Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 46-minute session, Ven Jampa Gendun works through a central puzzle in Buddhist epistemology: how does the mind learn to recognize a pot? He traces what happens when a child first hears the word — eye consciousness sees a specific object while conceptual consciousness links the name to a mental image, the appearance of “opposite of non-pot.” He contrasts Buddhist universals with Plato’s separate, unreachable Forms: in Buddhist thought, the shared factor across all pots is imputed by mind, present in every instance rather than standing apart from them. This leads to the technical concept of an isolate — the factor of similarity that thought imputes onto all instances of a category. The session closes with returned exam papers and a lively debate on identity and difference. For students working through a traditional Buddhist logic curriculum.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 32 CT 1988 06 07.mp3
UUID: f89c9eaa-61e2-4982-8a61-d3dd4f3b206e
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-06-07
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.3 minutes
Words: ~4,555
Fine. Because I find it single to most of it. Difficult. This is, you know, and yeah. So we’re okay.
We’ll go on. We’ll become a little bit clearer. Right. No. It’ll become it’ll become clear.
Maybe. So when we when we first, you know, first learned the name of an object, We have at that time there’s both direct perception, and by direct perception we just mean you know eye consciousness, ear consciousness. In this this case we’re talking about pots, we’re talking about eye consciousness, the eye consciousness sees the pot. Eye consciousness and thought consciousness are both involved in this in learning, this learning process. So the eye consciousness directly perceives a pot present.
Know, perceives the color and shape of a specific pot. And the term is connected conceptually, you know, the thought conscious connects a term. So the term’s basis this is the term, the basis is an actual pot which is seen and then this term is connected with the mental image of the pot. So there’s two things happening. Eye consciousness sees a pot and then the term and then somebody says, that’s a pot.
And the mind at that moment, the conceptual mind associates that term pot with a mental image of what it’s seeing, not the actual pot itself. But the basis of that term is the actual pot, but the mind is connecting this term pot with the mental image of the pot. That’s how later on we can see another type of pot and understand it’s a pot. So that’s because whenever we see a similar shape and color we say, Ah, that’s a pot, because it’s connected up with a mental image of of a thing which that shape maybe not so much color, just shape. Something which has a similar type of shape which is the opposite of non pot, which is taken as we’re using, the mental image would be shape.
And then we can say, oh this fits that shape. This fits my mental image therefore this is a pot. So the term pot has two what they call explicit objects, has two objects. So the two are the One is the meaning generality or the mental image of the pot and the other is the pot. But when we say pot, the impermanent pot.
You know, a pot which is able but it’s there’s no specific pot. You know, there’s a pot. The opposite of non pot is a pot, but it does not refer to a specific pot, but it is an impermanent object. Impermanent or permanent? Impermanent.
It’s a bulbous thing having a flat bottom able to hold fluids. It’s a pot. But there’s no specific we’re not talking about a specific pot. Don’t recognize characteristic. I’m I’m not look.
Even though we see a part and we connect, we still don’t see all the specific characteristics of it, ignoring, relating down to a generality to a specific instance. Even with that specific instance, we’re still not perceiving all the characteristics of the pot. Yeah. So we’re actually seeing we’re still relating to a mini generality even though we’ve connected it up to a specific instance. Is that what you were saying?
We the what appears is the opposite of non pot. Yeah. And that’s what we’re using to understand objects by, this appearance, which is the opposite of non pot. And this is a pot, but it’s just like this shadow. It has no specific qualities about it.
It’s just the general object. Even though we’re seeing it? Even though we’re seeing a specific object. With our eye consciousness, we’re hooking up we’re hooking it up with this generality in order to identify You know, this this this shadow, which it doesn’t have any particular qualities about color of skin or beauty or age. Yeah.
It’s yeah. It’s a pot. A pot. It is a pot. Yeah.
But there’s no but it doesn’t have any specific characteristics. But it’s okay. Now you have to understand. The mental image is the appearance. The mental image of pot is the appearance of opposite of non pot, not opposite of non pot.
