Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 47-minute session, Ven Jampa Gendun opens with a deceptively simple question: can you actually see impermanence? Using a pot on the table, he introduces isolates — factors that share the same entity as an object yet are distinguishable only through thought, never through direct perception. He walks through the generality isolate, the four phenomena mutually pervasive with isolated pot, and the definition-definiendum relationship, then connects the whole framework to the two truths as same entity, different isolates. A striking digression explains why a meditator who directly perceives one emptiness simultaneously understands the emptiness of all phenomena. The session ends with the fourth division (reverse of being, reverse of non-being) and live debate drills on pervasion using examples drawn from dogs, notebooks, space, and consciousness. For students actively working through the Collected Topics logic curriculum.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 63 CT 1988 11 17.mp3
UUID: d397109c-9824-477c-b585-1b3932875412
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-11-17
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.8 minutes
Words: ~4,156
Review of the Lesser Path of Reason. Last week we completed what? What did we complete? We looked at what? The question is, what did I just ask?
Now, what did we look at last week? So we pretty much discussed what division? The division on established basis. We roughly went through this chart. Just all the various divisions the way phenomena are divided up.
And then, what is the next division after established basis? Identifying isolates. Identifying isolates. Has anybody identified an isolates? Have you seen one walking around lately?
Identifying isolates. So, simply most aptly put, an isolate is a conceptually isolatable factor. A conceptually isolatable factor. Something that we can isolate, some factor of something, whether it’s in any type of characteristic or the object itself, which we can isolate or we can divide off from other things conceptually using thought consciousness. So, a conceptually isolatable factor is what we mean by isolate.
Some things are conceptually isolatable, some things are non conceptually isolatable. We’re studying in awareness and knowledge. For example, impermanence and pot. Are those conceptually isolatable? No, this is for an ordinary person.
These are two things. Impermanence and pot. Are these conceptually isolatable or non conceptually isolatable or neither or both? Impermanence and pot. Conceptually isolatable.
Can we sit this over here and this over here? And We can put one here and one here. Can we distinguish them conceptually? Can we distinguish impermanence and pot conceptually? Can we distinguish impermanence and pot non conceptually?
For example, with the eye consciousness? Does it appear to the eye consciousness? Yes. Does impermanence? No.
It doesn’t? Not to me. How about when a house falls down? Well, this I can see. How about when you see somebody die?
How about when you see a mountain being washed away by erosion? That is something you see. What is the definition of impermanence? So disintegrating, arising, disintegrating moment by moment. Can you see that?
These examples I gave, are they examples of impermanence? Like someone dying, mountain being eroded, house falling down. Are they momentary? That’s gross impermanence, isn’t it? It’s not momentary impermanence.
So there’s two types of impermanence. There’s gross impermanence and subtle impermanence. When we say impermanence, almost always mean subtle impermanence. We don’t mean the gross type like death and things like this. So with a pot, can you see the arising and disintegration, the moment, moment, arising and disintegration of the pot or this table?
I can’t see it. I have to use my mind. Does it appear? It appears, yes. It appears.
It comes with the same input. That’s good. It’s not something other than the pot. It’s not this table and its impermanence. The impermanence and the pot are the same entity.
The impermanence of the table and the table, they’re not too We only can distinguish them by conceptual, by thinking about them, through thought. Through directly, they’re the same entity. We cannot distinguish them. An ordinary person cannot distinguish the impermanence of the table and the table. It’s not like there’s two things.
You could somehow put the impermanence of the table over here and the table over here. You can’t do that. You cannot actually physically isolate them, but you can conceptually through thought. So this is what we’re getting at when we talk about isolates, factors which can be isolated but only conceptually. To an eye consciousness perceiving the pot, the impermanence of the pot appears, but is it realized?
The ordinary person, do they realize the impermanence of the pot through the eye consciousness? So what do we call that? We’re studying awareness and knowledge. Which one of the seven types of consciousnesses? There are seven types of consciousness.
The first division of awareness and knowledge is divided into seven. Which one of those? What are the seven types of awarenesses? One of them is doubt. One is the non-ascertaining and doubt.
