Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The question of whether a green pot necessarily qualifies as “not blue” — and why double negatives don’t always cancel — anchors the live debate in this 47-minute session, where Ven Jampa Gendun reviews the first seven topics of Collected Topics, the foundational logic text all Tibetan monastic students study before the advanced degree curriculum. He opens by explaining the purpose of structured debate: not winning arguments but training the mind to think methodically and accept conclusions forced by logic. He then surveys the ground covered — primary colors, a flowchart dividing all phenomena into forms, consciousness, and compositional factors; isolates; types of negation; is-ness and is-not-ness; generality and particulars — before working through live examples with students, including “man and American” and “instance of form versus not-consciousness.” The session doubles as an open invitation to join the ongoing weekly class; no prior background is assumed.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 55 CT 1988 09 06.mp3
UUID: f6019160-358d-4b03-aa8f-3cbc30b434c9
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-09-06
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 47.6 minutes
Words: ~4,760
We’re studying a text called Collected Topics. We’ve been studying for a number of months now. And it’s the very first text that the monks and nuns study in their education with regards to Buddhist philosophy. In this they learn the various divisions, terminology, and use it as a basis of debate. So it’s getting familiar with the various terminology and the various thoughts and concepts that they are going to meet with when they study the larger texts.
The main, for example, Geshe study program. A Geshe is like a doctor of divinity given by the Tibetan government. In this program they study five main texts. First they study the Perfection of Wisdom, which is mainly based upon the text The Ornament of Clear Realization by Maitreya. And then they study Dharmakīrti’s commentary to Dignāgā’s Compendium of Prime Cognition.
It’s a basic logic text which takes up the various subjects of the nature of the mind, direct perception and inference and proof of past lives, future lives, proof of liberation, proof of omniscience. Subjects are such as this. They study that text and they study the third text subject wise. It’s the middle way philosophy, Madhyamaka. And this is mainly based upon the text Entering into the Middle Way by Candrakīrti.
And then they study Abhidharma, that is the science of the mind, psychology and cosmology, the nature of the universe as presented in Buddhist philosophy. And then they study the rules and regulations of the ethical discipline of the monks and nuns, the Vinaya. So these are the five main texts that they study as a preliminary to their studies in order to develop the ability to debate, in order to get familiar with the concepts, terminology and divisions. They begin their studies with this text which is called Düra or Collected Topics. And that’s what we’ve started studying.
And it has three divisions, the lesser path of reasoning, the middle path of reasoning, and the greater path of reasoning. And we’ve almost completed the lesser path of reasoning. Almost. That’s not a path of reasoning. It shouldn’t be taken in that respect.
It’s that there is like a path of reasoning and there’s three divisions. And there’s one which is the beginning, middle and uppermost. So we call it lesser. Not that means inferior in any way. This is three divisions to this text.
Called small, medium and large. Something like that. It’s more expanded subject explanations of the very subject. So the, how many divisions were there to the Lesser Path of Reasoning? Do you remember?
Eight. Yes.. So I don’t know, just tonight we can discuss some of these divisions very briefly. Then if you still have an interest, I think Alastair was going to type up his notes. Then there’s a number of handouts. For example, all these kind of strange things like this that we can get together for you to study.
And then there’s tapes of all my past talks. It’s quite a lot material. But anyway, if it sounds interesting, if it stimulates you, then you might want to go ahead. It’s going to be, you know before it was one and a half hours, now it’s going to be one hour. Just one hour.
And we devote half the time, you know we just go slowly, there’s no hurry, half the time to debating. Debating in a sense of means of learning and training the mind. But most importantly it’s a means of training the mind into thinking clearly, logically, being able to think methodically. You know most of our arguments and discussions they end up jumping from one point to another and over a period of time or hours there’s no conclusion. No one has come to any conclusion because there was no method to the way they were discussing.
So hopefully through this process of debate can develop some method, some logic to the way we present an argument and that we argue and come to some conclusions, some new ideas that perhaps we couldn’t have accepted before. But then because of the force of the logic then we are forced to accept new ideas and develop doubts, questions in our mind. So this is the process of training the mind which is the main reason for debating. It’s not to win arguments or have arguments for the sake of arguments. So, okay, the very first division- so there were eight divisions, right Betty?