Opposite of non pot is a pot. The appearance of opposite of non pot is the mental image. The appearance, that appearing to the mind is the mental image. That appearance, not opposite or non Opposite or non pot is impermanent, it’s able to hold fluids. The appearance of opposite or non pot is permanent, it’s not able to hold anything.
You couldn’t you have all you have to pour tea in your head or something. You have the mental image of an elephant in your head. You have the appearance of opposite of non of opposite of not elephant in your head. You don’t have an elephant in your head. You don’t have the opposite of non elephant in your head.
Have the appearance of that. And this is the mental image. But this is what the mental image consists of. This is what actually appeared. None things?
We have the impermanent things like the products, like the product. Yeah. And then the non thing is mentioned as permanent. Non thing. Are you saying, are there are all negatives in permanent?
Is that permanent? Is that what you’re saying? I can have the image of an elephant permanent in my head. Oh, the the image. Yeah.
The image is permanent. The appearance is it’s the opposite of not it’s the appearance of not opposite of nonelefant. It’s not it’s not the opposite of not elephant. That’s alright. Opposite of none Get that on the floor plan.
So this is so that the appearance of opposite of non is merely a mere mental imputation and therefore it’s permanent. It’s being merely imputed by the mind. The appearance of the opposite of non pot. The opposite of non pot is an actual pot, but its appearance is being merely created by the mind. There’s no this is the general pot.
There’s no specific it has there’s no we cannot find it. There’s no specific instances of it. We cannot find the general pot. Okay, can we do some conclusion here? There is a general pot of which we can find specific instances.
And this relates back to where there’s a general pot opposite of non pot is a general pot, which can apply to every instant of pot. But we can never identify except by its mere appearance the general pot. You know, we’re not gonna be able to to take a general pot and fill it full of tea. We can take an instant of it, a specific example of it, even though it’s but to this is why, you know, in in Plato’s philosophy, he talked about universals. There was there was a you know, between universals and instances of universals.
There was like a there was no connection between these two. The universal of beauty, there was kind of he had this idea that there were these there was like some absolute beauty in the world, were absolute objects, everything in absolute. And the instances were all kind of the instances were all trying like taken out of the mold of this of these universal ideas or universal objects. But there was no connection between the two, like and all the various objects were always trying to approach this universal conceptual universal object like beauty. We always had this absolute beauty in every all the various paintings and whatever.
We’re always trying to approach this absolute idea of beauty. All the various objects had universals which matched them and they were always trying to approach this universal. But in Buddhist philosophy there’s this idea of universals, but the universal is connected with every instant. There’s no there’s a relationship that every instant is, you know, like a green pot is an instant of pot, of general pot. So there are these universal pots, but it is connected with every it’s not standing apart from all of its instances.
So, you know, it is the similar factor which is common to all the pots. The similar factor, factor of similarity. You you can point to a gold pot, a silver pot, a brass pot, and these are all pots. But there’s a general factor of being pot which applies to all of these. All these instances of pot there’s a general factor of being pot.
But it does not appear to the eye consciousness, only to thought consciousness. Which appears to the thought consciousness is this general pot, the opposite of non pot. So all the various people in this room have a general factor of being persons. But that general factor, so person does exist, but person does not appear to the I consciousness, only specific instances of person. Person, which is the opposite of non person, only appears to the mental consciousness.
And this appearance to the mental consciousness of the opposite of non pot is our mental image of person. So, yeah. Because it’s a part. The opposite of non part is a part. The actual quality of being a pot?
Because it’s able to perform a function, because it’s changing moment to moment. Is it changing moment to moment? Yeah, but the appearance is not. Are people impermanent or permanent? People impermanent.
Why is that? Because they change one’s mind. The opposite of person, the opposite of non person is a person, isn’t it? So it’s impermanent. Isn’t isn’t the the general person aren’t people impermanent?
That’s the the person, like with the the word person, the term. A person is an impermanent phenomenon. It doesn’t exist. Persons don’t exist. Person doesn’t exist.
We’ve established that kind of category is a mental, arrangement. So that mental arrangement is permanent. Permanent. A person is a category created by the mind. So A person is a thing with, like, two legs and two arms, head.