Okay, that’s right. Okay, that’s what this would be. Yeah, so the impermanence appears but is not ascertained. For an ordinary person, it’s another example they usually give, which was given in class, like when you’re really involved in looking at something very beautiful and somebody says something to you. The sound appears to your ear consciousness.
But you say, Would you repeat that? I didn’t understand what you said. I was looking over here. You know that some sound was appearing to your ear consciousness, but it doesn’t register. It’s not ascertained.
So likewise, impermanence of the pot, impermanence of the table appears to our eye consciousness, but it doesn’t register. It’s not ascertained. We cannot realize it through the eye consciousness, the ordinary person. So, anything which is the same entity as the pot its impermanence appears to us. Anything which is the same entity as the pot appears to direct perception, like eye consciousness, but is not ascertained.
It appears but is not ascertained. So, for example, impermanence of the pot appears, the emptiness of the pot appears. But we distinguish directly with direct perception between impermanence of the pot and pot, But we can conceptually. We can say, Oh, impermanence of the pot is this, this, this, this, the pot is this, this, this. By thought consciousness, we can distinguish it.
So these are conceptually isolatable factors. Then we talked about, we said there were various types of isolates but they’re not so important to understand. There was one that was most important, the generality isolate or the general isolate. Generality isolate or self isolate. We said there were four phenomena which were mutually pervasive with isolated pot.
There are four phenomena which were equally pervasive with isolated pot. What does that mean? First, what are the four phenomena? Four phenomena which were mutually pervasive with isolated pot. Remember what they were?
We had one identical with pot and the pot which is identical with pot. No. No? Four phenomena which are mutually pervasive with isolated pot. Is this pot which is pot?
That’s right. Isolated pot. Identical with pot? The pot which is identical with pot. The definiendum of pot.
What is the definition of pot? Do you say about it? The bulbous? That which is bulbous, flat bottom, and able to hold fluid. That’s the definition of pot.
The definiendum. You know, there’s definitions and definiendums. A pot is a definiendum. It has definitions. A definition has definiendum.
We don’t usually hear the word definiendum, but it just means the mean, table is not a name, is it? But the table is the definiendum. Know bulbous flat bottom thing. That which is known by table, a pot. And then the fourth is what?
That which possesses the three qualities of the definition of bulbous thing. That which possesses the three qualities of imputation or existence of bulbous thing..
So, there’s three qualities of imputation or existence is the definition of definiendum. So, we just substitute this, the definition of this for this. I mean, what we’re talking about is that if you So, these are all mutually pervasive with isolated part. Isolated part. When we talk about an isolated pot, that object we’re referring to when we think about isolated pot, we’re referring to that which is identical with pot, We’re referring to the pot which is identical with pot.
We’re referring to the definiendum, the bulbous flat bottom thing able to hold fluids. We’re referring to that which possesses the three qualities of imputation or existence of the bulbous thing, etc. We’re referring to the exact same thing. It’s the same, mutually pervasive. If it’s an isolated pot, it is this.
If it is this, it’s an isolated pot. So, it’s just another way of talking about the same thing or referring to the same object. Whereas if we said, Red pot, the isolate of red pot, we wouldn’t be referring to that which is identical with pot. It’s something else. This is the only thing which is identical with pot is the isolated pot.
The only thing which is identical with pot is the pot which is identical with pot or the definiendum of bulbous thing. These are the conceptually We’ve conceptually isolated the same factor. Here, we call it isolated pot. Here, we call it identical. That which is identical with pot.. Here, the pot which is identical with pot.
We’ve conceptually isolated the same identical factor. The only important thing here is to, for example, understand that when we talk about the two truths, we were talking about the two truths, we said the two truths were the same entity and different isolates. Sometimes we think that the table and its emptiness, we can take the emptiness of the table or as I said, impermanence of the table and we can put it over there and we can take the table and put it here. Can do that conceptually, but in fact, in actual physical nature, the idea of being impermanent not the idea, but the impermanence of the table is not something different than the table. There’s not the table and then there’s the impermanence of the table.
