Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The definition of color — “suitable to be a hue” — becomes the unlikely doorway into Buddhist epistemology in this 98-minute session with Ven Jampa Gendun. Introducing the collected topics curriculum used to train young monks in debate, he unpacks the relationship between definition and definiendum, lists the four primary colors (blue, yellow, white, red) alongside eight sutric branch colors that include illumination, darkness, cloud, and shadow, then drills students through the three logical relationships — mutually inclusive, mutually exclusive, and three possibilities — with lively classroom exchanges. A sustained thread running beneath the exercises is why all reasoning must eventually bottom out in direct experience, and how even this elementary analysis points toward emptiness and the simultaneous practice of the two truths. Suited to those beginning Buddhist logic and debate study.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 1988 03 15 3 P A P.mp3
UUID: 48a0ff2c-224d-46e4-8c79-beee3536e87e
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Three Principle Aspects of the Path 1987-1988 (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-03-15
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 98.1 minutes
Words: ~7,101
And the other one is, the other epistemological error is the fallacy or the incorrectness of self-cherishing. By overcoming these mistaken beliefs we hold we can go beyond our own suffering and develop the skillful means in order to benefit others. That is we can actualize both of our potentials which in ultimate form are the truth body and the form body of a Buddha. So therefore, in order to achieve our goal that is to fulfill our own purposes as well as to fulfill the purposes of others. We must begin to overcome these mistaken beliefs that we have, these mistaken core assumptions or sets of ideals which are wrong, are not in accordance with the reality.
The way we can begin to do this is set a foundation of right thinking, thinking along correct lines which are in accord with reality. Therefore, it’s quite useful to begin to train our minds in such a way that eventually we begin to correct small subtle errors in the hopes that we can build up and begin to eliminate deeper, more subtle types of errors until basically we can transcend these basic errors that we’re making. This is the ultimate purpose of the study of collected topics, to help us train our mind and to begin to develop thinking, which is in accordance with the way things actually are, both for ourselves and others benefit, and thereby achieve Buddhahood. So we recite the refuge of the generation of motivation, and then we’ll recite the prayer to Mañjuśrī who is associated with wisdom. To the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, I go for refuge until I am enlightened Through the merit I create by practicing giving and the other perfections, may I attain Buddhahood for the sake of all beings.
To the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, I go for refuge until I am enlightened. Through the merit I create by practicing giving and the other perfections, may I attain Buddhahood for the sake of all beings. To the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, I go for refuge until I am enlightened. Through the merit I create by practicing giving and the other perfections, may I attain Buddhahood for the sake of all beings. Homage to my guru and protector, Mañjuśrī, holds to his heart a scriptural text symbolic of his seeing all things as they are.
His intelligence shines forth as the sun unclouded by delusions or traces of ignorance. It teaches in sixty ways with the love and compassion of a father for his only son. All creatures caught in the prison of saṃsāra, confused in the darkness of their ignorance, overwhelmed by their suffering. You, whose dragon thunder like proclamation of dharma arouses us from the stupor of our delusions and frees us from the iron chains of our karma, You wield the sword of wisdom hewing down suffering at its roots and clearing away the weight of darkness and ignorance, clearing the weight of darkness and ignorance. You whose princely body is adorned with one hundred and twelve marks of a Buddha, who has completed the stages achieving the highest perfection of a bodhisattva who has been pure from the beginning.
I bow to you, O Mañjuśrī. With the brilliance of your wisdom, O Compassionate One, illuminate the darkness that clouds my mind. Enlighten my intelligence and wisdom so that I may gain insight into the Buddha’s words and the texts that explain them. So Mañjuśrī holds a scriptural text in a sword and the scriptural text is the perfection of wisdom sutras in eight thousand verses and the sword which cuts away the root of ignorance, has two edges. One is the understanding of the ultimate truth and the other is the understanding of the conventional truth. I think, you know, it’s very important in our Dharma practice to always be thinking as best we can of the two levels of truth, both this ultimate level of truth and conventional level of truth.
