Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. A debate about whether a wombat is a cat — prompted by the harder question of how we really know a dog is not a cat — anchors a key moment in this 47-minute logic class with Ven Jampa Gendun. Working through the Collected Topics curriculum, students practice the four-possibilities framework, mapping relationships between phenomena such as man and woman, impermanent things and books, and form versus consciousness. Gendun carefully distinguishes common locus from common characteristic, then guides students through mutually exclusive, three-possibility, and four-possibility relationships in live Socratic debate. A sustained digression examines the nature of consciousness: Buddhism holds that the brain is a cooperative cause of mind, not its substantial cause — a position Gendun contrasts directly with Western materialism. Suited to students already working through monastic logic training.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 61 CT 1988 11 03.mp3
UUID: b488ab84-ce84-4881-91e2-ebcbc2432ca3
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-11-03
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.6 minutes
Words: ~3,932
There is phenomena in the in the universe. Do you have any questions? You may explain to me. That is our four ways of exploration, you know. We have Four ways with what?
Which one? Okay. Someone, men and women, there’s no pervasion. Locus, no locus.. That’s right.
Okay? Okay, good. Right. Now, what about if you find a common locus? Between man and woman.
What is a common locus? Legs. Legs. So legs as a subject, is that a legs as a subject, is a man? Legs?
No, it’s not a man. So then how can it a how can it be a common locus? See, all this gets stuck with this because both have legs. Have legs. Both have something in common.
That doesn’t mean there’s a common always, if they have something in common. It has to be they both have to be it is. It is a man. The object has to be a man and has to be a woman. It has to be a man and has to be a woman.
That’s right. Is right? A color? Is it color a man? Yeah.
That’s for a man. Yeah. So this is what is rather gets stuck. I’m not Yeah. The level of thinking is not high enough to abstract.
See, there’s a difference between common locus and common Common characteristic. Common characteristic. Common locus just means a common basis. Common basis. Common basis.
Like, well, human being is a common basis for man and woman, isn’t it? Is it? Man and Is a human being a man? No, a man is a human being. But a human being is not a man.
So this is a common characteristic of man and woman, but it’s not a common locus. See? Yeah. And this is my old way of thinking. What else?
Anything else, really? Yes, there’s no pervasion between these two. There’s a pervasion? Between men and women. What is the pervasion, Denis?
Don’t know. Men. With respect to men and women, what is the pervasion? We should exclude it. Yeah.
But it’s just not pervasion. It is pervasion, but it’s exclusive. What is it? What type of, like saying, what is, what type of relationship? What is the relationship?
What is the difference? What is the pervasion? So, just think the pervasion is mutually exclusive. Mutually exclusive. Yeah, that’s the type of pervasion.
Mutually exclusive. And then, if you come to four possibilities, there’s no pervasion whatsoever. See? What’s an example of pervasion which is four possibilities? Give me an example.
Four possibilities. Oh, I had one. I took I looked at this on the sheet. Impermanent and book and notebook. Impermanent and?
One book. A non book. Non book. What is it? That’s what I have to.
A notebook. Impermanent notebook. Okay. That’s always cheap. Is this something which is both?
Common locus? Yes, existent. It’s been permanent. Is existent impermanent or permanent? Momentary.
Is existent momentary? Well, it must be. A simple example. Anything that is momentary So, what something which is impermanent and not a book. Just an easy easy example.
Like it’s simple. Something I could, I take another piece, but I remember, part. Part. Okay. That’s all.
Part. Part is impermanent? Yes. Part is not a book? Go ahead.
Alright. Something which is impermanent not something which is A and not B. Green Book. Green Book as a subject. It is impermanent?
Yes. It is not not book? It is not not book. So it is book. Yes, it’s a book.
So it’s not not book? Is a green a book? Is a green book? Yeah. A green book not not a book?
That’s right. Then we give something which is B, not A. Just book. Just book. Is book?
It’s not book. Is just book not book? Book. Is book not book? No.
Something which is something which is not book and and not impermanent. I don’t know. Like to look it up, but I like to find it. Could be anything, could it? Okay.
Well, name something which is not impermanent. Well, this one is space. Okay, space. A space notebook? Correct.
Why can’t we say space? I’d like to say it’s too simple, you know. It’s not such thing. You don’t make it difficult. Is the subject.
It is not impermanent? Why? Because it’s permanent. Space is the subject. It is permanent.
Why? Space is a permanent phenomenon. Why? Because it is existent. If an object is existent, is it pervaded by being permanent?
If an object is existent, is it pervaded by being permanent? No. But you gave the reason existent as why space is permanent? So, is the subject, why is it permanent? Okay.
Yes. I would know the definition. Would divide and see. It’s not momentary. That’s the easiest answer, but not.
