Buddhist Hour

Script No. 392

Broadcast live on Hillside 88.0 FM

on Sunday 31 July 2005CE  2549 Buddhist Era

This script is entitled:

Atisha’s A Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment Part IV

Last week we continued with Master John D. Hughes’ oral commentary on “A Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment,” which was written by the Buddhist scholar and meditative adept Atisha, over 800 years ago.

Master John D. Hughes discussed with his students the importance of understanding logic and what logical system you use in your everyday affairs.

He explained, “Having made decisions about what is real and what is unreal, we then act accordingly, in accordance with what we perceive as real. However if we mistake the unreal for the real we do still act on the unreal.”

Perceiving the unreal to be true is described by the Buddha as ignorance, which is the fundamental root of all suffering. Ignorance, in this case, is defined as the misunderstanding of the way that phenomena truly behave and exist. The habitual tendencies of our mind that are based on this misunderstanding, or false logic, causes us to unknowingly engage in unskillful actions which in the future will bring us suffering.

In analysing the methods by which our own minds operate, we are able to, through the guidance of the Buddha, understand which behaviors are to be abandoned and which are to be adopted.

In essence, we must first understand our own mental, verbal and physical behaviors. Without gaining this understanding, we cannot conduct the experiment of testing the Buddha’s words.

For example, the contemporary system of democratic government is based on the Socratic logic system, which was developed by the Greek philosopher Socrates.

This logic system is very well developed. It is only after much thought and consideration that one chooses to act.

The benefit of using the Socratic logic system in governing our country is that even when there are differing opinions the premise, that is logic used, is the same. That means that agreeance can occur between varying groups of people, including different cultures. Just by agreeing to use one logic system we can come to harmony.

The Buddha logic system is designed to bring beings out of suffering and attain enlightenment.

Atisha shed light on the fact that practitioners had imposed their own logic systems onto the Buddha’s teachings, therefor there was confusion and disagreement among them.

We will now begin part four of Atisha’s A Lamp on the Path to Enlightenment.

JDH: So even when we go through all this process we then come to the text, which we did sometime back, about the Kalamas. Do you remember anything about that? Minnie? Julie?

JULIE: What criteria to base an opinion on.

JDH: Yes, that's right. Do you remember Frank? You video’d, you read it on the video. Do you remember, can you remember? We want to get to the word logic in the text.

FRANK: To not use hearsay as the test of truth.

JDH: That's hearsay, because I say or someone says is not, second hand knowledge is not the criteria.

FRANK: To not use tradition.

JDH : To not use tradition because it's been ancient.

FRANK: Not because the wise told you.

JDH: Not because the wise told you. You might be mistaken who is wise, remember.

FRANK: Not because it's always been held that that was true.

JDH:  Not because it's some old, its always been held.

FRANK: There's one not because it conforms to your existing view.

JDH: Yes.

FRANK: Not because it's logical.

JDH: Right, not because it's logical. Now, you can't get above these things until you've explored, as it were, the uses and abuses of logic. You can't really say, if your mind can follow this, that I can discard logic until I know the limits of logic. Because logic will help me up to a point.

So the sevenfold explanation is one; the sutra must be explained in terms of usefulness. He established that the purpose of this sutra was in answer to the statement, at the request of the student of Atisha, that there was some arguing backward and forth about things they did not comprehend. And then the request included, "they all have their own logic to analyse their suppositions about the profound view and broad practice. With so much disagreement on all sides, I beg you to clear up these doubts for us."

So the main, the main part of the request was the perception of the student or the disciple of Atisha. He saw that the disputing was because the various, if you like, factions all have their own logic to analyse the suppositions. To overcome that, you can't overcome something basically until you understand it. Therefor you must understand that if Atisha's text is to fulfill the function to be useful for the purposes of his disciple, Atisha's text must dispel the various confusions of using various types of logic.

So, at this stage, we have to explore the logic of the propositions, but bearing in mind that when we've finished that explanation that is not valid reason just because it agrees with your system of logic whereas it can follow someone else's system of logic. Do you understand that Minnie? Do you understand that Julie?

JOD: Yes.

JDH: Do you understand that Frank? Julie, rephrase what I said from your view regarding logic.

