Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. A fine-grained comparison of two Madhyamaka philosophical positions anchors this 45-minute talk by Ven Jampa Gendun, from the Three Principal Aspects of the Path series. Starting from the observation that we mistake mental images for objects themselves — illustrated with a rose — he traces how this externalization generates karma and suffering. He then distinguishes the Autonomy school view (objects lack true existence but possess inherent defining characteristics) from the Consequentialist claim that phenomena are merely imputed by conception, with nothing at all coming from the object’s side. A newborn being named “John” makes the abstract argument concrete. Quotes from David Bohm, physicist Jahn, Bohr, and philosopher Nelson Goodman draw parallels between this view and Western thought on how language and conception construct reality. Suited to practitioners with some background in Buddhist philosophy of mind.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 09 3 PA 1990 11 02 inaudible.mp3
UUID: cfeb271a-5333-4379-82f8-2c7c2e910603
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Three Principal Aspects of the Path 1988-1990 (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1990-11-02
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 44.9 minutes
Words: ~4,695
It’s in our mental image for the object itself, but what the visual consciousness is actually apprehending is a red shape. We can see that red shape as a rose. We have a sense that we are apprehending rose. That rose is our mental image. We can also be mistaken with the mode of existence of that object.
In this case, we see the rose hanging there and there is a natural tendency to conceive of that rose to be permanent. So but in that if we would think, oh, the rose is impermanent, and at that time we wouldn’t perceive it as permanent. We would perceive it rightly as impermanent. So we could be mistaken as to the way it exists. In this discussion, see deeply in nature of reality, we’re primarily concerned in terms of the mode of existence as to the ultimate mode of existence of the object.
What is its final mode of existence? And as we construct concepts and images related to the world. We then project them out onto the world. The concept is externalized so that it appears to be independent of subject, not a mental activity. So we we develop mental images about objects.
We then project these mental images onto objects. We mistake that mental image for the object itself and we grasp to the fact that that mental image, which we mistake as the object is in no way involved with our own mental activity. We’ve externalized it. It appears to be cut off from our from our own mind. As physicist David Bohm said, since our thought is pervaded with differences and distinction, it follows that such a habit leads us to look on these as real divisions so that the world is seen and experienced as actually broken up into fragments.
So due to the very nature of the thinking process, the world appears to be broken up into isolated concrete chunks out there independent of ourselves. That’s the way it appears to. That’s not in fact the way it exists, but that’s the way it appears to due to the very nature of our the way our thinking process operate through the way our language we are making use of language symbol. Since our thought is pervaded with differences and distinctions, it follows that such a habit leads us to look on these as real divisions. These images, our language necessarily divide objects, divides them up.
And we we project this onto the world and we see the world as being divided up as isolated object. And simply a matter of distorted arises out of distorted programming. The way our thought process is not great. This appearance is so there there appear this appears to us. This this object exists as broken up fragmented chunks isolated from one another, isolated from myself, and we assent to that appearance.
That is to say, it appears that way, and there’s a passive agreement that the way the world exists in fact, that’s the way reality actually is. We see to that appearance and then all the various reactive patterns of attachment, of aversion are put into motion. And these these because we’ve assented to that appearance of being cut off independent objects isolated from one another, we react to this to that appearance with attachment or aversion which precipitates action, karma. We create karma and these are always inappropriate with respect to the final nature of this objects of reality because they’re always motivated by ignorance. This is this mental distortion as to the name of the status of objects.
So our actions are always, you know, in a certain respect, inappropriate. Inappropriate. They’re based upon misinformation All actions are inappropriate in terms of, you know, in his ultimate terms. And these actions leave traces upon our consciousness.
They they do some kind of impression. These are karmic formation, predisposition. They predispose us to select and organize our perceptual field in such a way that the world is experienced in one way or another, in some degree or another as dissatisfactory, as suffering and not peace. Due to these inappropriate actions, inappropriate in terms that they’re based upon misconception as to the nature of the object. We are predisposed to the impression left by these actions to organize our perceptual field in such a way that experience our perceptual field as dissatisfactory as opposed to peace.