The very nature of the table is impermanence. We can’t remove the impermanence of that. We can’t isolate that from the table itself physically, only conceptually. We can only think about doing it. Likewise, the two truths, conventional truth and ultimate truth, they’re the same entity.
They’re not like we can sit there or the conventional truth we can put here and the ultimate truth we can put here. They’re two sides of the same coin. If you have one side, you get the other side too. You can’t divide the two physically. The impermanence of the table is the same as the table.
The impermanence cannot be divided away from the table. It cannot be somehow isolated physically. They can conceptually. So what is the difference? What is the difference between impermanence and pot?
A pot and permanence and table? What’s the difference between emptiness of table and emptiness of the pot? They’re different isolates, aren’t they? Emptiness of pot, emptiness of table, a pot, and a table. They’re different isolates.
The isolate of the emptiness of pot is not the isolate of the emptiness of That is, we can differentiate conceptually between this as we can say, This is the emptiness of the pot and this is the emptiness of the table. But what happens when we have direct perception? Can we distinguish between non conceptually, direct perception? When a superior, when he first attains the path of seeing, he has direct perception of one emptiness. By having direct perception of that emptiness, he understands the emptiness of every phenomenon in the universe.
He understands the emptiness of every phenomenon in the universe because they’re they’re the same entity. They’re indistinguishable. Because pot and table are conceptual from a being a label pot and table. Involves you to be conceptual. If we understand the emptiness of pot, we understand the emptiness of table.
It’s just different bases. The bases are different, but the emptiness is the same. So he can understand the emptiness of all phenomena in the universe simultaneously. So if you understand the emptiness of one phenomena directly, you understand the emptiness of all phenomena simultaneously. So even understanding the emptiness of the is it can you it’s only conceptual to talk about the emptiness of of the base Yeah.
They’re table. Yeah. They’re only distinguished by their basis. Yeah. And to distinguish a basis involves Conception.
That’s right. You know, we talked about different ways of dividing emptiness up into four, sixteen, eighteen. That was just conceptual. Just by thinking, we can divide it into what we did before, into permanent, impermanent, and things like that. Everything is a permanent object, and we have impermanent object, things like that, but that’s only conceptually.
We can do that conceptually thinking about it, but in fact there’s no difference between those emptinesses, only by the way they’re bases. The only way we can distinguish that is by conceptually understanding, well, this is the emptiness of this particular base and this is the emptiness of that particular base. But the emptiness themselves are the same. So remember emptiness is non-conceptual. Non conceptual, yeah.
That’s when you attain the path of seeing, and then it’s said at that moment you understand the emptiness of all phenomena and the universe simultaneously. But you don’t realize their basis. You don’t realize the basis. You don’t understand all phenomena, just the emptiness of all phenomena. I don’t know.
I think just if you understand this one point, conceptually isolatable factors. That we have to be able to distinguish between that which we can distinguish directly through eye consciousness. Through eye consciousness I can distinguish table from the whiteboard, but I can’t distinguish the impermanence of the table and the table because they’re the same entity. I can distinguish the eraser from the pen with my eye consciousness because they’re different entities, but I cannot distinguish the emptiness of the pen from the pen because they’re the same entity, nor can I distinguish the impermanence? We’re talking about isolates, though.
I have a digression, I think. So what was the next topic? Any questions about isolates? It’s not so important now. Just so you hear about it next time when you talk about isolates.
It did come up when we talked about the two truths in the Opening the Eye of New Awareness. Okay, what was the next topic? So that was the division? Where was the fourth division? Is it or isn’t it?
It? Is it? It? Think so. Oh.
I don’t remember. Here, I’ll just look it up in here. Somebody says the fourth is opposite of being and the opposite of non being. Opposite of being and opposite of non being. That was the fourth division.
If I can find it there. Opposite of being, opposite of non being. Direct perception. Direct opposite being, opposite non-being. Alright.
So what is the opposite of being, the opposite of non being? Or the reverse? The reverse of being and the reverse of non being. So what is the reverse of being a thing? The reverse of being a thing.
