Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Using the classic Western puzzle — does a tree falling in an empty forest make a sound? — Ven Jampa Gendun illustrates a central claim of Buddhist epistemology in this 34-minute session: nothing exists independently of being known. Drawing from a printed chart, he reviews the second division of the lesser path of Collected Topics, working through the definition of a valid cognition (“a new and incontrovertible knower”), then mapping the six phenomena mutually inclusive with impermanent things — thing, product, compounded phenomena, ultimate truth, specifically characterized phenomena, and their opposites. A broken car versus a mental image of a car sharpens the distinction between ultimate and conventional inability to function. The session closes with students pairing off for debate. Suited to those already working through the Collected Topics curriculum.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 62 CT 1988 11 10.mp3
UUID: f883ea76-9889-446f-b08e-71ff33f6c317
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-11-10
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 34.4 minutes
Words: ~3,738
We are reviewing the second division of the lesser path of reasoning. The three paths of Collected Topics, three divisions, the lesser, middling and greater. The lesser has eight divisions. The first is color. The second is established basis.
And that’s what we’re looking at now. And there’s a chart. A chart. We’re just going to we’ve already we’ve gone through this once. So we’ll probably go through it rather quickly.
Rough Just roughly. Hi, there. You? Yes. So you might find it a little bit confusing.
But it’s not you, it’s just that we’ve done it once before. Last week we talked about dividing selflessness. Know, both non existent and existent objects are selfless. So that’s the broadest category. That’s the most general category that we can make use of.
Then that is divided into both existent and non existent. And the definition existent? Things are only existent when they’re objects of mind. There’s nothing which is not the object of a mind, of an awareness. That’s what we mean when we say something exists.
That was the object of a valid cognition. If something is not the object of a valid cognition, it doesn’t exist. You know, the atoms inside this table, in the middle of this table, are existent because they’re the object of a valid cognition. Who’s valid cognition? It’s the the object of omniscient mind.
But anyway, things do not exist independent of being cognized. That’s an important point to keep in mind here that things do not exist independently of being known. You know, there used to be in the Christian, you know, some of the philosophic disputes that they used to get into. One of them was, Does the tree falling down in the middle of the woods where there’s no people, does it make a sound? You know, there’s nobody around.
Then it crashes down, hits the ground. Does it actually make a sound or not? So there’s the big debate about this. So from the Buddhist point of view, least, if it’s known by an omniscient consciousness, therefore it would make a sound. I mean, not necessarily, but if there was necessary conditions, then it would be heard.
If there was a sound, it would be heard. And because it was heard, would be a sound. I mean, there couldn’t be just there was something would be there knowing it. There wouldn’t be an object which is unknown nor would there be a possibility just because there’s not a person there that would not be known, that there’s always omniscient consciousness. So, existent, that which is the object of a valid cognition.
In awareness and knowledge, we’ve gone into quite extensively what is the definition of valid cognition. What is the definition of a valid the prime cognition? Anybody? Definition of a prime cognition? And?
New, incontrovertible what? New and incontrovertal knower. Yeah? That one’s a new and incontrovertible knower. And what is the word new to note?
New and incontrovertible knower is the definition of a prime cognition. So new is just the first moment. Like the first moment of seeing the piece of paper, the eye consciousness seeing the piece of paper is new. The second moment is not new. It’s old.
So it’s not a prime cognition. It’s only the very first moment. After that it becomes what? Subsequent cognition. Subsequent.
Second moment. It’s no longer a prime cognition. We will talk about subsequent cognizers today in awareness and knowledge. Then it has to be newly, incontrovertible, and that means it actually realizes its object. It realizes its object.
As Rinpoche mentioned, that means to eliminate superimpositions. That means to eliminate faulty projections that we make on particular objects, thinking that sound is permanent, for example. Eliminating our conception that sound is permanent, understanding that it’s impermanent, we’ve eliminated a superimposition, our own ideas. We’ve actually gotten at the object as it actually is. We’ve eliminated our own projections, our own ideas about the object.
So this is what the idea of realizing an object means. This is what it means here, incontrovertible. It has another meaning also that it won’t be controverted by. When we talked about last week in Study of Mind, we talked about that a scriptural quotation is an object taught by a scriptural quotation is pure by means of a threefold analysis. So that means it won’t if we can say that it’s incontrovertible with respect to the object that it teaches, for example, that through giving, through generosity that in the future you will have resources, that you will gain wealth.
