Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The image of Denny fitting into “woman” the way South Australia fits into Australia anchors the debate drill closing this 47-minute session with Ven Jampa Gendun on Collected Topics, the first text of monastic philosophical study. He opens with a recap of the text’s eight divisions before walking through a classification chart of all phenomena: selflessness in Sūtra School terms (the self imputed to the five aggregates rather than independently existing), the split between nonexistent and existent objects, and permanent versus impermanent phenomena, with definitions of valid cognition, established base, and six synonyms for permanence including nirvana and unconditioned space. The second half shifts to live student debate drilling the four possible relationships between two objects — mutually inclusive, mutually exclusive, three possibilities, or four — with examples drawn from people in the room.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 59 CT 1988 10 27.mp3
UUID: d3a2f3da-049a-4185-805d-2d2881ca6b2c
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-10-27
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 47.0 minutes
Words: ~4,350
So we’re going to review quickly what we’ve done up to now spending most of the time debating.
So I think first, you know, there were the eight topics, eight divisions of the collected topics. This is the very first text that a monk or a nun would begin their philosophic studies at a monastery with. Collected Topics is divided into three parts. Any other one? Under the three parts?
In listening, presenting, and meditation. Lesser, middling and greater paths of reasoning. We are taking a look at the lesser path of reasoning, which has eight divisions. These eight divisions are? Colour, established base, isolates.
Did I say reverse opposite of being? Okay. Opposite or reverse of being and the opposite or reverse of non being. Then the fifth? Is-ness and is-not-ness.
Is-ness. And then the sixth? Cause and effect? No. Generality instance.
Generality and instance. And the seventh? There’s now a cause and effect. And So the introductory explanation to cause and effect? And the eighth?
Substantial and reverse phenomena. We didn’t do that one. So we’re just going to quickly go through the I think we’re going to skip the first that is color because that was just to introduce you to debate and now most of you are experts at debate. We won’t have to go into this. But everything that’s included in the first that is color is included in the second section, which is established basis.
You have this chart, we’ll take a look at this chart and we’ll just go through it very quickly. The chart begins and this is the way all the phenomena, everything in the universe is broken down into categories, into various divisions. And this is kind of a chart of all the various Everything in universe is broken down. My chart is broken down. So it begins the overall category, that is, the category which is the most general, which includes everything whether it exists or doesn’t exist, is this first category of selfless selfless.
So, everything is selfless. Whether it exists or does not exist, it’s still selfless. What do we mean by selfless here? Does it mean there are no people? Empty.
Empty. Basically we’re studying these Collected Topics from the point of view of which school? Which of the four tenets? Sūtra School. And do they assert the emptiness, do they say things truly exist, or are things empty of true existence? Yes.
Yes. What? So in the Sūtra School, when they say selfless, they’re talking about a very rough type of selflessness that is only a person’s. They believe that all the various external objects truly exist. They exist objectively from their own side without depending upon, for example, the mind.
So when we talk about selfless in the Sūtra School, we’re talking about the lack or the absence of an independent self, of an independent self. Just make it very roughly speaking. There’s an absence or a lack of independent self. There’s no such self, an independently existing self. The self is dependent upon the five aggregates.
The aggregate of form, feeling, discrimination, compositional factors, and consciousness. in dependence upon this collection of five aggregates, this group, the self is imputed, designated, is named. You know, I, when I say I am sitting here, the only reason I can say that is because I say that because my body is sitting here. Therefore, and because my I or Jampa is designated or imputed to the, you know, essentially the mind and body, therefore I say, I am sitting here. I am talking because my body is talking and I am imputed, designated to this body.
Therefore, I can say I am talking. I am thinking because I myself is designated to the mind. Whatever the mind is doing, I can say I am doing. So I am thinking. The I is designated or imputed, is placed upon the mind and body, or a collection of the five aggregates.
There is no self which is not dependent upon the five aggregates. You know, there’s no self. If we took away the five aggregates, there would not be this thing left over, you know, this kind of lump, some kind of soul maybe, something like that, which is I or Jampa. In Buddhism they say, This doesn’t exist. This type of self doesn’t exist, so they say it’s selfless.
