Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 23-minute session, Ven Jampa Ignyen uses logical debate to clarify a foundational Buddhist distinction: what makes something an object (something cognized) versus an object possessor (the awareness doing the cognizing). He works through examples — eye awareness perceiving color, ear awareness perceiving sound — then tackles harder cases: omniscience, which functions as both. The latter half investigates a more practical question: what is expressive sound? Are rustling leaves, a breaking twig, or a waterfall genuinely expressive, or only deliberately created utterances like speech? Through dialogue with students, he probes whether meaning resides in the sound itself or in the intention behind it. Suited to practitioners already familiar with Tibetan Buddhist logical debate.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 08 M and C 2001 05 22.mp3
UUID: e2c6fc9e-8e3c-413d-a2b0-07204f07f07f
Teacher: Ven Jampa Ignyen
Collection: y Mind and Cognition 2001 Month 04-06 (Ven Jampa Ignyen)
Date: 2001-05-22
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 23.2 minutes
Words: ~2,304
Awareness. Eye awareness, is eye consciousness is mind, isn’t it? It’s type of awareness, isn’t it? Yeah. But there wasn’t much mistaking. No.
But even the eye awareness does comprehend color and shape, doesn’t it? That’s not comprehend. Yep. Just color and shape. It’s just like our ear awareness.
Our ear awareness comprehends the the sounds, doesn’t it? Doesn’t comprehend the meaning of the sounds, but it comprehends the sounds. If our ear awareness doesn’t comprehend the sounds, we can’t understand the meaning of the sounds. Our conceptual awareness won’t determine the meaning of the sounds, will it? It’s like if I started to speak in Tibetan like, We’d all comprehend the sound with our ear awareness, but the meaning we wouldn’t.
But it’s thanks to our ear awareness that we can comprehend the meaning of something because it our ear awareness comprehends the sound, more or less. It does comprehend the sound, doesn’t it? If our eye awareness doesn’t comprehend the shapes of the letters on a page, we can’t our conceptual awareness won’t determine the meaning of those shapes. It’s a very interesting process, isn’t it? Eye awareness just see this sees the shapes there, but that’s all it can do.
It just goes through all these shapes. Our conceptual awareness is like side by side with the our good old trusty eye awareness. And it’s able to draw meaning from those shapes. Right. Ourselves, person, persons.
But we’re object possessors really through our awareness. Our awareness is is so central to us, but we couldn’t exist without awareness. We’re always associated with awareness. Right. So this section we’re doing now is dealing with objects and object possessors and differentiating what what they are.
We already understand that there is a common ground between objects and object possessors. There’s a common basis between the two. Right. Now, firstly, at the last debate on page five, one says, if it is an object, it must be an object from among objects an object possessors. So what does that mean?
It means we know the meaning of object. Object is something which is, what? Cognized by awareness or comprehended by cognition. However, we put this. What then is an object from among objects and object possessors?
An object from among objects and object possessors is something which is an object and not an object possessor if it’s put in that way. Is that okay? Not okay? Both okay and not okay. There’s only four possibilities we got here.
All that that means, an object from among objects and possessors just means objects alone, which are just objects. Okay. So if it’s an object, it must be an object from among objects and object possessors. Someone says that. Now Himself says, no.
That I disagree with. Therefore, he responds. Take omniscience. Omniscience is the awareness of a Buddha. It follows it is an object from among objects an object possesses because it is an object.
The reason is easy. Omniscience is an object, isn’t it? What’s the reasoning we’re using there? It exists. That’s all.
It if it exists, it’s an object because being observed by valid awareness is the definition of object. The reason is easy. If so, take omniscience. It follows it is not an object from among objects and object possessors. Why?
Because it is an object possessor from among objects and object possessors. Reason not established, the opponent there says. Then the author goes on to say, that follows right at the very end of page five, meaning, it is an object possessor from among objects and object possessors because it is valid awareness. Because omniscience is valid awareness, isn’t it? Any sorry?