It’s similar to the the The the argument you used before about the kitchen. I can I can only shake hands in a specific instance? Of a person. When you shake hands with a specific instance of a person, are you shaking hands with a person? Yeah.
But that person doesn’t appear to you, to your eye consciousness, it’s only a specific instance of that person. But you well, mean person, let’s say pot. You see a pot. Can you see a pot? When we say this general pot, it is this factor which is similar in all instances of pot.
What they all have in common is this being opposite of non pot. So it’s not something other. It’s not something which is other than being pot. It’s not something which is it’s being imputed by the mind because it’s only the mind which can see the similarity. Eye consciousness cannot see the similarity between a green pot and a blue pot.
So there’s something similar between a green pot and a blue pot and this is being imputed by mind. And what this pot is what this is is the opposite of non pot, but it’s still a pot. There’s still a pot. Yeah, that’s what this idea of was getting at. He said there was an essence of pot and everything partook of the essences.
But Buddha said, this is not quite right. There is a like there’s not like potness in all these things because it’s merely being imputed by the mind. It’s the similarity between a green pot and a blue pot being having a similarity the factor of being both pot opposite of non pot. And this is a pot, but it’s being imputed by the similarity, this factor of similarity which is being the opposite of non pot is being imputed by mind. It’s not an object, for example, of the eye consciousness.
The eye consciousness cannot see that the blue pot and the green pot are similar, have a similar factor. You have to actually think about it. You know, it has to be created by the mind. Why? Because it’s not actually in the pot.
Pot is the impermanent. If something is imputed does it have to be permanent? What is that? What is the definition? What is the definition of conventional truth? Okay.
How about the definition of generally characterized phenomena? Okay. So there’s the word merely, isn’t there? Permanent phenomena are merely imputed by conception. They are in but there are but for example persons are imputed by conception but not merely imputed by conception.
So just because something is imputed by conception doesn’t mean it’s permanent, has to be just merely imputed. For example, you know, take the five the five the mind and body the mind and body, and we designate on this, we impute upon this person, on Peter, on Peter’s mind and Peter’s body, we impute Peter, the person Peter. Peter is impermanent. He’s merely imputed on his aggregates or on his mind and body, but he’s still impermanent. He’s not merely imputed.
He’s not merely imputed. Merely imputed would mean that it’s totally a creation of the mind without any basis, without any, it’s not being imputed on any basis. What? Yeah. The basis on which it is changing, and then we say the person is constantly changing.
So this general pot, since all its bases, you know, all these instances are changing, and we can say, you know, if you can this is like leading up to the middle way view, isn’t it? How what imputation of all phenomena are merely imputed by mind. But anyway, the general pot, the opposite of non pot is imputed on all pots. Every instant of the pot is an instant of the opposite of non pot, and since the basis is impermanent, constant change as you said, then we can say that this pot, it’s able to hold fluids, it’s constantly changing, it’s impermanent. But it does not appear to the eye consciousness, it appears to the mental consciousness and this appearance is our mental image of a pot.
So when the name pot when the name pot is initially learned, that name is applied to this appearance opposite of non pot. And because all instances of pot are also no matter if they’re green pots, blue pots, brass pots, old pots, new pots, because all instances of pots are also opposite of non pot, one can recognize them as suitable to be called pots. The factor that they all share is that they’re pots. So then by connecting the name with the shared factor rather than the specific instant, later we can recognize it. You know, when an instant of this shared factor is present, that is of being opposite of non pot, we can therefore apply the name.
So okay, so we’re getting working after what do we mean by an isolate. So there is a factor of similarity. This is the most important. This is like the conclusion. There is a factor of similarity imputed by thought that corresponds to the specific characteristics of being opposite from non pot, present in all instances of pots.
I’ll repeat that. There is a factor of similarity imputed by thought that corresponds to the specific characteristic of being opposite from non pot, present in all instances of pot. This is a you know, there’s no definition for the word isolate. So there is a Okay, if there’s a factor of similarity imputed by thought. So the eye consciousness sees a green pot and somebody says, Oh, that’s a pot.