And it’s only when a bodhisattva has direct perception of emptiness, once he has direct perception of ultimate truth, that is, he attains the path of seeing, that he actually is said to be practicing the supreme perfections. Up to that point, he is practicing the perfections but not supreme perfections. That is to say he practiced, for example, generosity. But he still has the conception that the object given, that the person receiving and the giver are truly existing. So, as long as there’s this conception, even though these are perfections, even though these are unimaginable acts of a bodhisattva, they do not serve as the direct cause of Buddhahood.
They do not serve as the direct cause of liberation. It’s only by having direct insight into emptiness, ultimate truth, can we gain the causes for liberation and ultimately for Buddhahood. So, whatever we do, whatever we’re studying, how does it relate to ultimate ultimate truth? How does karma relate to ultimate truth? How does our various mind-trainings relate to ultimate truth?
How is ultimate truth relating to the conventional truth? We should always be trying to see the two levels of truth working simultaneously at the same time. This is one of the key advices that one of my teachers gave me. They said most Westerners and most people in general, they think about ultimate truth, think about emptiness and they set aside the conventional truth or conventionalities, whatever subject they might be conceiving of, whether it’s the various subjects on the Lam Rim. And then they say, Well, now I’m going to meditate on the Lam Rim.
And they start to meditate on the perfect human rebirth or death or whatever and they sort of find conventional truth. And therefore, they always see them as separate. They do not see them as how they are working together. And it’s very important in our practice to see how we can relate to ultimate truth and conventionalities. It’s not easy, but it’s very quite worthwhile.
And I think in our studies, even in these extremely simple studies that we’re beginning with, I began to note that any time I pursued any of these points very deeply, now I just kept pursuing, Why is that? Why is that? That? Why is that? Generally, beyond unusual limits that we would normally go.
Generally, we don’t go into things very deeply. Reach a point where you satisfied with that level. But, if you keep going, Why is that? Why is that? You always come to some ultimate truth.
You’ll always come to some emptiness. And this will come up all the time in our study, even in the very simple subjects that we’re going to study, even tonight, perhaps. Even, you know, even though we’re just beginning, it can if we go deep enough, it’s always pointing the way to ultimate truth. And that way we can understand conventional truth that much better. And we build up an understanding of ultimate truth from hundreds of different viewpoints.
And if we’re only studying ultimate truth in isolation, only understand it from one or two directions. We don’t understand all its myriad facets, all its tonal qualities, all its flavors. Everything that we do, we can somehow start seeing how the ultimate truth is working with it. So, hopefully this will become apparent as we go along and pursue things very deeply, logically. So we’re discussing the collective topics.
And the initial text is studied by the monks and nuns. As I said, it’s usually studied as an introduction to very young students to get them acquainted with the terminology, divisions, the topics that they will later on take up and study much more deeply when they take up the major five treatises which explain all of the Sūtra path of Buddhism, the Mahāyāna. So, as far as information, for example, we’ll take up the first division of the first text. First, you know, the collective topics were divided into how many parts? How many divisions does the collective topics have?
No. Anybody else? Alan? What are the divisions?. And then the first part of reason has how many divisions?
That’s right. It has eight divisions. So we’re going take up the first which is color. This is quite simple. It’s not going to give you very much information at all, but this served as a basis for learning how to debate so it’s not meant to be at all complex, profound.
That would actually get in the way of simply learning the mechanics of debate. So it is simply a listing of colors. But it can be gone into quite profoundly if we desire to. We must remember one thing that through this entire text we’re studying from one point of view, one school, that is Sautrāntika or the Sūtra School out of the four tenet schools. And all of Buddhism can be systematized into four schools.
It’s not to say that one person would fit very neatly into one school. He might have some beliefs which are associated with a higher school, a lower school, his own school. Particular. But in general we can say that if we take all the various doctrines that the Buddha taught in accordance with what are called the basis, paths, fruits, basis are usually called the two truths. Paths are the various stages and levels that one passes through up to Buddhahood, and then the fruit is Buddhahood, the nature of nirvana, the nature of foe-destroyers, the nature of the various bodies of a Buddha.
