Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Why does a car fail to truly exist? In this 12-minute commentary, Ven Jampa Gendun works through a core Madhyamaka syllogism: nothing truly exists because it is neither truly existently one nor truly existently many. Using a car and its parts as the running example, he shows that whole and parts appear as separate entities to the mind yet cannot in fact be distinct — and that our inability to conceive of whole and parts simultaneously reveals that appearances depend on mental conception, not independent reality. The chain closes: because nothing is truly one, nothing can be truly many, so nothing truly exists. The commentary ends with a brief dedication of merit for a student’s recently deceased dog. Suited to students already working through Madhyamaka reasoning.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 25 HoM 1993 09 22.mp3
UUID: 21dd3ed5-6699-47c6-8f24-cd45b731e269
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: The Heart and Mind of Awakening (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1993-09-22
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 12.4 minutes
Words: ~1,659
Exist. Why? Because they are neither truly existently one nor truly existently many. Things do not truly exist. The car does not truly exist because it is it is not truly existently one nor truly existently many.
Now the reason that we we go through this is because if something exists, it must be either one or many. It must be either singular or plural. For example, a watch is one. A watch and a dog is two. It is many.
A watch and a watch is two. A watch, a dog, and a cat is many. Everything in the universe is either one or many. The table is one. A table and a glass of water is many.
A bell is one. Everything in the universe must be either one or many. If it exists, it must be one or many. There’s nothing which is not these are all inclusive categories. Something either is one or is many.
If it exists, it must be either one or many. If something truly exists, it must be truly existently one or truly existently many. Okay? So the reasoning that we use at the Autonomy Syllogism stage is that nothing truly exists because nothing is truly existently one nor is it truly existently many. Now so we have two parts.
We have we have that things do not truly exist because they are neither truly existently one or truly existently many. So we look at this first one. Things are not truly existently one. How do we go about proving that? There is nothing that we can say is truly existently one, and the reason is that everything has parts.
Nothing is a unitary whole. So, you know, the the I I let me go back a little bit and talk about whole and part. I’m just going to take five minutes. Okay. Five minutes.
Okay. Five minutes. I’ll do it. Whole and part. When we think about them, we’re talking about how we think about them, when we think about things, whole and part, they appear to be different entities.
They appear to our mind. The parts of the car and the car appear different, different entities. In terms of the way they exist, they’re the same entity. Really, they’re the same. But they appear our mental consciousness as being two different things.
I can talk about the car or I can talk about the parts of the car and not conceive of the car. I can talk about the car and not conceive of the parts of the car. I can talk about them as being two different things. I conceive of them as being two different things. But in fact, the way it really is, they’re the same thing, the same entity.
They’re not separate. They’re They’re one. If whole and parts were different entities, in fact, then in addition to appearing to be different entities, they could not exist. Why? Because if whole and parts were in fact different entities, you could get rid of the parts of the car and still be left with the car.
Or you could get rid of the car and still be left with the parts. But you can’t. So they can’t be different entities, in fact. A whole is the sum of its parts. The whole is dependent upon its parts.
A part is a portion of the whole. Parts are dependent upon the whole. So they’re dependent. They’re not like a cat and a dog. You can get rid of the cat and the dog will stay or you can get rid of the dog and the cat will stay.
They’re different entities. They appear to us differently, our mental consciousness. I think cat and dog, in fact, they are different entities. But my car and it’s parts of the car, they appear to my mental consciousness they’re different entities, but in fact they’re not different entities. They’re one entity.
If whole and part appear to be different entities you know, you say, well, they don’t appear to me to be different entities, parts and the car and the car. If they appear to be the same entity, not different entities, then then the car and its parts would be indistinguishable. Every part of the car would be a car. We couldn’t distinguish with this is the parts of the car and this is the car. They if they appear the same, they don’t appear the same to our mind, to our mental consciousness.