The very first one was the color. And this is, you you have to understand that we’re- this text is being used by what amounts to children as a basis for learning how to read and write. And so the very first subject that they come to is pretty simple in that respect. It doesn’t sound perhaps too profound. It simply lists the primary and secondary colors.
Primary and secondary colors. And so this will also be taken up in the second division where we actually begin to look a little more deeply into the subject of the way Buddhism divides up the universe. And this is called established bases. And we get into it with a chart. Something like this, which is like a flow chart.
It’s the way Buddhism is dividing up all phenomena in the universe. It begins with the highest sort of general category which is selfless and this can be divided into non-existent objects and existent objects. Existence objects can be divided into permanent phenomena and impermanent phenomena or thing. Likewise, permanent phenomena have their divisions, things have their divisions into forms, consciousness and non-associated compositional factors. And then forms has their further divisions into twelve, consciousness can be divided in various ways which is going to be taken up in the teaching by Khensar Rinpoche when we study awareness and knowledge.
Going to consciousness as a specific subject but here it’s just dealt with as just different categories of the way consciousness can be divided up and then to non-associated compositional factors such as persons and non-personal compositional factors. So there’s all these various ways to sort of get a grasp of all the different possible phenomena within the universe in a way they fit into the scheme as far as Buddhist philosophy is concerned. And then we get into a more difficult subject, which is which, you know, most of the Tibetan teachers say that Westerners have a very difficult time with. Do you remember what the third division? Isolates.
Isolates. Things that hang off the trees in wintertime. So isolates are a way of beginning to develop our ability to work with concepts. Actually, for example, in the case of isolates especially, explanation of isolates is very brief. It’s more what the import and the understanding of what an isolate is comes about through actually debating it, creating doubts and getting rid of misconceptions with respect to what an isolate is.
Example, if we just use the example that if I took away everything in this room but this object and that which is left over is what I want to talk about. I want to talk about a specific object, I get everything in the room which is not a pot, which is not a vase, and that which is left over is the vase which I mean. And what is the relationship between that and, you know, a red pot or a clay pot or a gold pot? Different ideas of generalities and specifics, how the mind is naming objects. We went into this quite in detail, the process of labeling, the process in how we arrive at mental images, generate images, meaning generalities.
The various phenomena which are we say mutually inclusive with isolates. There are four phenomena which are mutually inclusive, for example with the isolated pot. You remember that did? Anybody? It’s Sam’s pot.
Identical? Yeah. Sam’s pot? Pot which is Sam’s pot. Pot which is the Sam’s pot?
That which has a flat bottom, is bulbous, and is able to hold water. And the fourth one? Qualities. That which is what? Flat with bulbous, bulbous flat thing able to hold water.
Having the three qualities of substantial existence? Something like that? Anyway, so coming to an understanding of what all those mean and why we’re trying to understand it in the first place. Implicative negation, non-implicative negation. Then the what was the fourth subject?
Opposite of being and the opposite of non being. Opposite of being and the opposite of non being. And these are just devices, techniques to help us to give as basis for debates, getting into very complicated subjects. Know, they’re not necessarily complicated. They’re only complicated when we first approach them because we aren’t used to more complicated ideas.
They’re not in ideas but just almost the grammar of it appears to be complicated. And then there’s the next, the fifth is, is-ness and is-not-ness. And so, you know, what we’re trying to do is get used to working with more complicated ideas like, you know, the pot which is green. That doesn’t look like a bit complicated. So if we can work with simple ideas like this, then when we come to the major philosophic texts where they’re actually presenting more profound ideas.
But they use the same way of arranging the ideas, the part which is green. What is the relationship between the pot which is green and the pot which is not blue? This little this looks very simple. Then we add just a little bit of twist to this and all at once the mind kind of boggles, begins to boggle a little bit. What is the relationship between the pot which is green and the pot which is not blue?
And, you know, those who have debated half of our time is spent debate, actually, trying to understand what is the relationship between these two phenomena. These are two phenomena. And, you know, we have different possibilities. Talk about four possible ways that two things can relate. What are there?
Anybody? What are the four ways that two phenomenons can relate? Mutually inclusive. Okay, mutually exclusive. Three possibilities.
Three possibilities. Four possibilities. In order to begin to work with concepts to develop our mind, to train our mind, we use these as one of our basis for debate. We simply named two phenomena and we said, Okay, let’s look at what is the relationship between these two phenomena. There’s the pot which is green and the pot which is not blue.