So, way they systematized these three basis paths and the fruits, they were able to see commonalities, certain distinguishing factors between them and they divided up into four. And there was a graduation of subtlety between the lower school and the higher school. Subtlety from the point of view of gaining was closer and closer in accordance with the Buddha’s real view of the actual nature of reality. Give his final thought. The Buddha taught in accordance with the capacities and disposition of his disciples.
He didn’t just present one doctrine. Otherwise he could have only been a benefit to a limited number of students. Whatever that particular person’s capacity was, he taught them in such a way that he benefited them as much as they were able to be benefited at that present time in order to lead them to a higher understanding. So therefore, there came about the various systems for graduated presentation which culminated in his final thought which he had nothing higher to give, which is according to Buddhism, the actual nature of reality. It describes the way things actually are.
So all of what we’re studying is going to be in accordance with the point of view or the system of the Sūtra School. Many of the things that come up will not be in accordance with what you have heard, especially with respect to emptiness. So we have to keep that in mind if there seems to be some contradiction. Generally, most everything that is said would be in accordance with the Middle Way School, which is the ultimate view of the Buddha as far as the systems of teachings. So the first division of the lesser path of reasoning is colour.
This won’t be very difficult. Is there any question about that? The four schools. Know, we we talked to talked to tenets when he was there, the four tenet schools. And we went through the four tenets.
These four systems of philosophy. Yeah? And they all teach the bases, paths, and fruits. They have different presentations of these. The slightly different presentations of the two truths, which are the bases, slightly different presentations of the paths, the levels and stages, how one progresses, and then the fruit.
The two lower tenets are usually associated with the lesser vehicle. The two higher tenets are usually associated with the greater vehicle, the Mahāyāna, but it’s not necessary. So the first division of the lesser path of reasoning is color. So first the author. So this is the teacher.
He’s beginning. He’s had his new students. Perhaps these students are nine years old. So it’s very much he’s going to present things very simply in order to help them first to start thinking and to help them give them some information, some material to learn the mechanics of debate. So much of what is presented will be dependent upon the commentary of the teacher in this first especially in this first section.
It’s it’s very very short. It’s just the definition of color and and the and some short divisions of color. So first, he gives the the definition of color. The definition of color. So suitable so the the definition of color is: suitable as a hue.
Suitable as a hue. Or you can say another word, that which is suitable to be a hue. Now, I looked up the word hue in the dictionary and you will find that quite often when you come down to the basic elements, the basic nitty gritty of words, the dictionary doesn’t know. They use other words to define words, but when you want to know, well, what does that word mean? They start getting circular and comes with tautology.
The definition of hue is color tint and this is a good one, attribute by virtue of which a color is red, green, etc. So, there’s something virtue of which a color is red or green. Now, what that thing is is a hue. Now, what that hue is? So, it doesn’t help as much, but it gives us some idea.
It’s something which some characteristic of red, green, and blue of a color by which that particular color is distinguished. Anyway, it’s not important that we know definition of color. It’s just something we have to work with. So the definition of color is when it’s just usually abbreviated form, is it suitable as a hue or that is suitable to be a hue. So what is a color?
Anything that is suitable to be shown or pointed to an eye consciousness as a hue. This is what we’re meaning. So colors are objects of the eye consciousness. Eye consciousness has two objects, color and shape. We’ll we’ll get to this later on.
We’ll get well, this will come up in the next next division. So by color, we just mean anything that is suitable to be shown or pointed out to the eye consciousness as a hue. So, what we’re doing is appealing to obvious experience. You know, our obvious to sensory experience. We’re just saying this is the color, this is the color, this is the color.
Anything which I point to which can be shown as a hue to the eye consciousness we call color. And we’re pointing out to the sense consciousness to our own obvious experience. All reasoning must eventually come down to obvious experience. We cannot endlessly keep giving reasons for reasons for reasons for reasons. Ultimately, all reasoning must come down to sensory experience, to direct experience, to obvious experience.
Not necessarily sensory experience, to direct experience of obvious experience. So, in that sense, we have to have some common basis of experiences in order to come to some parallel understanding of an object. If you and I do not have any common basis for our communication, we cannot understand each other. You know, it’s like trying to explain somebody what the taste of, you know, brown sugar is, for example. It’s you can only approximate it.