And we ourselves are conceived with with limited identity, with one limited identity or another. And this concept of conceiving ourselves with one limited identity doesn’t matter what identity we we conceive ourselves with. With any type of identity, conceiving ourselves in this way, this limited self, this acts as an obstruction to the actualization of our our ultimate potential. That is Buddha. The only way that we can finally bring him into this process of conceptual elaboration.
You know, this is what all our problems come down to basically is the proliferation of thought. Thought, this conceptual elaboration, living in a fabricated world fabricated out of the thinking mind. We can for example through concentration we can momentarily suppress the thought, the proliferation of the thought. We can quiet the mind. So this is this is at best a remedial measure because of the the cause the basic cause has not been eliminated.
Why why these proliferations of thought arise in the first place? And it’s just not that it’s not just the fact that we have that habit of thinking about. There’s a reason that we think that we have this proliferation of thought here, that we have all this conceptual elaboration. We can quiet the mind through concentration, but concentration itself cannot solve the problem. The process of this process is the source of all all the suffering and we can only come to we can only remove the cause of this proliferation of thought by understanding how concepts play the the part that concepts play in our perception of ourselves in the world. When we understand the the part which concepts play in in the way we conceive of ourselves and the world, and we can put an end to this proliferation of concepts.
Once we understand that all phenomena are merely imputed by concepts, The proliferation of further concepts is ceasing.. We can understand the objects through mental images using concepts. All thought phenomena are imputed by concept but misunderstanding that, taking these objects to be real, is the root cause of the continuous reactive pattern concerning this object. We we develop a way of relating to the object either of aversion or attachment. And how are we going to a liking, dislike you.
All the emotional associated with the like and dislike. And it builds and builds and builds and builds. And then we we have a and that whole pattern is latent in consciousness. If we understand that this object is merely imputed by conception, if that’s thoroughly understood, then there’s no reactive pattern set up. One does not one does not relate with it in terms of aversion or attachment.
It is merely appearance. Understanding this then the mind, the conceptual fabrication pacified the mind exists in peace. The obstructions when the obstructions to omniscience are removed from the mind, and one has the ability to work skillfully and bring about the welfare of beings. So, you know, we talked about discussed previously that the Autonomy Madhyamaka school refutes true existence. That is a way of existing in which an object exists by way of our own uncommon mode of existence and is not posited by the force of appearing to a non-defective awareness.
I wonder what all that might mean. Simply note, objects do not exist, do not have a unique status independent of mind. They do not not possess objective and objective factor. That is the characteristics which define the object. So we said at the Autonomy stage that objects do not truly exist, that they exist in relationship to mental activity but they do possess an objective element.
They do possess from their side an objective factor and this is their defining characteristic. This is like a mark that they have. See the analogy of a a garden where there is, like, seeds can’t and there’s a there’s a stick with a seed pack that’s telling you what’s there. It’s like the the object comes with the instruction here to how it’s to be organized. It has some defining characteristic.
And when that appears to the mind, the mind organizes it in that fashion and the object comes into existence. So there is an objective element coming from the side of the object and this is the Autonomy stage view. That is to say this objective characteristic is basis of imputation. The basis upon which we’re going to organize an object. The basis upon which we’re going to label a particular object.
This basis of the object, of the imputation is said to naturally exist, objectively exist, intrinsically exist, inherently exist. This is important — all schools say nothing truly exists. But the autonomy stage says that things naturally exist. They exist as natural basis for their imputation. All phenomena are imputed, but the Autonomy school says there’s some mark about the object which determines how we’re going to organize, how we’re going to impute it.
And this is going to be refuted by the Consequentialist school. But in this term, conceive, it is used both in the sense of creation, origination, and also in the sense of cognition. To conceive of an object is to create it and also to cognize it. At the same time, we create it and cognize it. So the autonomy stage is such that phenomena are imputed by conception.
Phenomena are labeled, designated, constructed, organized by conception, concepts, and terms. That they are in part are created out of the activity of mind and in part exist objectively as naturally occurring basis upon which we impute. So something as I mentioned last week, something is coming from both the side of the object and something from the side of the object or subject. These together cause the arising of a particular object. There’s some characteristic coming from the side of the object and this is taken as the basis of imputation.