The object of teaching is incontrovertible. It means that it will not be contradicted by any of the threefold analysis. It will not be contradicted by a direct cognizer, a direct perceiver, an inferential cognizer by the power of fact, or an inferential cognizer by the power of conviction. That is another scriptural quotation which says the exact opposite. So this idea of incontrovertible means it’s not going to be contradicted by another prime cognizer.
We can’t have two prime cognizers in conflict with one another. One of them has to be not a prime cognizer. We cannot have two valid understandings which contradict each other with respect to the same object. So this is another meaning of the word ‘incontrovertible’. It’s not contradicted by another prime cognizer.
Sorry to me, a new and incontrovertible knower. So that’s what we mean when we say existent, that which is object of a new incontrovertible knower. And then existed was divided up into two, permanent phenomena and impermanent phenomena. Here it says thing, but just to make it nice and symmetrical, nice and even, we can just say impermanent. Permanent and impermanent.
And there’s a difference in Buddhist philosophy and Western philosophy, the general way they use the term permanent and impermanent. Generally, when we say permanent, mean eternal in Western concept. I think that’s what we mean usually. But it doesn’t have anything to do with eternal. Permanent things have beginnings, ends.
Some have no beginnings, some have no end. Some have a beginning and an end. You know, this has many different variables. So it doesn’t mean that if a permanent object such as space, cessation, emptiness, nirvana, generic images, mental images, these are all permanent phenomena. Some of them have beginnings and no end.
Some have no beginning and an end. Some have both, some have neither. It has nothing to do with the fact of something being eternal. When we say permanent or we say impermanent, we’re talking about whether the object arises, abides, disintegrates momentarily. The arising, abiding, and disintegration of an object moment by moment.
Every moment by moment this table is arising, abiding, and disintegrating moment by moment. It’s constantly in flux. It’s not affixed. So this is the idea of impermanence. So in order to understand that, first we have to settle impermanence and there’s a coarse impermanence.
For example, in the case of dying, there’s a case of coarse impermanence. Constant changing and finally the arising, abiding, disintegrating in a very gross form. But usually sometimes they use the house and that coming to an understanding of death, coming to understand seeing a house or a mountain slowly decaying, that it looks permanent to our impression, but we can understand it’s constantly changing. Know, the rain washes down, the soil, it erodes. It’s constantly being worn down.
It’s changing by moment by moment by moment. This is coarse and permanent, but then we can begin to understand from that what subtle impermanence must be like. So it’s said it’s necessary to understand if it’s coarse impermanent, then more subtle impermanent. And it’s necessary to get an idea of subtle impermanence before you can understand emptiness. It’s like a gradual understanding, unfolding.
This idea of momentary change. And that was the definition that we gave for impermanence. That which is momentary disintegrates moment by moment. It doesn’t stay for even a moment. It’s not able to maintain itself for even one moment.
It’s constantly changing. And then there were five objects phenomena which were mutually inclusive with thing. Five object phenomena which were mutually inclusive with thing with impermanent or thing same. By mutually inclusive I mean almost synonymous. But I think most of the old students know what I mean by mutually inclusive.
Know, mutually inclusive. Where every case of one is a case of the other and every case of the other is a case of the one. And so there is impermanent and then there is thing, thing, that which is able to perform a function. It can actually do some kind of work. It can produce some kind of effect.
Whereas permanent things aren’t able to produce any kind of effect. They’re kind of frozen solid. They’re not they can’t bring about any change in anything else. They’re not changing themselves. In order to bring about an effect in something, this is one of the refutations against the idea of a permanent soul.
If it’s permanent then it can’t have any. We don’t have — it can’t have any relationship with us. Now what is the use of positing a permanent soul since it can affect us and we can affect it? Something which is permanent produces no effect And it doesn’t matter whether we’re good or bad, the soul is going remain exactly the same. It’s kind of frozen.
You know, it’s permanent. It’s unchanging. So it makes almost no sense to posit such a type of permanent soul from the point of view of the Buddhist definition of permanency. That means unchanging. Know, an eternal soul might be a different question altogether, just something which is eternal but changing.
But some of the Hindu schools, they posit a permanent soul from an unchanging nature, that we have an unchanging nature. So the Buddhist go and say, What’s the use of positing in such an unchanging nature? Since we don’t have any relationship with it, we can’t affect it, it can’t affect us, and then it doesn’t have any relationship with us. So there’s no sense in even talking about it. So that’s thing, that which is able to perform a function.