You can’t can never generate an exact understanding of what the taste of brown sugar is. He doesn’t have that obvious experience within his within his file in order to something to refer to. So all reasoning must eventually come down to obvious experience, even emptiness. In order to develop an understanding of emptiness, we cannot just jump there. We have to build up to it.
Therefore, in order to understand emptiness, emptiness, the various levels of emptiness, the various subtleties of emptiness, you know, from the highest school, the middle way school, we can develop and understand by referring to the lower school. In order to understand the lower school, we can refer to a lower school. In order to understand the lower school, we have to understand subtle impermanence, the moment by moment change of an object. It’s a creation, abidance, and disintegration moment by moment. In order to understand that subtle impermanence, we rely on our understanding of gross impermanence.
There are many levels of gross impermanence. For example, in the mountains, over billions of years, slowly over millions of years, they’re slowly being worn down. It’s not obvious to the eye consciousness, but it is a type of gross impermanence that extends over a great long period of time. In order to understand that type of impermanence, we have to understand even grosser impermanence, for example death. You know, that something is born, lives for eighty years, then dies.
In order to understand that, we can look at things around us. Know, the houses fall down, you know, a bomb blowing up a building. Just in a matter of moments, there’s a building. It it exists and it, it disintegrates in a matter of moments. So we rely on our we can actually see this, this type of very gross impermanence.
You know, in in reliance upon seeing a very gross impermanence, we can understand a slightly less gross impermanence, then we can understand a subtle impermanence, we can understand the lower school’s understanding of emptiness and the higher school of emptiness. So even emptiness is ultimately based on our own relying on our own obvious experiences. You know, for example, seeing buildings collapse, seeing, people die. This is where we can begin to generate and build up understandings, where eventually understanding things which now are totally unobvious tests. So suitable as a hue is the definition of color.
Suitable as hue is the definition of color. Now there’s another word. You know what that means? I do know what that means. That’s the definite anybody else?
Definition, is that what is defined? Definiendum is that which is defined. Definiendum. Definiendum. Anyway, it’s a useful word.
We’ll use it from time to time. It’s the complement to the definition. That which is being defined is the definendum. That which defines is the definition. So, color is the definiendum.
I don’t even spell it like that strange there. Okay. And, suitable to be a hue. Definition. Okay?
So there’s a relationship between definiendum and definition. So suitable to be is the actual object. Suitable to be here is the actual object itself. Definition is the nature of the object, the actual object itself. Definiendum is the name which designates the actual object.
The Definiendum is not the object itself. It is the name we give for convenience to the object. The object itself is suitable to be a hue. That which is suitable to be a hue of the mind. Yeah?
Definiendum is a name designated or given to the object for convenience, so we can talk about it. It is not the object itself. The actual object itself is the definition or in this case that which is suitable to be a hue. So we’re talking about the four possible ways that things relate with one another, the relationships of two class objects. We talked about similarities and differences using this chart here, A and B.
And the very first one we call mutually inclusive. Does everybody have this? Yes. So the so the definition or or, you know, this word also means nature. The nature of the object, the definition of the object is the actual object itself.
So that would be it. Now what is the relationship between the definiendum and the definition? That’s right. Okay, what is it? Okay, anything which is a color?
Which is a color? Call this A and that’s B. Anything which is a color is? Suitable to be a hue. Anything which is suitable to be a hue?
A color. Is a color. All colors are suitable to be here. All suitable to be a hue, all those things which are suitable to be a hue are colors. They’re mutually inclusive.
Usually inclusive. Definiendums have definitions. Definiendums have definitions. Do not have definitions. Definitive definitions have definitions.
Definitive definitions do not have Once you pseudopodipity in here does not have a definition. It is the actual thing itself. Names which are designated have definition. They are not the thing itself. We’ll keep playing with this.
So, can, you know, as we’re talking about the two levels of truth, the Sūtra School, impermanent phenomena are truly existing, inherently existing. That means their natures abide in the objects themselves. They exist objectively within from their own side. Their natures. That which is suitable to be hue, this particular quality of suitableness to be a hue is inherent in that object itself.