There’s no such thing as this type of self. But in general there is a self. There’s a Champa, there’s an I, there’s a person who talks, a person who sits. But it’s merely the self which is designated or imputed or named to mind and body. It doesn’t have any real substantial existence.
So when they talk about selfless in the Sūtra School, they say all objects are selfless. What they mean is that all objects are not the object of use of a person with an independent self. This piece of paper is selfless because it’s not the object of use of a person with an independent self. See, one of the four marks of Buddhism, which they call the Four Seals of a Buddhist Doctrine, which testify to a Buddhist doctrine. The first is that all products are impermanent.
The second is that all contaminated phenomena are miserable or dissatisfactory. The third is that all phenomena are selfless. And the fourth is nirvana is peace. So, when they go to interpret this third, that is to say, all phenomena are selfless, they have to be able to say, Well, how is this piece of paper selfless? The way they interpret it is that this piece of paper is selfless because it is not the object of use of a person with an independently existing self.
The person is directly selfless. Know, the person doesn’t have an independently existing self, and all the various objects are not the use of such a type of person with an independently existing self. Therefore, it’s said all phenomena are selfless. So this is the broadest category. You know, both existent phenomena and nonexistent objects are all selfless.
They’re either not an independent existing self or they’re not the object of use of an independent existing self. Therefore, we can say whatever it is, it’s selfless. So that’s roughly what we mean when we say selfless here. Selfless is broken down. It’s divided into two.
Nonexistent and existent, nonexistent and existent. Who can give an example of a nonexistent object? Horns on a head. Horns on a rabbit’s Horns on rabbit’s head, for example, is a nonexistent object, but it’s still selfless. Then existent?
What is the definition of existent? Is nonexistent existent? Is nonexistent existent? Non existent is existent. Yeah?
Is nonexistent the object of a valid cognition? Are the horns on the rabbit’s head the object of a valid cognition? The definition of existent? What is the definition of an existent? The object of a valid cognition, that’s right.
That which is the object of a valid cognition is the definition of existent. So anything which is the object of a valid cognition or a prime cognition, In the awareness and knowledge class, I’m using the word prime cognition. Anything which is the object of a prime cognition exists. Just because something is the object of a cognition doesn’t mean it exists. It has to be a prime cognition.
It has to be a valid, a non mistaken cognition. There are many things which appear to a mistaken cognition. For example, an independently existing self. If you press on the eye, can see two lights up there, something like that. And if you’re sick, you may see if you have jaundice, you see a yellow piece of paper when it’s really white.
Yellow piece of paper doesn’t exist, but it is the object of a cognition, but it’s a mistaken cognition. So it’s only the object of a prime cognition which exists. So the object of a prime cognition is what we mean by existent. So things have to be known. There’s no such thing as something which is unknown.
There’s no object, phenomena which is not known. If it’s not known, then it doesn’t exist. If it’s not known, then it doesn’t exist. Then there’s a number of synonymous terms. There’s a number of objects where they’re synonymous or that is they’re mutually inclusive with existence.
We talked about mutually inclusive. In some ways it means synonymous, but it’s not quite exactly the same Here it’s more or less the same meaning. There were such things as established base. There are five objects which are mutually inclusive. There’s existent, established base, established base.
The definition of established base is that which is established by a valid cognition. That which is established by a valid cognition. Then there’s object of understanding. The definition of the object of understanding is the object realized by a prime cognition. Then there’s object of knowledge.
Object of knowledge. So, the definition of object of knowledge is that which is suitable to be the object of awareness. That which is suitable to be the object of awareness. And then the fifth is phenomenon, phenomenon, phenomenon. And the definition of phenomenon is that which holds its own entity, that which holds its own entity.
It holds its own nature and it’s able to keep itself together, keep its act together. Something like that. If it can’t keep its act together it just doesn’t exist. It’s a requirement for this phenomenon. So there are these five which are mutually inclusive or synonymous terms.
So then the chart goes on to divide existent. Existent is further divided into two. Permanent phenomena and it would probably be easier if we just said impermanent phenomena. Permanent phenomena, impermanent phenomena. Here it says thing.