Then there’s product, that which is created. This table was created by a carpenter, created by as a product made from trees. That which are produced by causes and conditions, a product. And then there’s compounded phenomena. This is the fourth compounded phenomena.
So that is simply its actual definition is that which is suitable to be produced abide and disintegrate. That which is suitable to be produced abide and disintegrate. It’s why they call it compounded phenomena is that it’s by the aggregation, the coming together, the clicking of causes and conditions. It’s compounding of causes and conditions a phenomenon arises. Therefore, it’s a compounded phenomenon.
And then another mutually inclusive phenomena with thing or impermanent phenomena is ultimate truth, and that which is ultimately able to perform a function. That which is ultimately able to perform a function. So we talked about that which is ultimately able to perform a function. Ultimate truths are those things which are ultimately able to perform a function. There are two different schools within the We’re looking at this all from point of the Sūtra School.
Within Sūtra School there’s the Sūtra School which follows scripture and the Sūtra School which follow reasoning. So there is a difference, the things that they call ultimate truth. The school which follows scripture, they base their tenets on a text called the Great Exposition Sūtra, I think it’s called. Here it says that the ultimate truths are the four. Ultimate truths would be the elements, those things which ultimately exist, the five elements of earth, water, fire, air and consciousness.
These are ultimate building blocks of the universe. These are the ultimate things that everything is made out of. The rest of them are not ultimate truths because they’re just collections of these ultimate particles, ultimate mind moments, indivisible mind moments, indivisible particles. But those following reasoning don’t accept this, that this ultimate truth is simply anything which can perform any kind of function. Anything which can perform a function.
Then there was the sixth mutually inclusive phenomena which is specifically characterized phenomena, specifically characterized phenomena, and that was a phenomena which is established its side and not merely imputed by conception. A phenomenon which is established from its own side and not merely imputed by conception. In the Sūtra School, things objectively exist. They truly exist. They exist from their own side.
Things exist from their own side. This table exists from its own side. It’s not dependent upon my labeling a table. It’s a specifically characterized phenomenon. Do you know why we call it specifically characterized?
Because it has specific characteristics. As opposed to what? So those are the six phenomena which are mutually inclusive with impermanent phenomena. As I said, definition I think we talked about the definition of permanent phenomena is phenomena which is not momentary and has a common locus with non-thing. We wouldn’t have to add that if we just make it this, phenomena which is not momentary.
Phenomena which is not momentary. It means if anything which is not changing from not a thing any phenomena which is not changing from moment to moment. It’s fixed, it’s unchanging. What is an example of a permanent phenomenon? Anybody?
Pardon? Space. Space. So like the space between my hands? Is that fixed, unchanging?
How can I clap my hands? What do you think? You know, generally we can talk about Yeah. Generally when you say space, that’s right. But we can be a little more technical and say unconditioned space and conditioned space or caused space and uncaused space.
So what is that? We talk about space being unchanging. In what way is it unchanging? Like the space inside vase. The space inside that vase.
When I put flowers in that vase, does it change? It does. It doesn’t. I mean, there’s always a lot of space left, always the same space. No matter how many flowers I put in it.
As left? No matter how many flowers I put in it, it’s always the same space. Yeah? So I could keep putting flowers and more flowers and pour water in there and more flowers. Never ending whole.
So there are two types of space within the conditioned space and unconditioned space. The unconditioned space is the space which is there, which is within thisyou know, whether there’s an object there, whether it’s been occupied or not, there’s still space there. That space that this building was built on, whether there’s a building there or no building there, there’s a space still there. We tear down the building, the space is there, but then there’s an unconditioned space like As we put the flowers in, there’s a conditioned space which is changeable and is dependent on causes and conditions, because the space would finally run out. But the other type of space, no matter whether it’s been occupied or not, there’s still a space there.
It happens to be occupied. Then another of the mutually inclusive phenomena with permanent thing is non thing, and that’s just the opposite of thing, that which is devoid of the ability to perform a function. Things, space, cessation, nirvana aren’t able to perform functions. Aren’t able to produce an effect. That’s that reason you’re ultimately able to perform.
That is not ultimately. Generally, I mean, ultimately we’d be opposed to conventionally, but I don’t see why they would have a I would think that that would just ultimately, upon final analysis, you could find some kind of whenever they use the word ultimately, mean, if you were to analyze as far as you could go, in this case you would be able to find that in conventional truths that they are not able to perform a function. And within ultimate truths that they would be ultimately able to function, that as far as you could that its final mode of being is that it’s able to perform a function. When you come to its final when you analyze something to its ultimate to its final mode of existence, that’s what we usually mean by ultimate. That in this case whatever it was would be able to perform a function.