When this appears to an awareness, a non-defective awareness, the mind takes that instruction kit and organizes that data into a conceptual configuration and the object is. There’s something coming from the side of both the subject and the object. Now they did go on to say the phenomena do not truly exist because upon analysis, object being searched for is not found. For something to truly exist it must exist the way it appears. If objects truly existed they would have to exist the way they appear and the way they appear is that they that they their existence does not depend upon activities of the mind.
This table appears to truly exist. If it did in fact truly exist the way it exists and the way it appears would have to be the same. It appears not to depend upon the activities of my mind. So if that’s in fact the way it exists then it would it would not it would have to be nothing dependent upon activities of my mind. But when we analyze, when we investigate for its final nature, the object is not found.
Why? Because the very process of analysis obstructs the activity of the mind which is creating that object. That is to say it obstructs my designating consciousness. By analyzing object we are not by analyzing a whole into its parts we are not able to maintain conception of the whole. We can only now see the part.
So this says that that whole must be dependent upon the mental activity. If it’s not dependent upon my mental activity, if it exact exists out there in its own right, I should be able to find it even when I’m analyzing, but I can’t. When I revert to analysis, I cannot maintain when I revert to analysis of parts, I cannot maintain my conception of the whole. Therefore, the whole must be in some way dependent upon mental activity. Since it’s dependent upon mental activity, it it must that’s the way it exists.
It exists independent of fundamental activity but that’s not the way it appears. It appears to exist independent of mental activity. Therefore, it’s not truly existent because it’s false. Its appearance and its way of existing are in discord are not in agreement. Therefore, we say that as a true existence, it exists as a false.
So the unfindability of objects upon analysis demonstrates the existence of that their existence is dependent upon activities of Because we cannot find an object upon analysis, this shows that the object must depend upon my mind and its existence, that it is empty of true existence. This is its ultimate mode of existence. It’s emptiness of true existence. What is bound upon analysis? This is the autonomy stage.
When we do analyze an object, we come to the primary characteristics of that object upon which we are imputing the object. Thus, though objects do not truly exist, they naturally exist. They are self defining. They have a self defining property. They appear one way and exist another therefore they don’t truly exist but they naturally exist because they have self defining.
They have a nature about them which determines what they are. So they’re they naturally they there’s if they there there is a characteristic the characteristic attributes of the object in here in the object. Therefore, we say they adhere The attributes inherent object. And at this point, recognizing those characteristics that we bring the object into existence. Therefore, we say the inherent exists and naturally exist, that they are self defining basis for interpretation.
So what it simply knows There is an objective factor coming from the side of the object which determines what we can properly conceive of it to be. We can’t conceive of this to be a horse. There’s something about it which makes it a table and not a horse. There’s an objective factor about this object which makes it what it is. Autonomy stage asserts that it is by means of the defining characteristics of an object that we identify.
So this table has certain identifying characteristics and dependence upon those I reckon it as a table. There is it possesses its own defining characteristic and dependent upon their appearance to my awareness. The consequent Consequentialist school asserts that objects do not determine their own defining characteristics. That is, they are not self defining. We recognize an object, as it were, by means of a word.
We recognize an object. We recognize a certain object. Having recognized a certain object, we say that it has qualities by which we identify. We we come to we having recognized an object, we then attribute qualities to that object. We impute the attributes to that object having recognized it, not the other way around.
Let us say recognizing these characteristics appearing to the mind then recognizing the object. We first recognize, we discern, we discriminate an object and then depends upon that we attribute the characteristics to that. So where the autonomy stage would assert that all phenomena are imputed by conception, the Consequentialist stage would go further. So the autonomy school says all phenomena are imputed by conception, but the Consequentialist school goes further. They assert that all phenomena are merely imputed by conception.
All phenomena are merely imputed by conception. And this word merely, the word merely is to eliminate natural existence only by conception. That there’s nothing coming from the side of the object. It is merely only being imputed by conception. This table is only being imputed and designated and organized by conception.