That’s an object. Okay. Let’s just okay. So it is an object possessor from among objects and object possessors. Why?
Because it is valid awareness. Right? It is an object possessor, isn’t it? K. Then, again, it follows if it is an object possessor, it must be an object possessor from among objects and object possessors.
Because if it is an object, it must be an object among objects and object possessors. Reason directly accepted. If so, take expressive sound. It follows it is an object possessor from among objects and object possessors because it is an object possessor. Because it is an object possessor.
Expressive sound is said to be an object possessor. Reason not established. It follows it is an object possessor because its object exists. Okay. What we’re doing in these debates here is simply examining the relationship between object and object possessor.
Yes. Now doubt will arise as to the meaning. But that about omniscience. Is that saying that omniscience is both an object and an object possessor. In general, it is an object and an object possessor.
But from among object possessors and object, it is an object possessor. Right? In general, we say that omniscience is an object, right, because it exists. But if we ask, is it an object? What is it from among objects an object possessors?
Then we say it’s an object possessor. Why can’t we say both? Because here, if we’d from among if we’re differentiating it among from among those two categories, then in a sense, we’re giving precedence to object possessors. We can put it that way. Well, you accepted that very easily.
I’m surprised. It is a bit of a convention here. Yes. Yeah. Because it’s really in a sense it’s dealing with its main function.
What’s the main function of omniscience? Its main function is an object possessor, but it is an object for other awarenesses, other types of awareness. So in a sense, we’re dealing with main function here. When we’re dealing with from among objects and object possessors, the main function of omniscience is being an object possessor. Not quite.
No. It’s simply really just here examining what does exist, and some things are clearly just objects. There are others which, in fact, are both objects and object possessors. But if we try and differentiate those two categories according to the main function of that thing, then some really are object possessors from among objects and object possessors. This is not a huge point anyway.
It’s just to be honest, a number of these debates are more for just practicing, more for, like, limbering up the more for, like, limbering up the the the logical muscles or, you know, extending the flexing the neurons more than maybe generating understanding. You should go into some of them, some of the debates that are set out. Like, there’s one section on exclusion. Oh, anyway, without going into any of that. So as long as we understand the basic concept here, and I think we do.
I don’t think there’s any sense in maybe we could just read that by ourselves. Is that or that then going on into page number six. Now here, it’s again, it’s dealing with differentiating what objects and object possesses are. Possessors are. Or would we quickly like to read through them?
Or an What do we mean reading through them now? So Oh, okay. Okay. We’ll probably notice that this section there are different sections here, you know. At one point, we’ll be dealing with object possess, then we’ll start with objects, and then we start with the difference difference between the two.
So it’s good if we note at least those general, what categories within the debates that arise, where one new category begins. Okay. So then on page number six, right, the second one down. Again, again, it follows expressive sound. Is an object possessor?
Is expressive sound an object possessor? It is, isn’t it? Expressive sound. Like, just saying yes is expressive sound. It’s something which holds an object, doesn’t it?
It affirms something, has meaning. So it’s an object possessor. Sound is an not all sound is an object possessor. Only expressive sound. Affirming something in in a context that’s said.
I think there’s a group in the seventies called yes as well, so that’s that has another meaning. Well, some noises that occur. Like this Like the rustling of leaves in the wind. Oh, they’re expressive. When a cat is has got its claws out and is looking at us.
It’s very expressive. Oh, that could. You could be calling your dog there. It might mean, come here, Fido. That’s right.
Like bird calls as well. There. It has to be conveying a meaning, expressing a meaning. Yeah. What about the sound of a waterfall?
What about the sound of rain? Also it sounds mean something to someone or something. It may not mean that. But isn’t that sound expressing a meaning? Does it carry a meaning?
Like our words. Like, when we talk, our words carry a meaning, don’t they? There’s an intended meaning. But is there any meaning coming out of the waterfall? Yeah.