Now, they have to be related either in one of these four ways: either mutually inclusive, mutually exclusive three possibilities or four possibilities. Just take an example. What is the pervasion with respect to a pot which is green and a pot which is blue? Is the pervasion? Okay, three possibilities.
Want to have you guys been debating? Linda says, Three possibilities. So then we have a format. The method for debate is formal. We have a certain method or procedure that we follow in order to come to, as I said, come to some conclusion rather than simply jumping here and there without coming to any understanding, without being forced to develop some insight, you know, to being forced into letting go of our position that we wanted to hold on to.
But we see now we can no longer logically hold on to it, that we’re forced to let go of misconceptions. And in place of that we form the correct idea, correct understanding. So what is with respect to the pot which is green, the pot which is not blue? Pervasion — by pervasion I mean, the way it relates? There’s three possibilities.
Do you want to debate with Linda? So Linda’s trying to determine what is pervasion, and she’s saying there’s three possibilities. And if you would diagram that, it goes like this. Okay? If an object is B, it’s pervaded by being A.
And if an object is A, it’s not pervaded by being B. There are some things which for example, a man, an American. That’s not a simple example. Animal from the bone? Is that what you want?
That’s good. Animal. She’s saying between these two phenomena, these two objects, there’s a relationship of pervasion of three possibilities. If we take a very simple example, there’s a relationship between dog and animal of three possibilities. You want to explain that?
Danny? Oh, yeah. Well, there’s three possibilities because dog is pervaded by being an animal, but not all animals are pervaded by being a dog. A dog. Okay.
So dog is here and animal is out here. There’s monkeys, cats, kangaroos out here. Anything here, like dogs, has to be an animal. But anything which I hear, like kangaroos, doesn’t have to be a dog. That is to say, any animal doesn’t have to be a dog.
So, if an object is a dog, it’s pervaded by being an animal. If an object is an animal, it’s not pervaded by being a dog. For example? Cat. Cat is not a dog.
Is a cat an animal? No. Okay, so we’re trying to see the same way that these two relate, but in a little more complicated. So, you know, it’s getting used to working with First, we work with very simple ideas, the way the two things relate, and then we add a few little complications. But they aren’t all that At first, they appear complicated.
But once the mind becomes used to handling a little more complicated structure, then you can work more and more ideas, you know, brought together, compacted together. You know, we sort of develop some method. Our mind doesn’t freak out when it sees something like that. So, with respect to the part which is green and the part which is not blue, the pervasion has three possibilities. So we ask, Which pervades which?
Is this A and this is B? Or is this B and this is A? We’re asking which is which. Okay? So, if an object is what?
A pot which is green, for example, is it pervaded by being a pot which is not blue? We have a yes or we have a no. Yes. Say one yes. Should we take a look?
Because that would be great. So if an object if an object an object, well this is our object, is a part which is green, does it have to be a part which is not blue? No. It doesn’t have to be a part which is not blue. It doesn’t have to be a part which is not blue.
Therefore Okay, what are we saying? They’re saying that there is something which is both? Is there something which is a part which is green and a part which is not blue? It could be the same. Yeah, the color marker.
That’s the color marker. Green color. So, this thing here, our pot here, is We’ll say it is a pot which is green. Can it be a pot which is not blue? Yes.
Okay. So, is any pot which is green a pot which is not blue? Yes. No. We have a yes or we have a no?
No. See, every pot that’s green is not necessarily A pot which is not blue? It is. So, every pot which is green is necessarily a pot which is not blue. Yeah?
By necessary, we say pervaded by. So, if an object is a part which is green, it’s pervaded by or necessarily a part which is not blue. Because why? Because it can’t be white. It can’t be both what?
Well, can’t be green then. If it’s green, it’s It’s not blue. That’s right. Why? Isn’t there anything which is both green and blue?
Isn’t it is don’t these have a common locus? Don’t they have one object which is the same? Pardon? How about Rainbow. Okay.
Isn’t a rainbow green and blue? And this says no. Isn’t this is this paper black and white? Is this sheet of paper black and white? Yes?
So there’s something that can be both black and white. That’s good. Good. So, we’re going to a little more clearly already. So, this paper is not black and white.
Is the paper black and white? What color is this paper? Black. The paper is white. It doesn’t have isn’t that black?