The name, color, is just being designated to that. That’s what we mean by truly existing. That this nature, this quality of being suitable to be a hue, is the actual object itself. It doesn’t depend upon the mind. Doesn’t depend upon being given that quality or that name.
So we can begin to tie it in a little bit with the ultimate, with what we are talking about when we talk about inherent existence, ultimate truth. I don’t know. It’s you know, I don’t want to confuse you by tying it in. I’m afraid. Yeah?
No. I won’t. Because if we go to the middle way school, they say even this is not the actual object but this is also being designated. You see the difference? Here in the Sūtra School, this is the actual object.
This is the inherent quality of that object objectively coming from the side of the object. This is what is imputed, the name of the object. But the middle way school and more specifically the Consequentialist Middle Way School, says even this is just being given by conception. Even this is being really designated. There’s nothing coming from the side of the object.
There is no inherent nature. So, this is a little bit more difficult, but we have to begin to understand that the names that we assign things are not the objects themselves. That the definitions are not the thing themselves. They are merely convenient names, designations that we give objects. Color is the name we give to that which is suitable to be a hue.
Okay. Now we’re going to begin to play with this a little bit. First off, you know we’re going to try to go through these four ways of relating similarities and differences. So what is the relationship between definiendum and definition? Mutually inclusive.
Okay, you’re saying what are you saying when you say mutually inclusive? So if they’re inclusive, if A, it is A, is necessarily B or is pervaded by. If it is A, is pervaded by B. If it is B, is pervaded by A or necessarily. So what is the relationship between definiendum and definition?
Exclusive. But didn’t we say that color and suitable to be hue are are mutually inclusive? You don’t think they are? Okay. That’s good.
So if it is color, it doesn’t have to be suitable to be hue. Guess. What? Are they if it’s a color, does it have to be suitable to be hue? If it’s suitable to be you, does it have to be a color?
So would you are those mutually inclusive? How about defining them in different definition? Definition and definition. Anything which is a definiendum must be a definition. If it’s a definiendum, then it has necessarily a definition.
Pardon? It isn’t? It isn’t. No. What is the relationship between definiendum and definition?
Anything which is a definiendum must not be a definition and anything which is a definition must not be a Didn’t anybody disagree with that? Maybe disagree. Let’s take something else. Besides the relationship between definiendum and definition, can anyone give an example of two things which are mutually inclusive? Or are only definitions and definitions of virtually inclusive?
Are there other things? These are mutually inclusive. If it’s water, it’s necessarily H2O. It’s necessarily H2O. If it’s water, it’s necessarily sea.
Okay. Then they aren’t. Anybody else? Person. Being.
Person and human being. And human Anybody disagree? Everybody agree with that? What’s the difference? What’s the difference in a human being?
Almost safe? What do you think? Anybody everybody agree with that? No? Definition of a person is the human being.
Brian was asking for something other than definiendum and definition. Does everybody agree with that? Then what do you say? Things that are not usually in place? So if it’s a person, it’s necessarily a human being.
If it’s a human being, it’s necessarily a person. Yeah. That’s it. I think I think I would agree. Does everybody see that?
Okay. Let’s take another example. How about maybe I’ll give another example. I should be crisp. Two things which are mutually inclusive.
No? Why? Heat doesn’t have to be fire. For example, An oil heater. An oil heater heat an oil heater is heat, or does it give off heat?
So what would be heat heat not fire? Heat is not fire. Anybody? Body heat isn’t fire. Why?
How about the heat? Iron clean. Is that a plane? Is the picture of a flame a flame? Is the picture of a person a person?
Is the picture of a piece of chocolate cake chocolate cake? So what about fire and flame? Interesting. Anything else? How about something like Linda K.
And the the co treasure co treasure of Buddha House. What do think? What’s the present co-treasurer of Buddha House? What about the first assistant? Present First Assistant Treasurer of Buddha House and Linda Kinnear.
Are those interested in closing? Whatever is Linda Kinnear? It must the President’s First Assistant treasurer, good house, whatever it is. Okay, whatever. Whatever is Linda Kinnear.