But it’s nice and symmetrical if we just say permanent phenomena on one side and impermanent phenomena on another. Permanent phenomena and impermanent phenomena. So, what was the definition of permanent phenomena? So I I know it’s it’s not momentary, darling. It’s So, that which is not momentary technically, that which is not momentary and has a common locus with phenomena.
Or just an easier way to say it, know, mean horns on a rabbit’s head You know, we make an easy definition. We’ll say a phenomena which is not momentary. Phenomena which is not momentary. Phenomena which is not momentary. What comes into that category?
Phenomena which is Here it gives four examples, but we can give some more. For example, unconditioned space, or just space. It’s the space in which universe exists in all the various objects. It never changes whether the space in this room, whether there’s an object here or whether there’s no object here, it’s still that space exists. There’s two kinds of space, aren’t there?
There’s a space between my hands, for example, and I can make it smaller, I can make it grow. So that’s kind of conditioned space, you know? Like you have glass and there’s space in there and you fill it up. The empty space becomes smaller and smaller. But the space inside the glass, just that space, whether it’s full fluid or whether it’s half full or not full at all, space still exists unless you break the glass.
So this is unconditioned space, the space which things occupy. It’s not changing from moment to moment. Then there’s other things like nirvana is permanent, that is to say, cessation of the various abandonment, cessation. Then there’s things like emptiness itself or suchness. You hear me say suchness?
Emptiness is permanent. Mental images. You you think of your mother, something pops up in your mind that’s permanent. It’s like it’s not changing from moment to moment. It’s not changing from moment to moment.
It’s fixed, this image you have. I can’t hold an image for this. Yeah, but it may come in your mind and go away. But it never changes. It goes back in the file and they appear to your mind’s eye for a while and then go away.
But in itself, it’s not changing from moment to moment. It’s not growing. Your mental image of your mother is not growing. You know, she’s not getting older. Or she’s not Her hair doesn’t grow.
The idea to have your mother. You may drop that idea and take on a new one, but you get a different one. But that idea of your mother is constant. It’s fixed. It’s not changing.
Those are some examples of permanent phenomena, phenomena which are not momentary. They’re not dependent upon cause and effect, causes and conditions, not changing from moment to moment. There were six phenomena which were mutually inclusive with phenomena, with permanent phenomena. There are six phenomena which were mutually inclusive or synonymous with permanent. For example, non-thing. I don’t know.
Haven’t thought to go into so much detail on this. So, non thing, the definition of non thing, that which is devoid of the ability to perform a function, that which is devoid of the ability to perform a function. It’s the definition of non thing. It’s an object which cannot perform any function. Then the next is non product, and that a non-product is an uncreated phenomenon, like nirvana.
Unconditioned space is uncreated. It doesn’t arise in dependence upon causes and conditions. And then there’s uncompounded phenomena, uncompounded phenomena. And the definition of uncompounded phenomena is that which is not suitable to be created, abide, and disintegrate. That which is not suitable to be created, abide and disintegrate.
Uncompounded phenomena, that kind of thing, usually uncompounded space, for example. And then conventional truth. We’ve been talking about conventional truth on Tuesday now. The definition of conventional truth is that which is ultimately not able to perform a function. That which is not able that which is not ultimately able to perform a function.
Then the last is a generally characterized phenomenon. Generally characterized phenomenon. The definition of generally characterized phenomenon is a phenomenon which is established as merely imputed by conception, a phenomena which is established as merely imputed by conception. So this is why permanent things are not able to perform a function because in the Sūtra School these things like space, nirvana, they’re merely being named by the mind. They don’t exist objectively.
They’re being imputed or designated or named by the mind. They’re being imagined by the almost, I don’t know, imagined by the mind. They really can’t perform a function. We can go further next time. Let’s do some debating, a little bit of debating.
Last time we talked about There’s four possibilities. Four That’s, you know, the four ways in which two things can relate to one another. So let’s let’s take some examples. Rudy, with respect to dog and cat, what is the relationship? It’s mutually inclusive.
Mutually inclusive. So whenever if if an object is a dog, it’s pervaded by being a cat. So is there a common locus? Common locus is animal. Animal.
Do you agree with that, Linda? Okay. Do you agree with that, Denny? Denny doesn’t agree with you. So you you debate with Rudy.