So the part so we so, therefore, the way they appear and the way they exist are not in agreement. Therefore, they do not truly exist. Why do they not truly exist? Why does the car not truly exist? Because it has parts.
It appears not to my mental consciousness, but it it and in fact, it does have parts. So that appearance is not true. I’m not making my point clear now. The point is, you know, that the reasoning is okay up to now, but what is the what is the significance of of that reasoning? It says that the mind cannot project the whole.
It cannot the mind is projecting the whole, the car. It’s conceiving car and analyzing parts at the same time. Once it begins to look at the parts, it can no longer conceive of whole as car. That has to be dropped and to begin to conceive of parts of car, the motor, the body of the car. I think this.
When we so what this tells us something. This says that the appearance is dependent upon my mind. Why? Because if it wasn’t dependent upon my mind, if what appears to my mind wasn’t dependent upon my conceptions, then I should be able to think about the parts and the whole simultaneously. We cannot think of parts and whole simultaneously.
When we think of whole, we cannot conceive of parts. When we conceive of parts, we cannot conceive of whole. Therefore, the appearance of parts or whole are dependent upon my conceiving them as such. If they weren’t, I should be able the whole car and its parts should be able to appear simultaneously, but they don’t. They appear at different times.
I cannot they don’t appear simultaneously to me. Therefore, they must be dependent upon my mind, my concepts, but they don’t appear that way. But in fact, that’s the way they exist. I’m going over this too quickly, I realize, I think. So the very reason of having parts refutes their true existence.
The car is not truly existently one because it has parts. But it why why why does why is the fact of having parts make it not truly existently one? Because if it’s truly existently one, it would have to be one it couldn’t it it would have to be one homogenous unitary whole without any parts. Then you go on. I I mentioned there were two reasons.
It’s neither it’s not truly existently it’s neither truly existently one or truly existently many. And this this it’s not truly existently many because it’s not truly existently one. It’s not it’s not if something is truly existently many, it has to be because it would have to be made up of many truly existent units, parts. And there’s no truly existent unit, one, to make up truly existent many. Therefore, if something is truly existent, it must be either truly existent one or must be truly existent many.
Nothing is truly existent one because it has parts. Nothing is truly existent many because truly existent one does not exist. Therefore, nothing truly exists. Have a good week. I will go over to you.
Yeah. We’ll go over to you. A little bit next. But We’re trying to I mean, we in understanding how the the mind is involved, we’re trying to see that somehow thinking process is involved in the coming into existence of phenomena. We don’t believe that.
We believe that things truly exist. That means they exist independent of the mind. And so we’re using this reasoning to see that that, in fact, can’t be the case because it it is contradicted by our own reasoning logic. But the logic is a little bit hard to see. I’m presenting it rather in a confused manner, but we’ll work on it some more.
But we’ll stop there. I’m sorry to keep you so late. Okay. Let’s see. We’re going to, you know, dedicate the the positive energy that we’ve created.
And, you know, the Carrie mentioned just before our class this evening that a friend’s dog died. And and, you know, that we can, in a in a small way, perhaps play a part in its welfare just by wishing it well. We’ve developed some positive energy, some kind of inner strength and creative potential through our discussion this evening and and directing that in some way that that this dog, you know, it’s a it’s a mind now. There’s no difference between that mind and our own mind once we’ve slipped off this mortal coil. It’s the mind that’s lost its anchor and in some way influencing that mind.
And its name is Antigone. Antigone. So, you know, with, you know, with a good hearted intention wishing it well that it might have a favorable rebirth and all things might be well with it. Just wishing it well.
And we’ll dedicate the creative energy that we’ve accumulated. May I quickly become an awakened spiritual teacher and lead each and every sentient being to that enlightened realm through these skillful actions. May the precious jewel of the awakening heart that has not arisen arise and grow. And may that which has arisen never diminish, but increase more and more. So I wish you all a happy break and good health.
Thank you.