Does it have to be referred to that at the moment? Does the car have to be running for it to be a car? If it’s parked in the driveway with an engine turned off, is it still a car? No. So, does something have to be functioning in its capacity in order to be that thing?
It does. So, then you’re not the treasure of Buddha house. Buddha House has no treasure. I see. Kath Davis. Well, is Kath Davis the treasurer of Buddha House?
Does sometimes this room not exist when there’s no one in it using Not for you. I didn’t say for you. What is this? Okay. There’s marks on the board, aren’t there?
That’s not a pot, is it? Okay. Is it? So a pot and a pot, are they mutually inclusive? A pot and a pot.
Are they mutually inclusive? Yeah. So there’s no reason. So in order for two things to be mutually inclusive, they must be different. Okay?
But I just have to say that’s a little bit dumb. They have to be different. A and B must be different in a form of them to be mutually inclusive. They must first be different. There must first be two things.
Now, how do determine whether things are different? How do we determine whether A and B are different? Can anybody guess? Different name. If two things have different names, they’re different.
How about how about bumpa, which is the Tibetan word for pot, and pot? Are they different or just are they same? This is this is the Tibetan word for pot. This is English word for pot. It’s bumpa and pot.
Are they the same or different? Is pa the word? Anyway for two things to be mutually inclusive, they must have different sounds. Different sound. Now what do we say how do we know that things are different?
How do we know that a table and a chair are different? How do we know that Linda Kinnear and the present first assistant let’s first ask a question. Is Linda Kinnear and the present first assistant treasurer of Buddha House? Are they same or different? They’re the same.
And then they aren’t mutually inclusive. Can one thing can something be same and different? For example, one quality which is in both. Pardon? By comparison.
When is it a job? Present, first assistant, treasurer of Buddha’s house is not a person, it’s a job. No? Present, first Treasurer. She’s assistant treasurer Buddha house.
Treasurer. We have we have we say present. Present. At this modern Is there anything is there any quality that this has a has that b doesn’t have or b has that a doesn’t have? Are they different?
A and B, are they different? Give me give me one. One example. How about the how about the the tai chi practitioner? Okay.
Is the present first assistant treasurer in Buddha House not tai chi practitioner? Anything which is A must be if the two are mutually inclusive, anything which is A must be B, and anything which is B must be A. They’re identical, but they’re but they’re different. Why are they different? Sound different.
What sounds different? This is a person. Linda Kinnear is a person. She’s not a sound. First you know?
Is Linda Kinnear the sound of a person? The name sounds so what what the name sounds the name? The name. Are these definitions? Is this a definition?
Which what’s wrong with the definition? The first definition. And what is the defining item? What? This is a definition?
So, we think of Linda Kinneard, when we think of the present first assistant treasurer of Buddha House, something different appears to us in our minds. Therefore, they’re different. When I say the Monk at Buddha House and Jampa Gendun, even though they apply to the same person, person, they appear to our conceptual consciousness differently. We have different associations with them. They’re mutually inclusive, but because they appear to conception differently, we say they’re different.
This is we say they’re different. They’re not the same. If two things appear to conception identically, they’re the same. If they appear differently, then they’re different. So this is the you know, we talk about two things being of the same nature.
You know, things can be the same, They can be they can be the diff they can be different. Just to confuse you a little bit. They can be different. They’d be the same nature. Same nature.
Does anybody what’s in the name of the who give two things which are the same nature? Two things which are the same nature. Talk about, for example, impermanence in this table and it’s and it’s impermanence of this table and the table, same nature. Why? Because to a direct perception, they do not appear differently.
So if two things appear the same to direct perception, then they’re the same nature. If they appear to the same conceptual consciousness, they’re the same. If they appear different to direct perception, they’re different natures. If they appear different to conceptual consciousness, they’re different. So, two things could be the same nature.
For example, impermanence of the table and the table are the same nature because they appear the same to a direct perception. But to a conception, impermanence and table appear different. Therefore, they’re different. So, things are different, it’s because they appear to our conception different. The co director sitting in this room presently and Kimball appear to our minds differently when we think, Ah, Kimball, we have some ideas coming in our mind.