I like your final one. You’re you’re going okay. Dog. It a dog. Yes.
Why is it? Why is it a dog? Animal is the subject. Why is it Why is a dog? If an object is an animal, is it pervaded by being No.
Animal is the subject. Animal is the subject. He said it’s a dog. Why? Why is animal dog?
Human is the subject. Is it Rudy? Human is the subject. Yeah. Paul said it is Rudy. Now, it can be any person. Human is the subject.
human is subject. Is it German? No. Is it Rudy? No.
It can be anything. Animal is a subject. Is it dog? Animal is not a dog. No, a dog is an animal, but animal is not a dog.
It is? Let me finish. No, he said animal is the common locus of dog and cat. So, he said animal is not the common locus of dog and cat because animal is not a dog. Animal not a dog.
Animal’s subject? With respect to dog and cat, the relationship is not Why? You say with respect to dog and cat, why is it why are they mutually exclusive? Because there’s no common locus? No common locus.
Okay, so here we have this is dog, this is cat. There’s nothing which is both a dog and a cat. There’s nothing which is both. Can you think of one, Mindy? Both a dog and a cat?
No. Completely separate, aren’t they? So there’s nothing which is both a dog and a cat, so we call that relationship or we call that relationship mutually exclusive. Cat is excluded from dog, and dog is excluded from cat.
Mutually means both ways. They mutually exclude one another, so this type of relationship is mutually exclusive. Then we take permanent Permanent and non thing. Now, let’s take something. Linda, Buddha House, over the present.
Buddha house, treasure. Okay? What is Okay. Do you want to What is the pervasion between Linda and the present Buddha House treasurer? The present.
The present. There Linda. Okay, good. Right. Mutually inclusive.
Why? It is one and the same. Okay, so we say whatever is Linda is if an object is Arlinda, it is pervaded by being the present Buddha House treasurer. If it is the present Buddha House treasurer, it is pervaded by being Arlinda. If it’s A, it must be B.
If it’s B, it must be A. So this is the same circle. That’s right. Good. Okay.
Let’s say human. human and say woman, woman and With respect to woman and Denny, what is the pervasion? With respect to woman and deni? Four possibilities? Anybody else?
Okay. Let’s look for that. Is there anything which is both Denny and and woman? Yes. human being.
human being is is a human being Denny? So you said there’s nothing which is both? Just like dog and cat? Yes. Yeah?
There’s nothing which is both Denny and a woman? There’s nothing which is both? Something which is is there one thing which is a woman and which is Denny? No, not unless you know her personally. If you know just words on the board.
Is it always women? Is there thing which is both? Just any one thing in the world, in the universe, which is Denny and which is a woman. Can you name that one thing, or it doesn’t exist? Well, here and now, because we know her, can say yes.
Is woman a word on the board? Can a word on the board give birth to a baby? No. Can a woman give birth to a baby? Yes, woman is not a word.
It’s a human being, isn’t it? It’s human being, alright. Is there anything in the whole universe which is both a woman and deni? There’s none. Anybody disagree?
I think we should let deni answer this one. How about Denny over there? Is Denny a woman? Denny is the subject. Is she a woman?
Is Denny both a woman and Denny? Is there one thing in the universe where it’s both woman and Denny? There is a common locus. There is a common locus. A common locus just means a place or a thing which has this common quality, these two qualities.
There’s something which has both of these qualities. We call that a common locus. Something which is both deni, something which is a woman. Right? So it’s not like dog and cat, is it?
There’s nothing which is both. Here there’s something which is both. Not pervasion is different. But if you give the dog and the cat the same name, Yeah? Okay, we’ll call this Ralph?
Yes, and this is Ralph too. And this is Ralph, okay? Is there anything which is both dog and cat? Ralph is the subject? Ralph is the dog?
Yes. Ralph is a dog. Ralph a dog or not, isn’t it? Ralph is a subject. It is a dog.
No, it’s a name. A So it’s not a dog? It’s not a dog. Okay, so is there something which is both dog and cat? No, maybe later on there Maybe later on there will be.
Okay, so what? We know there’s a common locus, so it’s what? Which one do we exclude? Which one do we exclude? We’re trying to see which of these four possibilities.