Must be non thing. Yeah, non thing. So that’s not too difficult, is it? Reverse of being a thing? What is the reverse of being a non thing?
A thing. So that’s not too difficult. So this is just a tool to use in debate, to help twist your mind around a little bit. Reverse. So the reverse of not being a thing.
What is the reverse of not being a thing? This thing. That’s right. The reverse of not being a thing is thing. And the reverse of not being a non thing?
I know that. It’s nothing. The reverse of not being a non thing is non thing. Right? Okay.
Just so you get that idea. So maybe we’ll use that and we’ll debate a little bit. So, non thing and reverse of being form. Okay. With respect to non thing and reverse of being form, what is the pervasion?
So, what do we look for first? So, going look for a common locus. Okay. Is there anything which is both a non thing and which is the reverse of being formed? Non form?
Non form. Okay. Non form. So, Is non form a non thing? Is non form permanent?
Yeah. It would have to be Oh, no. Sorry. It’s not permanent. Why?
Because it has no form. It doesn’t exist. What are we going to say? If something doesn’t have form, it doesn’t exist? Actually, this is a difficult subject to take because it’s permanent.
None form is permanent. So it’s like Like space is non form, isn’t it? No, no. I mean, dog. Non dog.
Non Does that make it noble? Noble. What do we say, object of knowledge? Object of knowledge. Object of knowledge.
Is that permanent or impermanent? Is that permanent or impermanent? Object of knowledge. Permanent. What’s something that one really knows?
This table is an object of knowledge. Space is an object of knowledge. Emptiness is an object of knowledge. Anything which exists. How about existence?
We’ll just take existence. Make it simple. Is existence permanent or impermanent? Impermanent. Selfish?
Selfless? It’s existence, selfless. Permanent. Selfless. Is selfless permanent?
What? How about existence, Danny? Is it permanent or impermanent? No. These permanent.
Yes, it’s permanent. Existence is permanent. It doesn’t change moment by moment. It doesn’t arise. Existence of an object is permanent.
The existence of an object is permanent. The object itself. Itself. Existence is not arising and disintegrating moment by moment, moment by moment. The object is, but not the existence of it.
The selflessness of it is permanent. It’s difficult to see. I think maybe if we take an easier example of a common locus between non thing and reverse being form. There’s something which is both. Is there something simple?
Something which is non thing and reverse of being form. Consciousness non thing? Is consciousness non thing? Is consciousness non thing, or is it thing? It’s a thing.
It’s a thing. It’s not non thing. We just have something like space. I was going to say space, but then space is just Yeah. So, space is a non thing.
Space is a non thing, and it’s in reverse of being a form. And then, this is something which is non thing and not reverse of being form. Something which is non thing and is not the reverse of being form. Something which is A and not B. So if it was not B, what would it have to be?
If it was not the reverse of being form, what would it have to be? It would have to be form. Right? If it’s not the reverse of being form, it has to be form. So, is there anything which is form and non thing?
Is there anything which is form and non thing? It doesn’t matter. No. And as I say, if a non thing, it can’t be form. Because if it’s form, it has to be a thing.
There’s no A and not B. So this is none of that. How about not B, something which is A and B, which is B and not A? B, not A. What is being, reverse of being form, and not non thing?
What is not non thing? Thing. Thing. Something which is reverse of being form and a thing. Is there anything?
Consciousness. Consciousness. What is the pervasion with respect to non thing and reverse of being form? What is the pervasion? Three possibilities.
Okay, do we debate three possibilities? We get our three possibilities. Shoot. Debating three possibilities. Okay.
Wants to debate Denny? Want to put the question, Lindy? Begin with that first line, the very first line to talk. The very first line, the very beginning. It does look right up there.
With respect. See where it says si? Si is The very first line. With respect to? With respect respect to?
With respect Very possible. And then I’ll say it follows that the pervasion between non thing and reverse of being form is not three possibilities. Which pervades which? If an object yeah? Not that much.
Not yet this that the reverse of being form is multiplied by nothing, is it? It’s not pervaded by being nothing. By being nothing. Is it pervaded by Is not pervaded by being non thing. So if an object is reversed being form, it’s not pervaded by being non thing.