I think it’s black. Isn’t the typing black? Is the typing the paper? I don’t know. Yeah, that’s right.
So there’s there’s nothing which is both green and blue. No object. Yeah? What do you mean in that debate up there, of those two? Yeah.
Why if an object is green and it’s pervaded by being not blue. Whether it’s a pot, whether it’s a piece of material or whatever. It doesn’t matter what it is. In this case, we picked a pot. So, a pot which is green is pervaded by being a pot which is not blue.
So, not blue is out here, isn’t It’s this A. The part which is green is inside here. The part which is green and the part which is not blue is out here. It’s out here. It’s pervaded this entire area.
It also pervades into being. So, we’re trying to see the relationship between part which is green, part which is blue. And we said there’s three possibilities. And you have no way of understanding how we go through the debate at this point, how we go through each of these debates. And then we go further in debate.
Then there’s three possibilities. Okay, we’ll show you a little bit how we debate. With respect to what part which is green and part which is not blue, what is the pervasion? So we have a special format procedure if she says three possibilities. We ask which pervades What we’re saying is, which is inside here and which is outside?
Which pervades which? Okay. And then give counter pervasion. Then we ask to deposit the example. Okay, so she says a pot.
A yellow pot. So, yellow pot is the subject. It is the pot which is not blue. Yellow pot is the subject. It is not a pot which is green.
Okay, so we’re beginning to play around with these negatives, you know, we put them in different places. So, you know, we’re actually really training our mind to be able to work with the concepts and be able to think logically. Then we go on. Name something which is posit something which is both. A part which is not blue.
What? A part which is green. What? Part which is A which is green is the subject. There’s a part which is not blue.
Pause it something which is pause it an object which is neither. Which is neither. A green house? No, I don’t remember. Yeah, a green house.
A house. A house is a subject. It is not a part which is green? House as a subject not a part which is not blue? Then, the house which is as a subject.
So, you’re saying it’s not? It’s not a part which is not blue. Therefore, house as a subject, it is a part which is blue? House is a subject. It is a part which is blue.
Why? No, you asked. Asked why. Because it is not a part which is not blue. So, what are two possible answers?
Why? You lost your confidence. Just because something is not a part which is not blue doesn’t mean it’s a part which is blue, doesn’t it? What is the relationship between part which is blue and not part which is not blue? See, it appears that, generally, when you have two negatives in a sentence, we always think that they cancel themselves out.
And that’s what I was doing with Linda, And she went along with it. What is the relationship between these two? Part which is blue and not part which is not blue. There’s nothing which is both. There’s nothing which there’s no common locus.
There’s nothing which is both. There is there is a common locus because pot, which is blue, is that common locus. It’s the same. It’s all the reason not that. Reason.
Danny says reason not established. Pot which is blue is a subject. It is not not a pot which is not blue? Not not. Not not.
So, these would cancel. It’s not a pot. So, therefore, it’s not a pot which is not Anyway, that gives you an idea of the kind of thing that we get into the way of our debate. Then we use various syllogisms and pervasion and, you know, these various provisions as a basis for debate. Then the next subject was generality and particulars.
The seventh subject is the Introductory Explanation of Cause and Effect of Cause and Effect. And that was the last subject we took up. We’ve taken up seven subjects out of the eight within the first division of the paths of reasoning and the lesser path of reasoning. What I’m doing is more or giving an idea of what you might be getting into. Some of you who want to might be considering, you’re quite welcome to join the class.
We’re going to go through the text. I’ll spend about, you know, roughly, depending upon how the class goes, half the time introducing the new topics as we go along, and half the time will be spent on or maybe even more than that in actual debating. We have group debate and one person sits and has to answer the questions as put by one of the you call those? The Challengers. Challengers.
Yeah, that’s good enough. There’s the Respondent and the Challenger. So in this way we learn the various terminology, we learn to understand the subjects, but we also are training the mind through debate, which is just as, if not more important than learning just any material. Any questions? Well, it strikes me that you would need to have quite a bit of understanding of the terminology that went before in order to Like man and animal?
Like dog and animal? Why didn’t you like the man in American as an example? What is it? With respect to man in American, what is pervasion? Well, an American is provided by pervaded by being a man and it doesn’t make a difference.
So, what is Lenny, with respect to man and American, is pervasion? Four possibilities. So I was looking for three possibilities, and this is the four possibilities. With respect to man and American, there’s not four possibilities. You cannot pause an object which is both.