And then it sees a blue pot, an orange pot, a gold pot, brass pot, old pot, new pot, and there’s a factor of similarity which the mind we’re able to think of, oh there’s something similar between these two. There’s a factor of similarity. What is that factor of similarity between a brass pot and a blue pot, an old pot and a new pot? Anybody? The factor of similarity between a big pot and a small pot and a brass pot and a gold pot?
Yeah, it’s true. But they’re pots. How do we know they’re pots? How do we how do we associate the name? Uh-huh.
There are the the factor what you said is true. The factor is the the factor of similarity is that all the which is being thought of by mind, the thought conception is that they’re opposite of non pots. All these are opposites of non pots. There’s a similar there’s a similar characteristic or feature in all of these things and that feature is that this is an opposite of non pot, this is an opposite of non pot. No matter if it’s a tall one or a short one, brass or a gold, this is an opposite of non pot, this is an opposite of non pot.
This is a common feature to all of these. We have to think about it because the eye consciousness can’t see this commonality that this is the same, that there’s a similar factor. We have to impute it or we have to think about it. And this Okay, this factor, as I said, corresponds to a specific characteristic of being opposite from non pot and is present in every instant of pot. And this is what we mean by isolate.
The isolate of pot. There’s no definition for the isolate of pot. That’s the closest. There’s some qualities. It has see, what they do is they have we give they give a list of qualities of isolates, for example, of pot.
And what you you would have to draw by way of your own conclusions, develop an idea of what pot is, of what an isolated pot is. And we can go over this next time. These features, they just list features of what an isolate, for example, pot is. You know, for the example, there’s four phenomena which are equally pervasive with the isolate of pot. There are four phenomena I’ll go over this next week.
I’ll just give you a preview. There are four phenomena which are equally pervasive with the isolate of pot, and the first one is identical with pot. And the second one is the pot which is identical with pot. And the third is the definiendum, a bulbous thing which is able to hold fluids. So I don’t know why they’d teach through this afternoon.
No. I really don’t. Yeah. It’s not a very easy subject for little little monks and nuns there to understand, is it? So we’ll put that away from you.
Oh, we didn’t do any debating. Oh, can do some debate. Here I was this is the test results. You’re all passed. I just I I didn’t I didn’t know.
I just kind of wrote that corrections when I thought it was necessary. I think you actually all did very well. I was quite pleased. I have I have duties. Yeah.
I think everybody, really? Really? Yeah. Really did very well. Good.
This is too difficult. Yeah. I think everybody did very well. Maybe we could go you know, there was that one bonus question. What did did that I know that’s a difficult subject.
Does it seem does it can you relate that with what’s happening out on the street? I didn’t Anyway Yeah, there’s something Also, I felt I I was cleaning up that there’s prayer shelves and I came across something that might be a little bit of use. So I think everybody can have a copy of this. It’s a it’s a Collected Topics A little some notes that I found. Yeah.
They’re all the same. It’d be nice if we could get hold of all of all their notes. So you can look at those. There’s some of our definitions are in there. So maybe we could get hold of the entire course and it’ll be quite a bit easier.
I didn’t know this existed until I I just found it in this shelf. So this was the bonus question on the exam. So let’s move I think it might be worthwhile we went through this. Yeah. Okay, let’s just find out what the what do we with respect to different and that which has three possibilities with thing.
What is the pervasion? So what do we do first? See if there’s a common locus. Okay. Is there a common locus?
Is there anything which is both different and that which has three possibilities with thing? Yeah. Anybody want to guess? Is this different? Just means it can be different from something.
Is is is a pot is a pot different? Different from a partner. Is it different or the same? Is this one or two? It’s one.
It’s compared to what? It’s compared to two? I don’t know. Now can somebody is somebody supposed to be the same or different? Well, it’s always.
Is the pot different or the same? What is the definition of same? What do we call it? Same. Identical.
Is a pot that which is not distinct. That which is not distinct. Pot that which is not distinct? Or is it the same? How about the pot and a pillar?
Is that is that is that identical or distinct? Oh, is that same or different? Part and pillar, are they are they different or same? They’re different. They’re different.
Part and pillar are different. Pot and pillar are different. So pot and pillar are different? Yeah. Is pot different?
Pot. Is there anything which is the same? There’s nothing which is identical. Yeah. Everything is different for something.