There is nothing whatsoever coming from the side of the object that determines what it is. There is no objective factor coming from the side of the object which defines, which determines its identity. The characteristics of phenomena do not need to adhere in the phenomena, do not inherently exist, but are merely imputed upon phenomena in the perceptual process. So characteristics of phenomena do exist, but independently, non inherently. The imputed object and the base of the imputation arise simultaneously.
So, you know, in in in the autonomy stage, there was the imputed there was the basis of imputation and then upon that I impute. There was the object. There is a basis of imputing imputing table that is to say is defining characteristics. And then when that appears to my awareness, I define all as a table. Come to recognize the table.
At the at the consequent stage, does not this serial, but they arise simultaneously. This only becomes the basis of imputation when I impute table. It doesn’t exist prior to my imputing table. There’s nothing about it which makes it basis of imputation. It’s an easy example.
When a child is first born, we give it the name John. Let’s call it John. So the person John comes into existence and dependence upon the name John and being conceived of it as such. John John is not a name. John is a human being, a person.
And he came into existence in dependence upon being labeled John, term John, in dependence upon being conceived of John. If he if he wasn’t labeled, term conceived of as John, John wouldn’t exist. His existence is dependent upon conception, upon labeling, upon term, upon language. And prior to being given the name John, John didn’t yet exist. But but even more than that, there was nothing there was no inherent attributes about that baby which determined it to be called John.
It had no self defining characteristic of John. There wasn’t some kind of some kind of mark about it and a John-ness oozing out of its skin which kind of forced us to say, obviously it’s a John. There was nothing about it from the side of the object which forced us to determine that it was John. A baby did not exist as a naturally existing basis for labeling John.
In dependence upon the mind and body of a child, John was imputed. In dependence upon his mind and body, the child was imputed as John. John was imputed. And simultaneously with being imputed, the mind and body of that child becomes John’s mind, John’s body. Before that point, it wasn’t John’s body.
It wasn’t John’s mind. They were not naturally so. They weren’t naturally existing in John’s body, John’s mind. But he came back to point being called John. The attributes of that being.
Attribute of John John’s mind, John’s body. John was brought into existence by our conception of him. Recall physicist Jahn’s speculation that nuclei and positrons did not exist prior to the twentieth century since no one before nineteen hundred ever saw one. Here is a radical departure from both scientific realism and instrumentalism. It seems to suggest that atomic nuclei do not exist independent in the objective world, but neither are they purely conceptual constructs having no physical reality.
Rather he implies that they were brought into existence by our conception of them. Note that the term conception has been used both in the sense of origination and cognition. Physicist Bernard d’Espagnat makes a similar point when he writes, our existence contributes to causing particles to emerge from a reality which is an indivisible whole, into a phenomenal reality extended in space and time. So, you know, so if nothing is coming from the side of the object, everything is coming from the side of the imputing subject, the ultimate question has to arise. If nothing exists objectively, nothing objectively exists and is dependent upon being such and such in terms of because it’s conceived of by mind as that then we can conceive of anything as anything and that will make itself.
And whatever we imagine to exist, it will exist. We can call anything anything. This is nothing about it. It’s not the side of the object. It’s determined what it is.
And whatever we want to think of an object to be, it will be that. Whatever we want to call an object, we can call it that. And this question should arrive, but there’s nothing existing on the side of the object. It’s clearly being turned from the point of view of the subject, and it seems as if they can call anything anything. It’s arbitrary.
Bohr spoke a great deal about language community in which physics exists and in which physicists communicate and was very much aware of the community which our language creates our reality. According to Peterson, Bohr’s student and long-time collaborator, Bohr would say, what is it that we human beings ultimately depend upon? We depend upon our words. We are suspended in language. Peterson continues, when one to him that it cannot be language which is fundamental but it must be reality which so to speak lies beneath language and which language is a picture he would reply we are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say what is up and what is down.
The word reality is also a word which we must learn to use correctly. Kierkegaard used to express this existential anxiety by saying that he found himself with seventy thousand fathoms of water under him. And to this Bohr would respond with a twinkle in his eye. It is much worse. We are suspended over a bottomless pit, caught in our own words.