So therefore, I do. You say reason not established. And then you say positive. Positive. Oh, Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan is the subject. He is a man. Ronald Reagan is the subject. He’s an American. If an object is a man, it not pervaded by being an American.
Posit that object. Mick is a subject. He’s a man. What’s that? He’s not an American?
What’s that? Why? Because Australian. If a man is Australian, he’s pervaded by being not American? Because he’s not American.
American. If a man is an Australian, he’s pervaded by being not American? Sir? Don’t don’t perform. Think like this..
Okay. If an object is an American, it’s pervaded by being it’s not pervaded by being a man. Not pervaded by being a man. Positive object. American woman is the subject.
She is American? American woman is the subject. She is not a man? Why? We won’t go.
They won’t go. And then, a positive something which is neither. Me. Dani is the subject she is not a man? Accepted.
Dani is the subject she is not American? Accepted. Okay, so that’s why. Anyway, so the relationship between man and American has four possibilities. So, we were to diagram it, just like this.
And then A man, B is American. There are some men who are not American, some who are, and B is American. And there are some Americans who are men and who are not. So it’s and this is in the handouts. I give you if you’re interested.
This is the way we diagram mutually exclusive, mutually inclusive. Three possibilities and four possibilities. Like that. Just a way to see how things relate with one another. Different possibilities.
So, any questions? Did you guys debate while I was gone? How about, you know, the let’s just take up a debate. Thing? Pardon?
Oh, sorry. I thought you wanted to home. What did you do? Oh, did you what was that? You know, have to do a pot in Iceland.
An Icelandic pot. Another one? You have another one? Yeah. We had instance of form.
Instance. Instance of form. And not consciousness. Not consciousness. So let’s try this second one here.
You want the Betty? Rudy? Not busy tonight. Respect to instance of form and not consciousness, what is pervasion? So what do we do first?
Look for a common locus. Is there anything which is both, instance of form and not consciousness? Yeah? Is there anything which both? Yes.
Positive? Is it pot? Pot is the subject. It is an instance of form. Why?
What we mean here by instant is we don’t mean example. We mean instance as opposed to generality. Instance as opposed to generality. Of the subjects is called generality. Generality would be maybe something that any part could fit.
And Well, there’s like pot and gold pot. And gold pot. Gold pot is an instance of pot. Pot is the generality of gold pot. So in this case you wanted to go for it?
No, it wouldn’t have. Well, no. Here the relationship is between form and pot. So, is pot an instance of form? So, then we would they have a particular, as you say, criteria.
Is the pot is not an instance of form because it does not What? Pot is not an instance of form because it does not Pardon? No. Does anybody remember? Anybody have it in the notes?
Pot is not an instance of form? No. As you like. What is what is the criteria for one object being the instant of another? Let’s understand that.
It follows that it’s not the instance because of the way of applying it. It follows that it’s an instance of that object. It follows that pot is an instance of form because it satisfies the complete criteria for being an instance of form. And what is the complete way of applying the instance of form? And so there are three criteria which make pot an instance of form.
It is form. That’s the first criteria. It is the same entity as form, and there are many other phenomena aside from pot which also have a common locus with form. So there’s these criteria that it has to satisfy in order to be an instance of form. Anyway, we’d have to go into that.
It appears that maybe we’ll have to do some reviewing to go back into it again. We just thought at the beginning if we had enough new material. I don’t know, Advanced students might get bored. So, what was the relationship? What is the pervasion between instance of form and not consciousness?
So, is something which is both? So, that eliminates mutually exclusive? If an object is an instance of form, is it pervaded by being not consciousness? Yes? So what is that?
If an object is the instance of form, it’s pervaded by being not consciousness. So what does that exclude? We’ve excluded exclusive Four possibilities. Sorry, what was that mean? We’ve excluded this possibility, four possibilities.
Because if an object is an instance of form, it’s pervaded by being not consciousness. And therefore, it’s even now that we’ve got it down to either this or this. If an object is not consciousness, is it pervaded by being instant of form? And what are we left with? We got rid of this one?
By a mutually exclusive? We got rid of that we got rid of this one? We didn’t get rid of that one. What are we left with? Three possibilities.
So the way these two phenomena relate, by the way, is three possibilities. With regards to instance of form and not consciousness, pervasion is three possibilities.