And then if we think, Oh, the co director is sitting in this room presently, the different associations, a different generic image, different mental image comes in our mind. Therefore they’re different because they’re different mental images, different mental labels, but they apply to the same person. They’re mutually inclusive. So in order for two things to be different, they must have the same, different objects, i.e. generic labels, mental labels.
That means they appear to conception differently. They have different labels, different mental image that arise when we hear those sounds. We hear their names when we think of them. And they must have different they must also be different in sound. Different meaning general or put it technically, different meaning generality or there is to say mental label and different sound generality.
Pot and Bumpa are not the same. When we hear the word Bumpa and when we hear pot, a generic image will arise in our mind even though we know we know that they both are referring to the same thing. Therefore, Bumpa and pot are mutually inclusive because they’re different, and anything which is Bumpa, it must be a pot, and anything which is a pot, must be a Bumpa. Which which one? What’s your different?
Bumpa and pot are different, aren’t they? Why why are Bumpa and pot different? Different sounds and different sounds. And what happens? So different sounds.
Why? How do we know they’re different sounds? When you hear the word Bumpa? I don’t hear anymore. I don’t that.
No. It’s blank. It’s not blank. Something appears in your mind. What the hell is he talking about?
Something appears in your mind in association with that word and it’s different than what appears in your mind in association with the word pot. So they’re different. How are we discriminating between what might appear in my mind and what might appear in my mind? Are we assuming that everybody is accurately perceived, directly perceived. So when we talk about difference, we’re talking about conceptual consciousness.
That which appears separate or distinct or different to a conceptual consciousness is different. That which appears separate, distinct to a direct perceiver, direct perception is different in nature, not necessarily different. Which appears the same to a direct perception is the same in nature, but not necessarily different. Things would be have the same nature but it would be different. Emptiness, like the two truths.
Ultimate truths and then conventional truths are the same nature, same entity. And if we can use the word entity, maybe that’s better to use. Rather than nature, it’s the entity. The two truths are the same entity. The object perception does not distinguish the two, but they appear differently to conceptual consciousness.
But that’s confusing. Okay. So we’re okay. Any questions about that so far? You don’t have this will come up again and again.
The text actually just goes on to say, so it’s given the definition for color suitable as a hue. And then it just merely says, okay. Now color is deep has divided into root colors and branch colors. Or in English, we or normally, we might say something like primary colors and secondary colors. Colors.
If we divide primary colors, there are four. Blue four four primary colors. There are there’s blue, yellow, white, and red. Blue, yellow, white, and red are the four primary colors. Then there are the four there are the there are the eight branch colors.
Eight branch colors. And these these eight branch colors are specifically mentioned in various sutras, discourses of the Buddha. So this will seem very odd to you, the eight branch colors or eight secondary colors. First is illumination. Illumination.
The second is darkness. The third is cloud. The fourth is smoke. The fifth is dust. The sixth is shadow.
The seventh is mist. The eighth is sunlight. So these are just, you know, these are new students. They’re getting they take these eight which are mentioned in various different discourses and they call these the eight branch colors. Any other color aside from from the root colors or the primary colors would be a branch color, but it would not be one of these eight branch colors.
So we have a list a special list of eight branch colors, and then which are which are secondary colors. Any other secondary any other color beside the root would be a secondary color, but is not included in these eight branch colors. So green, orange, these would be secondary colors but not one of these eight branch colors. These eight are special branch colors which would mention in various sūtra. So then they would begin to debate, they would begin to use these colors as a basis for learning how to debate.
So we’ve gone through roughly the idea of what mutually inclusive means. Now mutually exclusive. It’s A, so as it says on this sheet, if it’s A, it’s necessarily not B. If it’s B, it’s necessarily not A. What would be an example?
Blue and red. How about purple? Purple is not red, but it’s red and blue. It’s red and blue, isn’t it? Went.
Yeah. Purple It’s me. Is purple red? No. Is purple blue? No. It’s not.