Right? Okay, that’s right. It’s fine, isn’t it? If an object is of being, if an object is B, it’s reverse of being form is not pervaded by being. Let’s say we want to give that a second.
First, we want to give the pervasion, the way the pervasion runs. Which is that? If an object is pervaded by being non thing. Then? Then it has to be, necessarily?
But it can’t be pervaded by Oh, it has to be, though, it has to be the reverse of being form. Is it possible? If an object is pervaded by being a non thing, it’s pervaded by? It has to be the reverse of being a form. It has to be to the opposite being a form.
That’s right. Right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because it can’t be a form. It to be non form.
If it’s a non thing, it has to be non form. It can’t be a form. That’s all we’re saying. So, if an object is a non thing, it is pervaded by being the reverse of being form. And then the opposite direction?
You said? If an object is what? For example? We said space. Did you?
No. No. So, something which is a reverse of being but is not non thing. Something which is reversed, something which is not formed and is non thing. Consciousness?
Consciousness. So if an object is the reverse of being formed, it means just because it’s formed, it doesn’t have to be non thing. It’s not necessarily non thing. For example, consciousness. The consciousness as a subject.
It is the reverse of being formed. Consciousness is the reverse of being form. How can I get this? Consciousness You say yes. Yes?
Why? It’s form. Consciousness as a subject, it is the reverse of being form. Why? Because it is not form.
Consciousness as a subject, it is a non thing. It is not a non thing. Is a subject. It is not a non thing. It is not a non thing.
It? You said consciousness was a non thing. Not a non thing. Consciousness is not a non thing. Is consciousness a non thing or not a non thing?
It’s a non thing. It’s a non thing. It’s not a thing. Is consciousness a thing or a non thing? It has to be one of the It’s a thing because it’s impermanent.
Okay. So, it’s not a non thing. It’s not? Not a non thing. It’s not a non It’s because it’s a thing.
Consciousness is subject. It is not a non thing. Why? I said because it’s impermanent. Because it’s a thing.
It’s not a non thing because it’s a thing. Consciousness is not a non thing because it’s a thing. Okay, that’s good. We’ll just take it slightly. How about notebook?
With respect to notebook and dog, what is the pervasion? Not book and dog. With respect to not book and dog, what is the pervasion? So what do we look for first? So is there anything which is both not book and dog?
Yes, animal. Animal. Is an animal dog? Dog. How about the spotted dog?
Okay. Spotted dog. So spotted dog is not a book. Spotted dog is subject is not a dog? Is dog?
Okay. If an object is not a book, is it pervaded by being dog? No. If an object is a dog, is it pervaded by being not book? If an object is a dog, is it pervaded?
Is it necessarily? Does it have to be not book? It doesn’t have to be not book. Oh, yeah. It can be a book.
So, what does that mean? Which one of them? Is it three possibilities or four possibilities? The pervasion only goes in one direction. Doesn’t It’s going in one direction, three possibilities.
That’s right. So with respect to notebook and dog, what is the pervasion? Three possibilities. It follows that the pervasion is not three possibilities. Which pervades which?
First you give the positive pervasion. Yes, but if an object is? A notebook. Is it pervaded by being a dog? Does it have to be a dog?
If something isn’t a book, it’s not a book. Does it have to be a dog? No. So we want to give the positive pervasion first, the pervasion. So if something is what?
If an object is? The dog. The dog? It is pervaded by being not a book. That’s right.
For example? Anything, yeah. It’s about a dog. That actually came. Okay.
And then the reverse, the pervasion doesn’t operate. An object is notebook, it’s not pervaded by being a dog. For example? Book. Is book not a book?
Book. Table. Yes. Table. Table is the subject that’s not a book?
Table: is it not a dog? Okay. Not form and color. Color. With respect to not form and color, what is the pervasion?
Let’s make a knot form and thing. With respect to not form and not thing, what is pervasion? What do we look for first? Is there anything which is both not form and not thing? Something which is an object which is not form and not thing?
Form. Is form not form?