JOD: Because the text can dispel someone else's logic doesn't necessarily follow that it can dispel yours. Each person's got their own logic system.

JDH: Therefore, before you can cognate whether your logic system is of use to you or not of use to you. You must fully comprehend your own logic system. Do you follow that? So, for example, there are six people here, including myself as a people. There is no guarantee that at any given second were all operating on the same logic system. So, each of you could be undergoing logical transformation, which are all valid within the plane of reference for you.

But if we get into discussion and come into dispute its because you have one logic system, you have one logic system, you have one logic system, you have one logic system, you have one logic system, you have one logic system and perhaps your teacher can comprehend the logic systems you're all using and then show you  which logic system you are using, which logic system you are using, which logic system you are using, which logic system.

When you see the differences in your logic system what will happen then Minnie? Or another way of saying it, what is the usefulness of knowing your own logic system? What do you think? Minnie? What do you think Julie?

JOD: It gives you the opportunity to uncouple the negatives.

JDH: What do you think Frank?

FTC: You can see its limitations.

JDH: What do you think Monica?

MONICA: It gives you the ability to see the other people's logic, to simplify, sorry I'm not making much sense. You can see other things more clearly.

JDH: That's correct. Dorothy?

DOROTHY: By understanding your own form of logic, and seeing your own form of logic, you can then see other people's.

JDH: Minnie? What do you say? Is it worth the effort to come for comprehension of your logic system, or not?

MM:  Yes, it is.

JDH: Why?

MM: I don't know why. It's just hearsay why.

JDH: Why, Julie?

JOD: Because its frees you up...

JDH: But perhaps you like a dearly beloved friend who has just died, you get despair at the limitations of your own favorite logic system which everyone believes. In other words you can't see something completely until you let it go and look at it.

So, for example, if I take this cup I can pick it up like that I can't see the whole cup. My hand, the thing I grasp with clouds what I'm grasping. If I grab it like that I still can't see the whole cup. No matter how I manipulate the grasping and grabbing at this cup my grabbing and grasping obscures the whole vision of the cup. Therefore, to see the whole cup as it really is I have to stop grabbing and I put it there. Do you follow that Julie? Explain in your own words.

JOD: Um, you have to put down what you call yourself, which is essentially looking from a logic system that’s the way you perceive things. And the fear is that you could go mad, you could...

JDH: Because you are scared. If you put down your logic system you will become illogical. In other words you'll go mad. It could happen. But you must put in your mind that if I'm going to do this I’m not going to waste the time of going mad. Can you put that into your mind? Frank, what do you say?

FTC: Uh, just getting back to the Kalama sutra.

JDH: It's getting back to the Kalama sutra. If we don't know our logic system, say you five people each operate on a different logic system, all valid within the limitations of that logic system, but if you have got five logic systems and you start to debate with each other you can only come into dispute. Why? Julie?

JOD: Because they’re applicable to different frames of reference.

JDH: Frank, why?

FTC: Because they are valid to each individual.

JDH: Why, Minnie? Why would it lead to dispute?

MM: Because each person wants to hold on to their logic.

JDH: Because each person holds on to their logic system as if it were their most treasured possession.  Why Monica?

MONICA: Because each person has their own views and ideas.

JDH: So if we sit and we look at it one way if you like a bit of graphic talk, we are in a prison separated from each other by our differing logic systems. So there’s no reasonable foundation to suppose that we all have the same logic system. In fact I have several logic systems which I put down and pick up depending on what I need to do.

How many logic systems have you got, that you're aware of? Julie?

JOD: Two.

JDH: Frank?

FTC: I don't know.

JDH: Minnie?

MM: I don't know.

JDH: Monica?

MONICA: I know I have quite a few.

JDH: Dorothy?

DOROTHY: I don't know.

JDH: You said you have two. Name them and explain. For example. These are examples of logic systems.

JOD: Uh, one is, is basically based on um, well, the law; what's expected of a human being. How to operate, how to function, how to conduct yourself, that sort of stuff. And another one is, um, is based on not grabbing emotions, not fixing into any particular view. Inflexible.