That’s the correct answer. It’s not momentarily arising and disintegrating. Space is the subject. It is not book? Yes.
Then something which is neither, which is both not A and not B. Both not A? Is there anything which is both not A and not B? Something which is both not A and not B? I just said, existent.
Existent. Existent as a subject. It is not impermanent. Existing as a subject, it is not not book? Existence Subject is a book?
No, a book is a system, it’s a system of a book. How can So it’s not existent. Can’t you? Is there anything which is not a and not b? Which is both not a and not b?
Both? Isn’t existent both not A and not B? Isn’t existent not both? Is existent both? Providing is coming one way, isn’t it?
Is existent both not A and not B? Or is it not both not A and not B? Are you saying is existent not in parallel? Not both a and b. Not both.
A and B. Both A and B. Is the existence not both A and B? I don’t know. What do you think?
It’s not, not both? Is it both A and B? Is it both A and B? Is it both permanent and not book? Is it both impermanent and not book?
Is existence both impermanent and not book? No. And it’s not both A and B? No. So therefore, it’s not both.
It both? Is it both? Then it’s not both. Yeah. Okay.
Existence is not both A and B. Book. Is book both a and b really? A and b? Yes.
It’s both a and b? Well, it’s not book. Is is book not book? Is book Oh, I see. It’s not book.
No. So it’s not book is not both Book is not both a Is book both a and b? Is book both impermanent in that book? Book is impermanent, alright, but not book. So, it’s not both.
Book is not both a and b. It just has to be one or the other. Either it’s both or it’s not. So if it’s not both, if you can say it’s both, if it’s not both then it’s not both. It has to be both.
If it’s one, just because it’s one doesn’t mean it’s both. So it’s one, it’s impermanent, it’s not both. Therefore, it’s not both. How about an example of three possibilities? Can you give me an example of three possibilities?
Animal and dog. To which pervades which? What? Oh, no. The second?
Okay, cat. Cat. Cat, that’s the subject. It’s not a dog? Why?
Why is the cat not a dog? Why is the cat not a dog? Because different sex. Different sex? Different sex.
The only difference is different sex. Male and female. How many sexes are there? Two. So what happens is the male cat and the male dog?
Same different sex? Same sex. Surely we don’t perceive the same characteristics to be shared by a cat and a dog. Why is a cat not a dog? Because we don’t perceive it to be a dog, because it doesn’t have the characteristics of a What what necessary characteristics does it have to have to make it a dog?
Behaviors. Behaviors. For example? Mhmm. It meows.
That’s really It’s if a bucking animal were to meow sometimes. Yeah, maybe meow. Meow. Okay, anyway. Expression is completely different from a dog.
Yeah. How would you say that? You wouldn’t. A cat is not a dog because it doesn’t bark. What did you say that?
Not all dogs bark. That’s right. So then not all cats meow? So that wouldn’t be a you couldn’t determine whether an animal was a cat or a dog just because it didn’t meow. Then we’re back to our perceptions and categorizations.
This animal here is not a dog, the cause. Mean, generally can we say that simply because we don’t perceive it to be a dog. But why don’t we perceive it to be the Because Experience, conditioning, learning. Because mean, the mental picture we carry around with them. Yeah?
Compare it. You never had a wrong mental picture? Oh, yes. But in this case, there are two simple things, a dog and a cat. No.
I mean I can’t distinguish with my picture. There’s two types of animals. I can say, that’s a dog or that’s a cat. How about if I really? Yeah.
How about I’ve before I came to Australia, had never I had never seen a wombat. A wombat. And I said, this what is that? That’s a cat. Cat?
Yeah. That’s a cat. That’s a fat cat. Yeah. But I’m wrong, aren’t Yeah.
Because you have you have never a mental picture of a wombat in your head. I no. I said it was a cat. I had wrong picture. A wrong picture?
A wombat. So you had the the right picture, wrong information? I didn’t have a no. If if you saw a wombat and somebody said to you, it was a cat, and you then you would have been given the wrong information. Yeah.
So so how then how do you know that that this dog isn’t a cat? It could have been given rather wrong information. Yep. Is there way we can be sure whether the dog is a cat or not? I guess we go with the crown.
They used to think the earth was flat. Does that make the earth flat? Or that the sun the sun went around the earth, does that make the sun go around the majority of people thought the sun went around the earth, you know, three hundred years or four hundred years ago. It’s not interesting. It is.
Give something which is both. An animal and a dog. A dog. Dog is a subject, it’s an animal. Dog is a dog.
Dog is a subject, it is a dog? Yeah. Why? Why? Good question.
And, something which is neither? Which is but not both? A book. A book. A book is a subject that is not an animal?