Could you say absolute? I don’t use the word absolute. But I just thought maybe it’s the same meaning. The final. Yeah.
Some people use the word absolute. Ultimate usually means the when we say the ultimate truth, that means the upon final analysis when you analyze as far as you can go. And that truth that you arrive at is ultimate truth. The idea of absolute has the idea of independence, I think, But some people use the word, but I don’t. And then another mutually inclusive phenomenon is non product.
So that would be simply the opposite of product which would be an uncreated phenomenon. And then next would be uncompounded phenomena. Again, it’s the opposite of compounded. That which is not suitable to be created, abide and disintegrate. Conventional truth.
That which is not ultimately able to perform a function. That which is not ultimately able to perform a function. That which is not able able to perform a function. So I think if you had a broken car, what is the difference between a broken down car and the mental image of a car? They both are not able to perform the function of a car, aren’t they?
A broken down car and the mental image of a car. They both are not able to perform it, one is ultimately not able to perform it, I think, not able to perform the function of a car. Maybe the other one is. The other one is conventionally not able to. The other one could never perform the function of a car.
The other one conventionally could be fixed up. It could be repaired. So maybe something like that. Its ultimate nature, its final nature, is that it couldn’t perform that function no matter. But the other one, conventionally, if you repaired it, you could perform it.
But you can’t repair a mental image of a car. It’s such that you could never get around and drive in it. It just ultimately doesn’t have that ability. I think something like that. Then generally characterized phenomena, a phenomena which is established as merely imputed by conception.
So this is beginning to get into the idea of the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka school, which states that all phenomena are merely imputed by conception. But the Sūtra School, they just freak out if you said this. They couldn’t understand that. They say, you know, something is merely imputed by conception. It’s just made up by the mind.
You know, you’re just making up some idea. It exists in the sense that it’s being created purely from the side of the mind. Like nirvana, unconditioned space, space is merely being imputed upon the basis of the non obstructive quality. You’re able to pass in this room. You’re able to put an object there.
You’re able to move across that place. Upon that, you impute space. Other than that, there’s nothing there, other than your idea, projecting the idea that this is space. There’s really there that you can do and you can get a hold of. It’s merely coming completely from the side of the mind, merely imputed by conception.
But the Consequentialist Middle Way school goes on to say, Well, this is the way to work with all phenomena. There’s nothing you can really get a hold of. In the end, it’s all being imputed by mind, just as in the case here of space for the Sūtra School. So this And then I’ll just quickly go through a little bit more. And then the thing or impermanence is divided into three parts: form, consciousness, and non associated compositional factors.
Form, consciousness, and non associated compositional factors. There’s eleven, right? We just went over those Tuesday night. The five sense powers, the five objects of these sense powers, and the form for the mental consciousness. Mental Form for the mental consciousness.
Well, mean, we divided those further. We said they were revelatory and non revelatory forms. Revelatory is when you’re able to understand the intention behind the form that was created the sound, for example and then the non revelatory form, for example, be the vow, a vow that you take. It’s an actual form. I’m not sure if it’s a form here.
I don’t think this is what they’re talking Oh, this is by, yeah, this is by Yeah, I see they wouldn’t This chart is from the point of view of the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka school. And yeah, it must be the same. So this isn’t necessarily from the Sūtra school. I don’t think they say forms are vows perhaps aren’t a form. Think it Yeah, those are form.
That’s okay for the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka school and the Great Exposition School, but generally this presentation of collected topics is from point of view of the Sūtra school, and I think they posit vows as consciousnesses. I don’t think they posit. I’m not sure. I forget. Anyway, I can check up.
Within the Consequentialist Middle Way School, it’s divided into eleven five sense powers, five objects of the senses, and the one. I think they would say, would give an example of an object for mental consciousness. A form which is an object for mental consciousness would be something like one atom, one mind moment. How’s that form? One atom.
Maybe the top knot of a Buddha’s head, on top of a Buddha’s head. Like one atom, you can’t see one atom with your eye consciousness. It’s too subtle. It can only be the object of a mental consciousness. So that would be a form for a mental consciousness one atom.
As we can only see groups of atoms, we can’t see one atom. So maybe we can debate. Maybe we could two people could have two two people volunteer to to be the respondents. Everybody. Let’s see.
Let’s just let’s just begin with. So let’s anybody with the people like the volunteers? And we’ll yeah.