JDH: Now, let's take one example. You are in human birth, the same as I. From immeasurable past kammas, when you have had human birth, you've gone through a trial and error system of what is expedient for a human being. And those sets of either full remembrances or part remembrances comprise your system. You say "this is the way I do things."

So, for example, I do things in certain ways. Perhaps, depending on your logic system you say I'm idiocentric. You know what that means? Does anyone know the word?

STUDENT: Idiocentric?

JDH: Yeah.

STUDENT: Um, that would be, um, characteristics.

JDH: Go and get the short oxford.

STUDENT: It's not the same as idiosyncrasy is it?

JDH: Yes. Get the Oxford dictionary. The explanation must include the word definition. It's usefulness, a summary, three - the word definitions. Suppose someone says you're idiocentric. Let's get the word definition and we will use Oxford definitions. We've also got Webster’s here, but we'll stay with Oxford. Webster's is sometimes useful if you want further contemporary views because often you unknowingly use the words in the American sense rather than the English sense. Right, away you go.

STUDENT: Idiosyncrasy - um, a peculiarity of constitution of a person or class. A physical constitution within an individual or class. The mental constitution peculiar to a person or class. Individual bent of mind, inclination emoting. That's  it.

JDH: Alright. Do we all agree that we all fall within that definition? Read it again. The mental part.

STUDENT: The mental constitution peculiar to a person or class. Individual bent of mind or inclination.

JDH: Do you believe you're massed produced? Or do you believe you're me, me, me, me, me, me. What are you? Julie, take your view.

JOD: My view is, um, mass-produced.

JDH: Right. Frank, what's your view?

FTC: Well, I've got idiosyncrasies.

JDH: Your view Minnie?

MM: That I'm not mass-produced.

JDH: Your view?

STUDENT: That I'm not mass-produced.

JDH: Your view?

Student: I'm not mass-produced and I don't have peculiar idiosyncracies.

JDH : The word doesn't say peculiar. Now, is anyone mass-produced? Is there a human being in the world -lets get to our logic systems with the word definitions. Is there anyone mass-produced in the world? If so, what are there characteristics?

All of the students responded at once, some saying no, others saying yes.

JDH: All right now we are falling into disputes, we are falling into difficulties of word definition. What does mass-produced mean?

JOD: I have two meanings. First meaning, falling subject to past kamma. Second meaning, living according to what society calls living, doing what other people say.

JDH: What is the brand of your motor car?

JOD: Commodore.

JDH: Made by General Motors Holden?

STUDENT: Yes.

JDH: I think if I remember they have thirty one percent of the market. I think this year the Commodores for the first time outsold the Fords. Is your car mass-produced?

STUDENT: Yes.

JDH: Are you happy about that?

STUDENT: Oh, yeah.

JDH: Is your car mass-produced Frank?

FTC: Yeah.

JDH: What sort of a car have you got?

FTC: Transit van.

JDH: Makers name?

FTC: Ford.

JDH: Is your car mass-produced? Makers name?

STUDENT: Holden.

JDH: Is your car mass-produced?

SUTDENT: I think they threw away the mould when they...

JDH: What is the name of the car?

STUDENT: Datsun.  I'll say yeah, it would be.

JDH: Is your car mass-produced?

STUDENT: Yes.

JDH: I have a Ford, mass-produced.

STUDENT: Is your car mass-produced?

JDH: Yes. If you had a mass produced mind, what sort of a car do you think you'd drive Julie?

JOD: Honda Prelude.

JDH: Mass-produced.

JDH: If you had a mass-produced mind Frank, what sort of car would you drive?

FTC: What everyone else was driving.

JDH: If you had a mass produced mind Minnie, what sort of car would you drive?

MM: A navy Saab.

JDH: If you had a mass produced mind what sort of car would you drive?

STUDENT: A BMW.

JDH: If you had a mass produced mind what sort of car would you drive?

STUDENT: Whichever one was popular at the time.

JDH: Well, now lets go again. Your logic system is what makes you buy this and not buy that. Whenever you bought that car that you've got, each of you, you operated on your logic system and yet all of you have got different cars. Different, some have got Fords but not the same model. Your car is not the same year as mine is it?

STUDENT: Mine is a Nissan.