Is there anything which is identical? Bottles. Beer bottle. After you drink in the they all get to look the same after a while. Nothing looks different to the tongue.
Okay. So is is is is a pot different or the same? No. I didn’t know I should tell you. Without that relationship, it’s not different.
Different. It’s identical. It’s not identical or different. So if something exists it doesn’t have to be either identical or different. It can be a third category.
It can only be identical or different in relationships. About one in many? One in many. Does something does something if something exists, does there have to be one or many? Yeah.
So something how about many one or many same or different? How about pot and pot? Are they the same or different? What was the definition of same, not distinct? Phenomena which is not distinct.
Isn’t a pot a phenomenon which is not distinct? Then it is distinct. Does something have to either be distinct or not distinct? It has to be one or the other? The relationship with somebody else.
So is the pot distinct or not distinct? It’s neither. So something that doesn’t have to be distinct or not distinct? It doesn’t have to be. So something doesn’t have to be one or many?
Is that different? It’s different than one. Yeah. Maybe one. Anyway, this is what I understand, you.
You you have a valid point. Different we would we would say pot and pillar are different. We would say part pot and pot are not different. Pot is not different. Pot is is not different.
Different is identical. Or you could say one. One and different. Identical and different. It’s not different in itself.
We would would say pa is the same, identical. It’s not. It’s different than what? What is distinct and there’s nothing which is the same? Can you hear something which why is it distinct?
And why do you say it is? The part is distinct. Can you give a reason? So anything that’s impermanent is distinct? Yeah.
Is that what you’re saying? Maybe. Maybe. Like pot and pot. That which is the phenomena that which is not distinct.
That which is not which is not distinct. That which is That is not distinct. Distinct is distinct from what? That which is not different? Different from what?
Take pot as a subject. Is it is it different? So then it’s not different? There’s not two objects? How do you Uh-huh.
Okay. How does the subject Paulo said it’s not different? Paulo said it’s the same? Sorry? Paulo said it’s the same?
The problem is that it’s the same because it exists and it’s not different. The same. If something exists doesn’t have to be the same or different? The heck? Same.
What was the definition? We talked about what we meant when we said two things were the same a long time ago. Is the We have the definition of same, but what is the meaning of same? When you look at them, same mental image arises. It’s good.
Good. Yeah, that’s So, yeah. So, with respect to pot, does the same mental image arise or a different mental image At the same time, in the last instance pot, it’s a different one. When the eye consciousness perceives this, takes as object pot. When the thought consciousness conceives that subject, do distinct mental images arise or do identical mental images arise?
Identical. Then is a pot the same? Yeah. Yes. We got context.
But this mental image that you are saying that there’s a mental image around. Ever really totally the same because you Have you refined your image of pot in the last five minutes? Really? You got more information about pot? One thing and something else.
Yeah. And over time, because you’ve learnt that just because it’s blue or red or something, it all it does change. You know, you you’ve got some sort of vague thing that you know is pot, but but there’s so many other things that go with that. Mhmm. I can’t see.
No idea. No idea. Change. No. We would know it’s a car.
Is it a car? Is a picture of a car a car? So it’s not a car. Yeah. But even that, like, say in the future, they’ve agreed that that vehicle is is now a car, whether it doesn’t have wheels anymore, and it glides along on here.
You know? So it ceases to be our image. So something which is different, and there’s three possibilities with thing. Is there anything? First, let’s let’s talk about two things.
Let’s talk about something which is different. Name something’s different. We can still make it. Pot and Okay. So we can try the pot and pillar.
Okay. Is the pot and pillar different? Why? Because it’s not the same. Because it’s different.
Does the pot and pillar have three possibilities with thing? What is the relationship between thing and pot and pillar? What what is pot and pillar and thing as a subject? What is the pervasion? Yeah.
So, okay. So we have between thing and pot and pillar, three possibilities. Yeah, three parts. So is is there a common locus between pot and pillar and thing? Sure.
Pot and pillar. Pot and pillar. Is a pot and pillar a pot and pillar? Yes. Is a pot and pillar a pot?
No. It is because it’s a pot and pillar. Is there a common locus