But is that sound itself conveying? I mean, is there something expressed by that sound? Yeah. Oh, that’s okay. It doesn’t matter.
As long as it means something to one person, if it’s carrying meaning specifically for one person. Person? There is debate about this. One of the there’s a sūtra that occurs, which is the which is the by the blessing of the Buddha, the wind rustling the leaves in the trees served to teach impermanence to a group of students at that time that the Buddha was teaching. Now, in general, the leaves rustling in the wind don’t carry any specific meaning.
But by the blessing of the Buddha at that point, they did carry the meaning of impermanence. That rustling carried that meaning. Well, it really depends on where the sound you know, what’s making the sound. It’s, you know, it’s a sound like, when we make sound, we’re deliberately trying to, you know, purse up our lips and wag our tongue and put the teeth in a certain position in order to get a particular sound out that we know is gonna carry a particular meaning for a particular purpose. Is that process going on with the wind rustling the leaves?
That’s expressive sound. If I clap that, that comes about because I’m hitting it deliberately because it has particular meaning. That’s expressive sound. What is it? Well, it’s it’s comprehended.
If it exists, it’s comprehended. It’s comprehended comprehended by the omniscient mind of the Buddha. Buddha’s yeah. That’s that’s okay. But here, if it’s just there are some in a sense, it’s sound if it’s deliberately made or not.
Actually, some are sounds that are not deliberately made, if they’re conjoined with awareness, do carry meaning. So [inaudible]. No. Well, Yeah. That sound itself though, in a way, is not carrying meaning, I think, in the sense you mean.
When we hear that sound, we know, oh, there’s water there. That’s really all that we can infer. Oh, it’s, you know, it’s raining or there’s water over there because there’s a waterfall. This that sound is not actually carrying any other meaning than that. But it’s not the rain is not hitting the ground in order for us to know that the rain is falling there.
It’s not there’s nothing the water itself doesn’t have an intention. Yeah. But that that’s anyway, this needs to be investigated. We need to investigate a little bit what the meaning of expressive sound is. Important because we’re dealing with sounds all the time.
And we do need to investigate, are all sounds expressive sounds? Meaning, are they all expressing a meaning? Are they deliberately generated in order to express a meaning? Or are they simply some sounds are simply the result of certain causes and conditions coming coming about without any particular intention of a sentient being or or a Buddha? For it to be for it to be expressive sound, yeah, the implication is that there’s a they’re being created for a particular purpose.
If the sound is being generated without the intention of a person, a being, then probably they’re not expressive sound. Sorry. Someone accidentally Well, yeah, if we’re sitting in the house at night and it’s really dark and we hear that sound of the twig breaking outside our window, I certainly didn’t intend it to happen, but that’s quite expressive for us. We’re awed. Sort of thief at the door.
Yeah. So this but, generally, we’re talking about whether it’s conjoined. The sound is conjoined by you know, in some way conjoined to the continuum or the consciousness of a being. This can occur, you know, in any way. We sit at the lights and we’re about to take off and the person beside us is vroom vroom vroom.
Now that’s the sound it’s just the sound of the car, but if he’s vroom vroom vroom, we know that he’s impatient, then that’s expressive sound. Oh, if it’s okay. We oh, we can generally tell the difference between that as well. I think it goes beyond just a convention because there are sounds that definitely are expressive, like our language. These are deliberately expressive.
And a lot of other things that sentient beings do are deliberately expressive. You know, he beating a drum or Well, if Yeah. Right. Well, that’s right. You can take expressive sound there, and what’s remains all the sound that remains is is not expressive.
Does it have the nature of communicating? Sorry? Does expressive sound have sort of Oh, absolutely. It’s communicating a meaning because it’s an object possessor. It’s holding a meaning.
It its meaning exists. Its object exists. If that if by that sound, we understand a particular meaning or a particular object, then it proves its expressive sound. Anyway okay. Well, that’s good.
We’ll stop there. And maybe just do a short.