So our world is the world which has been communicated to us. It exists only as conventional. This is the most critical point perhaps to understand. Our will only exist as conventionality. Nothing ultimately exists.
Everything Everything conventionally exists. And these conventions are not arbitrary but are based upon popular conventions. Not popular conventions which are not contradicted by the cognition. So this the crux of the issue. We are born into a particular version of reality the objects which make up that reality and their attributes are not self-defining but are determined by the force of popular convention. This is a table — this is only a table by the power of popular convention because it is renowned as a table, for no other reason.
It is it is in the context of this version which determines the relative truth and falsehood. You know, I cannot say that this is a horse because it’s not. Why? Because it’s renowned in the world as a table. In this particular context of this version of reality, it is it is the convention which properly designates that object.
It’s the table, not the horse. It’s not a horse. But it’s not a horse due to anything coming from its own side, but only the fact that not being horse and being the table only comes about to the force of proper convention, the particular reality which I have been born into. Harvard philosopher, and I’m trying to get this idea across, of the participatory nature of our universe, the this particular version of reality. Harvard philosopher Nelson Goodman had developed a view of the world making characteristics of words and symbols that we are craving our world.
He argues that all the various worlds of scientists, artists, and ordinary men and women are but versions that can be judged right or wrong in terms of various internal characteristics or by comparison with each other. But they cannot be judged true by testing against any fundamental real world. There’s no real world out there independent of any of our concepts because there is no such real world beyond our version. We have our version of the world. We have a particular version as human beings.
We have been born with this particular version. It has its convention and this is and we it has its belief. It has its and we incorporate it into our world view. And this is a table only due to the force of that world view of this convention. There’s nothing about it from its own side which makes it so.
He summarizes his view thus. Talk of unstructured content or an unconceptualized given or substratum without properties is self defeating. For the talk imposes structure, conceptualizes, describes properties. Goodman continues. The many stuff is perhaps important.
The many stuff, matter, energy, waves, phenomena that worlds are made of are made along with the world. They’re made of what? Not from nothing after all, but from other worlds. World making as we know it always starts from worlds already on hand. This process has had no beginning.
We are simply we are we are born into a particular version of reality. This thing this this we are in as it were inherited this version through other human beings, conceptions, conventions, and we will continue to alter. We will we will continue to transform this particular version that there are that this is only a version. It is only a matter developed out of convention. There’s nothing outside of this convention which is a reality, which is behind its appearance, behind our imputation, the image, the way we’re organizing.
We are — karma is the organizing force. That is to say the pattern, the what the the the forces which determine how we are going to organize. We all have a common karma. As human beings we share in a common karma. We have certain forces within our mind which are determining how we are going to organize our reality.
World making as we know it always starts from worlds already on hand. The making is a remake. Anthropology and developmental psychology may study social and individual histories of such world building, but the search for a universal or necessary beginning is best left to theology. With the false hope of a firm foundation gone, with the world displaced by worlds that are but versions, with substance dissolved into function, and with the given acknowledged as taken, we face the question how worlds are made, tested, and found. The Buddhist would agree at every point with this passage including the implication that the theological search is never ending since that search too is simply another version so long as it remains conceptual.
The Buddhist simply assert that when these insights are completely realized personally, directly, through the practice of meditation then there is a profound positive change in one’s relationship to one’s world. Next week will take a look at how methods for analyzing emptiness in this system, how we actually come to this understanding through our analysis and methods. of actually coming to this understanding that all things are merely imputed by concepts. To see the world. Yeah.
You’re you’re you’re going to the this this elaborating process. Conceptual elaborating. This is when you see the world directly, without this overlay, where your perception is not distorted. Oh, that would be the ultimate. I mean, ultimate in that case is.
To what? That would be. And we do we are creating this world, but that but then we carry on here. That I mean, everything in this book is imputed by conception. But because I’m not I’m not able to recognize it in that, I am relating to the book, seeing it as something external, different from myself.
Once I see it, it’s simply being imputed by my mind and all of these positions, I would well, May I quickly become an awakened spiritual teacher and lead each and every sentient being to enlightenment through virtuous actions. May the supreme jewel of the awakening heart that has not arisen. And may that which has arisen never diminish.