So then these aren’t then red and blue aren’t usually exclusive. Because there’s something which is if it if it’s if it’s red, it can’t be blue. If it’s blue, it can’t be red. But purple is both red and blue. Purple is not red and blue.
Does anybody think purple is red and blue? No? If you mix red and blue together, don’t you get purple? So that when you mix them together, isn’t there red and blue in there? Not necessarily so.
How about when I designate you as the present co director of Buddha House? I no longer see Kimball? Well, I’m saying I’m saying the same thing. How about you’re saying that because I designate Kimball, co director, then I shouldn’t be able to keep seeing Kimball because once I designate purple, I can no longer see red and blue. I shouldn’t be able to see red and blue anymore.
How about purple? Is purple red? Is purple blue? Is purple red and blue? Okay, purple is red and blue.
Yeah? Okay, when you purple, does the eye consciousness seen red arise? When you see purple, do you see red? When you see purple, do you see red? Yes, you do actually.
How about this is purple? This subject here. I’ll just take this subject. You don’t see red? Isn’t purple red?
Well, why don’t you see it? Is it black? It’s mixed with blue. So you don’t see the red, but the red’s still there. I wanted to get you guys to look at it.
So purple’s red and blue. But you don’t see red? No. If it’s why don’t you see it? Then it’s not So there’s a color which you can’t see.
It doesn’t not? No. Color is an object of an eye consciousness. So, actually, I see. You don’t you but you but it’s but it’s not red.
Is the color white? Every color in rainbow? Yes. When you see that door, you see every color in rainbow? There?
No. How about is lukewarm water hot and cold? Should be hot and cold. But after making if you hot water and cold water put them in the same bucket and mix them. Why don’t you have the hot and cold water there?
You do? Once they once they mix them, things can’t change? Okay, let’s see. How about an example of mutually exclusive? Anybody?
Cats and dolls. Cat? Okay. Cat and dog. Why is a cat and dog literally exclusive?
Exclusive? Are cat and dog different? Why are they different? Dog are cats and dogs sounds? They appear to perception.
It’s been distinct When you think about cat, when you think about dog. Yeah? Okay. Now this third relationship, three possibilities, such as man and human being. Why?
So there’s we have a relationship with A and B. Anything with, because some of you may not agree with this, anything which is a man, anything which is a man is necessarily a human being. Anything which is a human being is not necessarily a man. For example? A woman.
Okay. Is a woman a human being? You don’t give me that, but it’s falsely. I’ll leave it at that. Okay.
Can you give me another example of three possibilities? Okay. What is what is and when we when it says, if in debate, first, that which is pervaded and that which pervades. Okay. Do know what?
So, anyway, we can use the word invaded. That which has been invaded. You know? Right. That which which pervades, that which invades, pervades.
That which pervades and that which is like if when Hitler invaded Austria, He was the invader. Austria was the invaded. He was the pervader. Pervaded. Austria was the pervaded.
He pervaded Austria. Think it’s easier in Tibet. Hitler pervaded, pervaded, pervaded Austria. Austria was pervaded. Austria was the jacob.
Hitler pervades Austria. Austria was pervaded by Hitler. Okay? So, of these two, is pervaded and which it pervades? Anything which is okay.
We say the next statement. Anything which is a dog must be an animal. No? Is cat a dog? Anything which is A must be B.
Anything which is a dog must be an animal. How about now the other way? About anything which is an animal? Does it necessarily have to be a dog, for example? Why isn’t a cat a dog?
It’s a different animal. How about how about the dog next door and the dog down the block? Are these two are they are they different animals? So when we give, so if we have, when we list somebody which is of three possibilities, first we ask what is the pervasion? What is the pervasion?
In this case, first we state the pervasion. If it is a dog, it is necessarily an animal. Then we state the non pervasion. What if it’s an animal, it’s not or not prohibited by being a dog. Alright, so anybody?
Another example? Third possibility? The dog, dog, no, humans, ah, here we go. Animal pervades. Every little speck of dog, every animal, every example of dog is pervaded by being an animal, by animal, It is infested by being by animal.
The class of dog is infested by being animal. But the class of animal is not pervaded or not infested or not over is not pervaded by being.