Which one of these four relationships? If there’s locus, common locus, common locus, which one do we get rid of? Use the exclusive, right? So we get rid of this one. Okay, now we have to keep going.
Anybody? What kind of sheet debating? Determining the pervasion. Collect the topics. So look at this one.
It says one says debating three possibilities. With respect to existent and thing, this can be taken any two objects. Does there exist a common locus? What is the answer? Is there a common locus?
Yes. Yes, there is a common locus. We can therefore exclude mutually exclusive as a possible relationship. Now, is whatever is a woman, is it pervaded by being Denny? Does it have to be Denny, for example?
Linda as the subject. She has a woman? Linda is a woman? She’s not There’s an object which is a woman and not Denny. What does that exclude?
What does that information Which one of these four relationships? It’s mutually inclusive. Yeah, because if it’s mutually inclusive, then everything that is a woman must be Denny, and everything that’s Denny must be a woman. But here we have an object which is a woman but not Denny, so it can’t be mutually inclusive. Yeah?
We said mutually so we’ve excluded mutually inclusive. Now we’re left with It has to be one of these two types of relationship. Now, is everything that is Denny a woman? Everything that is woman, every object a woman, Denny? No.
If the answer to both these questions were yes, then the relationship would be What does that tell us about, okay, there are, okay, this is Danny. So, you know, this is woman, yeah? And we say, well, everything that is woman, everything Okay, let’s see, let’s start over. This is Denny. Denny, okay.
Everything that is Denny must be a woman, yeah? But there are some things which are deni, but there are some things which are women are not deni. So, deni is kind of swallowed up by women. Everything that’s deni is completely swallowed up by being a woman. But not everything that is woman is swallowed up by deni.
There are some things which are women there are some things left over. You know, this stuff out here. This is all woman. This is all woman, but not deni. Women cover more area than Denny does.
Denny fits into women. Yeah. Like this. It’s like when in Australia and South Australia. South Australia, it fits into Australia.
It’s a part of Australia. Kind of anything which is South Australia is completely taken up without being Australia. But Australia is much bigger than South Australia. There’s parts which are not South Australia. So likewise, everything that is is taken up by being a woman.
But women, there are women who are not Denny. It’s much vaster than being Denny. The relationship between woman and Denny would be three possibilities. We’re just calling these three possibilities because the way we debate it, we list three possibilities. When we debate this, list four possibilities.
There’s no particular reason other than that, why we call this four possibilities and this three possibilities. We just have to know that this type of relationship is called three possibilities, and this type give me an example of four possibilities? Woman and Okay. Okay, what is the relationship between women and Australia? So, first off, let’s look is there a kind of always just first thing you do is look to see if there’s a common locus.
If there’s no common locus, then your work is finished. Why? Because there’s nothing in common. Yeah, so which one would it be? Yeah, it’s the first thing you can do.
If there’s nothing in common, there’s no common locus, then your work is finished. Can just say, exclusive. So is there something which is both woman and Australian? For example? Now, is there something which is a woman and not Australian?
For example? Fergey. Right, lady. What did I say? Princess Fergey or something?
She’s the Princess Fergie. Okay, well we all know what we’re going do with Fergey here, okay? What’s up? Fergey. Fergey is a subject, she’s a woman?
Fergie is a subject, she’s not Australian? Correct. Okay. So, what does that exclude? Mutually inclusive.
Okay. It’s not mutually inclusive because if something is mutually inclusive, whatever is a woman has to be whatever is a has to be b, and whatever is b has to be a. No matter what they may be, it has to be both of these. Whatever it is, whatever object. Fergie is not an Australian.
Why is she not Australian? She was born in England. If you’re born in England, does that mean you’re is it pervaded that you’re not Australian? Oh. Yes?
You get into a hospital. Can’t be? I mean, I’m also Australian, that’s the point. Okay. So then we go on to see.
So anything There’s something which is a woman and not Australian. Is it Is whatever is Australian a woman? For example? Bob Hawkee. So Bob Hawk is an Australian?
Bob Hawk is not a woman? Why is Bob Hawk not a woman? She’s a man. Okay. If an object is a man, it’s pervaded by being not a woman?
Sir. Okay. So,