JDH: Your Fords a Nissan.

STUDENT: Yes.

JDH: And your Ford's a Holden, and your Ford's a Holden. What ever your logic system is, you see what happens, the mind is chief you remember that from the Dhammapada, and your logic system got you to that car. If you didn't get your car on a logic system what did you use?

MM: Outside resources or outside people. I spoke, you know, to other people and took their views.

JDH: But that is your logical system operating. If, we're going to the death with honing in on what your logical system is. It's logical to talk to other people and get their views. Do you agree or disagree?

MM: Yes, I agree.

JDH: Well, that is your logic system. It's called, "What will the neighbours think?", logic system. If everyone you spoke to said, "Don't buy it, don't buy it!", what would you have done?

MM: It would depend on who I was talking to.

JDH: If everyone said...

MM: If I was talking to Frank...

JDH: If everyone said to you don't buy it, don't buy it, don't buy it, don't buy it, what would you have done?

MM: Depends on their credibility to me.

JDH: If everyone you spoke to said don't buy it, don't buy it, don't buy it, what would you have done?

MM: I wouldn't buy it.

JDH: Why?

MM: Because they must know something I don't know.

JDH: And therefore your logic system would come up with the conclusion “don't buy that car.” Now, what I'm saying is your logic system is what makes you buy that car.

Your logic system is what makes you buy that car. Julie, do you understand what I’m saying?

JOD: Yeah.

JDH: Your logic system is what makes you buy that car. Your logic system is what makes you buy that car Frank. Your logic system is what makes you buy that car and your logic system is what makes you buy that car and your logic system is what makes you buy that car.

All right, so your logic system determines the car you buy. Now, we’re getting to deep and meaningful or can you see that as something that your understand? Do you understand?

MM: Yes.

JDH: Do you understand? Do you understand? We’re talking about your logic system. I observe with my taciturn seeing, my computing. You all have different types of clothes on. Your logic system purchase those clothes. Do you agree? Do you agree? What clothes she says.

MM: No, I don’t. Because they’re not all mine. Oh, but yeah. Ok, I see what you’re saying.

STUDENT: Yes.

JDH: Do you have a ribbon in your hair?

STUDENT: Yes.

JDH: Have you got one? Your logic system put a ribbon in your hair. The brand of cigarettes you smoke your logic system brought.

MM: Yeah.

JDH: Now, just tell me is there anything you’ve ever done off your logic system?

FTC: Fell over?

JDH: Good. There’s one thing you know.

STUDENT: Had children. That was definitely illogical.

JDH: One.

MM: There’s, when I first came here, I think it was…

JDH: One. What happens when you put your logic system down? How do you behave? He falls over and she gets potted. Is that a good outcome?

FTC: Can’t say.

JDH: Is that a better outcome?

STUDENT: What, falling over? Definitely better.

JDH: If you abandon your logic system what generally happens? Julie?

JOD: You get brighter.

JDH: Frank? Never had to abandon any! Minnie?

MM: I come out of suffering.

JDH: Monica?

MONICA: Um, my mind is much more clearer.

JDH: Dorothy?

DOROTHY: When you abandon your logic system you can make those quantum leaps.

JDH: You notice how the women, the women can abandon the logic system but how about the feelings of the vedana system!

This ends part 4 of Atisha’s A Lamp on the Path to Enlightenment. We hope you will join us next week for part 5.

May I be well and happy.

May you be well and happy.

May all beings be well and happy.

This script was prepared and edited by Alec Sloman, Lainie Smallwood and Frank Carter.

References

Tape 2, Side 1

Teacher: John D. Hughes

Date of recording: 22/09/1989

Transcribed by Alec Sloman

Checked by: Frank Carter

CD Reference: 22_09_89T2S1

File Name I:\22_09_89T2S1A_JDHtranscribe.rtf

Recording Title: Atisha's Lamp on the Path

Tape 2, Side 2

Teacher: John D. Hughes

Date of recording: 22/09/1989

Transcribed by:  Alec Sloman

Checked by: Frank Carter

CD Reference: 22_09_89T2S2

File Name I:\22_09_89T2S2A_JDHtranscribe.rtf

Document Statistics.

Word count: 3,584