
So positive something which is one and not the other. A tree is a substantial cause of fire. There’s not a direct cause of fire? Okay. Tree.
Does everybody see that? Tree is what? A substantial cause of fire. Why is that? Because it’s what?
It’s first off, it’s a it’s a principal producer. And secondly? Continuum. Yeah. It’s the same continuum.
It’s a that the tree is eventually going to be transformed into fire. Whereas Getting drunk. Is is tree a direct call a direct cause of fire? How about a forest fire? What fire?
A forest fire? We’re talking about fires in a fireplace. Fire fireplace fire. In fire. Yeah.
I mean, actually, we’d have to be tree trees maybe not Seed of tree. Yeah. That’s good. Seed of tree. Going?
Did he get really picky? Seed of tree in the ground. About how about how about wet wood? Wet wood will combust if it’s got enough heat. But it has to dry out first, doesn’t it?
No way. Doesn’t it have to dry out? No. Uh-uh. Can you have wet burning?
I can see. How about if we say oil? That oil burns. How about oil under the ocean? That’s pretty safe.
Not under the ocean. Under the ocean. No. Yeah. Underneath the under in the seabed.
No pipes. Oh, okay. Okay. Oil on there. Okay.
So it’s a substantial cause of fire, isn’t it? It’s going to eventually be transformed into transformed into petrol or something like that. Oil under the ocean, is it the direct causifier? Why is that? Why is it not? Oil under the ocean is subject?
Why is it not the direct cause of fire? So what is the definition of cause of fire direct cause? It’s a direct producer. So is is oil under the ocean a direct producer of fire? No.
So it’s therefore, oil under the ocean, it is not the direct cause of fire because it’s not it’s not the direct producer of fire. Why is it not the direct producer of fire? Because it’s the indirect producer of fire? Yes. Indirect.
Yes. Indirect. Has to be pumped up. Pumped up and Maybe refined. That’s why.
And then Yeah. So there’s so many steps after. That’s fine. Yeah. It’s not the it doesn’t immediately produce.
Fire. Alright. So this means what? These two are not mutually inclusive. If it was mutually inclusive, everything which is this everything which is this has to be this, and everything which is this has to be this.
And we found at least one thing, which is this and not this. So that means that they’re not mutually inclusive. But now we still don’t know whether it’s three possibilities or four possibilities. Now we have to look a little bit closer. So then we have to see, well, we know, you know, we know everything that is this.
We already know one thing that there’s something which is a substantial cause of fire which is not the direct cause of fire. Is everything which is direct cause of fire the substantial cause of fire? Is everything which is there an object which is direct causifier but is not the substantial causifier? Anybody else? Denny?
A direct causifier which is not a substantial causifier? Substantial cause and cause the same? That’s what we’re finding out. They’re not mutually inclusive, they’re not mutually exclusive. So is there Denny, is there something which is a direct causifier which is not a substantial causifier?
No. Aleister says yes. Denny says no. Anybody? Behind me, behind me, lightning. Is that then.
Doesn’t it become? Its substantial cause is the heat, is that what is blowing up. Is it the lightning transformed into heat? Yeah. So it becomes it’s trans Substance is transformed. Oh, then again, yes.
So what do you Linda? Something which is a direct cause of fire but is not a substantial cause of fire. Think there is something. I mean, perhaps Would you like to tell us about it? What do you think?
Something which is a direct cause and not and not substantial. You’re saying that lightning is not a direct cause. No. I think in the case of lightning, think it’s both a direct cause and a substantial cause. Yeah.
Ready? What about smoke? Smoke is not the direct cause of fire. It’s true. Is it a substantial cause of fire?
Yes. It’s will continue Is smoke a causifier? It can become a fire when something smokes. What is it?
Smoke coming out. Smoke doesn’t mean it’s a cause of fire? It’s not the cause. Okay. So something with it.
Ron, is there anything which is a direct causifier, which is not substantial? What would be an example of something which is direct causifier? Just in general. Match. Match.
Okay. Match. Is it match a substantial causifier? No? Well, it’s more minor.
It’s kindling a flame. So is everything which is a direct causifier a substantial causifier? You said no, Denny? Sorry. Alastair, wanna pause it?
Close. Air. Air. Air? What do you think what? Air.
You need air. For fire. Okay. So air is is air Both. The direct cause of fire?
Air is a substantial cause. So it’s both? Both. Alright. Okay.
Yeah. Yeah. Don’t you think? Probably was a direct cause and not a substantial cause? A person lighting the fire.
A person lighting the fire, that’s the subject. It is not the substantial cause of fire? Why? Because it is not Personality in the fire is not transformed into the fire. Or you say because he’s a cooperative causifier or you can say yes..
As you said, you just give because he’s not and then the definition of substantial cause. That’s right. So there’s something which is we call this a just for a and b. There’s something which is a and not b, and something which is b and not a. So if it was if if if there was nothing if if everything were you know, if it was like this and everything that was a was if everything which was b had to be a, but some things some things were were a everything which is b is a, but everything which is a is not b, then it would be three possibilities.
But here, we have this type of relationship, a and b. There’s some things which are both a and b, But there are things which are a and not b over here. And there are things which are b and not a over here. But there are some which are both. So that means we have four possibilities.
Because we and we had this we went we had the homework. So Yeah. How about I’ll be everybody’s assistant.