A book is a subject that is not a dog? Except. Why? That’s a book. Let me go back.
And permanent. Form. With respect to impermanent form, what is the pervasion? Which prevents which? If an is If an object is formed, it is pervaded by impermanent.
And if it is impermanent? If it’s impermanent, it’s not pervaded by form. For example? Gas. Gas.
Edges all the time. Gas. Gas. So this form here, when we divide a thing up, divide it up into three, if you notice on this chart. And by form we mean also matter.
Rather than by form we distinguish visible form and form. Form in general just means matter or that which is composed of atoms. Yeah, so that would be an example of form. Yeah. But its form isn’t permanent because it changes.
Yeah. It’s fluid. Yeah. That’s what it’s in development. Yeah, it’s impermanent, that’s right.
So here we’re looking at something which is impermanent but not form. What would be an example? Something which is in? What can we say? Just consciousness?
Yes. Consciousness. Consciousness is a subject. It is impermanent. Impermanent.
Why? Oh, changes. Changes from moment to moment? End of it. Alright, we went over that last week.
The same changes from moment to moment. Consciousness is subject, it is not formed? No? Why? Why?
Because it’s clear and Because it’s clear and knowing. Alright. Why is it I don’t understand before why is a dog a dog. Hang on. I have no idea.
Why is a dog? What is the difference? It is. That’s the No. Why is a part a part?
Yeah. Because it’s that which is flat bottom. What do we what is the difference? Was The answer is the definition of Definition. Definition.
The definition is the nature. It’s its nature. So, what if you’ve got a definition of a dog? Everything. It has a definition.
You can look it up in the dictionary. Yeah? Yeah. And you’d say, why is this animal why is this animal dog? Because it has whatever the dictionary whatever the definition of animal.
Of dog is. But the same thing, what we name dog, could have a different name altogether, could it? This name is given by name. It probably has a different name culture, the animal, because every language has Oh, yes. But it’s the same Same meaning.
Same meaning. Yeah. But it could have been called Tater just for That’s fair. That’s what we learned then. Who invented all this?
Who invented it? What’s his name, internally? Yeah, you can call anything. See? See, nowadays, they give new names to things, and they need to advance them.
Yeah. In technology? Or there’s names coming up? That’s languages, different. The changes.
That’s all, yeah. So, there’s, if I loved. Yeah. Professor Suzuki. Uh-huh.
I mentioned him before, I read about this. Uh-huh. He mentioned everything hangs together like we try and value together. Everything we think and see, and so, it’s interesting. I found this out through studying Buddhism.
Uh-huh. Never thought about it. And now you get all this connection. So, yeah.. So, wonder if you knew two languages, and you’re all talking about a pot.
What is it, a pot? Top. Top. Top. And you know you’re saying that when the two words bring up different images.
If you know the two languages, they wouldn’t they bring up the same image? No. No. Why not? Why not?
Because you know to this particular name, to give to the same thing, that’s like They have different associations. Yeah, he has different associations from his childhood with the word top, and then when he came to Australia and he began to use the word pot. He would have different feelings, different associations, different memories, so he have a different image when he thinks of the word top and when he thinks of the word pot. Because you think in one language, which is your own language. In your native language, you’re thinking that way, as well as explicit.
The other one remains something grafted on, which is a conscious effort to think about what you’re saying. Yes. I still I I think in two languages now. Yeah. And sometimes in one, sometimes in the other.
That’s interesting. You just go along. Can I ask if is consciousness formed because it’s a product of an electrochemical? Oh, consciousness is not form. Not form.
No, by form, roughly speaking, that which is composed of atoms. So we would say that. But it’s a product of electrochemical changes? A product? It’s a In the brain?
Impulses? Could just guess what you’re getting at and say that as far as Buddhism, they wouldn’t agree. I mean, it’s a conditioning factor. The brain and the nervous system, the body form atoms, organic molecules are a conditioning factor on the mind, but they are not the, what we call, the substantial cause of mind. The substantial cause, just like the substantial cause of a flower is a flower seed, whereas the earth and the water and the sunlight act as what they call cooperative causes.
So there’s two types of causes. One is a substantial cause and the other is a cooperative cause. And in the case of consciousness, the nervous system, the brain, are the cooperative causes, not the substantial cause. This is the big difference between Western materialism and the Buddhist presentation, the nature of the source of mind, source of consciousness. Yeah, but the Western Western mind still accommodates that viewpoint because it acknowledges the existence of the soul, spirit, something.
Yeah, I said Western materialism, where they say that the mind, consciousness arises through molecular action, you know, electrical interaction between organic molecules. That’s all it is. It’s not something more than that. Like a computer will someday be conscious. That’s it, more or less.
They’ll build an intelligent or have a conscious computer. That’s what Western materialism would say, but Buddhism would disagree. They don’t think you could never have a conscious computer. But it means in Buddhism all the thinking processes are more refined than in the western world. Right.
It doesn’t matter whether you’re Buddhist or not, you No. That’s what I I even read about it. Why? Because many scientists nowadays in the western world and in the east, they’re taking up, please, to study, to find out more. Yeah.
That’s right. Yeah. Not only just trying to find thinking, yes and no, about this Indian, about, you know, this Indian system of He mentioned many things that’s always selecting in Buddhism. Yeah. To look beyond, to clear meaning what they look, and you know, And then they may come to meditation and suddenly they find something outstanding.
Yeah. It’s true. It’s true. That’s what I find wonderful to go and go and go and go Yes. Yeah.
And you guys should jump up. So let’s try another one. Not form notebook. With respect to that form and that book, what is pervasion? So what do we do first?
So, is there anything which is both not form and not book? Show? Consciousness as is not form? Why? Because Why?
Because it’s clear enough. So there’s common locus. What do we do? We see Is there anything which is a and not the? We’ve eliminated this.
Now we want to see if we can eliminate mutually inclusive. Is there anything which is not not form and not book? Not A and B. Something which is not A but is B. Oh, but it is B.
Something which is A and not B. Something which is A and not B. A and not B. Space. Is not a book?
Is space not B? Is space that book? Is space a book? Go ahead. Is there anything which is A and not B?
No? There’s nothing. Okay. Is there anything which is B and not A? This is something which is not a book but which is not not form?
Something which is not a book, which is not not form. Example? For example? Thought is not a book? Thought is something that is not not form?
Why? If an object is form, if an object is form it is pervaded by being not not form? Since whatever is not a book, is not pervaded by being not book. So that would exclude mutually inclusive, but if we exclude them mutually exclusive.
But we said that whatever is not form is pervaded by being not a book, so that excludes four possibilities. So what are we left with? So what do we have here? We have like this. This is Which one is inside and which one is outside?
Which pervades which? Which is the larger? Well, not four. Which one? Four, the light’s book.
No, but which Which one is the small circle and which one is the big circle? The larger circle is not The largest circle is not form. The largest is not book. It’s just the largest one, isn’t it? There are more things which are not a book than not form, aren’t there?
We’re talking about not form. Not form. Whatever is not book. Is whatever is not a book not form? No, a pot is not book.
How about a pot? Isn’t a pot in here? A pot is out here, isn’t it? This one’s only about. I think about generality Is not form pervaded by being not book?
Is whatever is not form, is it pervaded by being not book? But they’re not the same because they’re both negative. For example, if we had like this and this was animal and this was dog, and a dog is pervaded by being an animal. But there are things out here animal but not dog. So in this case, which is in the center and which is on the outside?
I said, Notebook is in the center. Not book is in the center. That’s what I said. Oh, I see. Okay.
Say not book is in the center. Not book. You’re not disagreeing with me, please. You tell me why. You tell me why.
Mean, that almost Because it could be anything what is in the center and everything has a form. Everything has a What’s in here? What are some of the things in here? What are some things in here? Is pot in here?
It could be pot. Okay, but if that’s in there, it can’t be in there because it’s pervaded by being not formed. Everything in here has All right, not form. Pot is not book, isn’t it? Pot is not book.
And then we got this big circle here. And we got Yeah? So this Get it bigger. This not book. Not book.
Give me some of the things in here. This is our container of not books. We can have a dog in there, we can have cats, we can have pots, we can have space. We can have all kinds of things in there. And if we say, Well, okay, that’s pervaded by being not form.
But are all these things in there being pervaded by not form? I understand that. There are some things. Dog is You say it’s inside that little circle, but it can’t be because it’s being it should be pervaded by what’s out here. This covers this entire Actually, there are more things that are not book than there are not form.
Okay, so not book. Everything that’s not form, like for example consciousness, space, is pervaded by, is pervaded by, is covered by not book. So whatever is not book is pervaded by being not book. Whatever is not form is pervaded by being not book. If an object is not form, is pervaded by being not book, it is necessarily not book.
But, if an object is not book, it is not pervaded, not necessarily not form, for example? Consciousness. That’s right. Consciousness is not book? No, that’s not right.
If an object is not book, is not necessarily not form. Not necessarily not form. Because it could be a pot. It could be formed. That’s right.
For example? Oh, it’s not form. For example, pot. Pot is not book, but it’s not not formed. Pardon?
So, not formed is the center. That’s right. That’s right. Questions? Question one, here.
Oh, you’re doing very well, Denis. I want you to carry on the debate, right? No? Eye consciousness and, yeah, let’s just say.