Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The puzzle of whether pot and thing are the same or different anchors this 47-minute classroom session, in which Ven Jampa Gendun introduces the Collected Topics category of generality and instance. After briefly reviewing earlier material — established bases, isolates, and reverse phenomena — he works through formal definitions using everyday examples: dog and beagle, pot and gold pot, object of knowledge and thing. He then distinguishes three nominal types of generality: type generality (the genuine case), meaning generality (a mental image superimposed on an object, not a true generality), and collection generality (an aggregate of parts such as a table or body). The session closes with live debate on whether thing qualifies as an instance of object of knowledge, and on the nuanced claim that two phenomena can be different yet the same entity. Suited to students actively working through the Collected Topics curriculum.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 39 CT 1988 07 12.mp3
UUID: 52c88b1a-1a63-41e0-b7be-a21a0a6ce452
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-07-12
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.9 minutes
Words: ~4,474
So you always keep reviewing, keeping keep remembering, keep all these things fresh in your mind. What are the the divisions? What are the the definitions? And you see, we’ve gone through what? We’ve gone through No.
We we we’ve gone through all the divisions of, like, the the universe, the Buddhist universe when we did Established Basis. And what was after established basis? Is that after? Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. He said no. I think so. Anybody remember? The third subdivision?
Identifying isolates. And then? Reverse phenomena. Reverse of non then? Is there is Okay.
So, you know, you can make it a point to in your debate to keep covering these areas and see how they relate with one another. You know, you can what is the relationship between isolated part and the reverse of the non part and things like this too. And what is the various divisions. And so we’ll cover this six subdivision, collected topics, generality and instance. And then we’ll go over the reasoning beginning next week, some of the syllogisms, how to use the syllogism in your debate.
We’ll, you know, for a while we won’t add any more new information, but we’ll sort of consolidate all the information that we do have. You have actually a lot of information to work with to debate with, to start seeing how these all these different subdivisions relate with one another, The different divisions of established bases, isolates, isolates, opposite of non-thing, reverse of non being, being, and now generality and instance. So I’ll pass up. This is a study sheet for generality and instance. We there was one one bit of the homework, wasn’t there?
Thing which is it and existent. Let’s take a vote. Anybody anybody have come up with a mutually exclusive? Two, three, four. Virtually mutually inclusive.
Any votes? Inclusive. Inclusive. We got a one for a one. Three possibilities.
Four possibilities? Maybe a dozen bodies. How many how many abstentions? Oh, it’s sitting. So I’ve got okay.
Rudy Rudy says, mutually inclusive. Therefore, mutually inclusive. They are not the thing which is it and exist you you debate with me, Alastair. With respect to thing which is an existent which is not in what is the pervasion? Ex exist how can I say?
What is that? The correlation is mutually inclusive. Yes. It is not mutually inclusive because you can’t name a converse. I don’t accept.
Not knowing. Knowing. Not knowing. Is not knowing a thing which is not knowing? The the thing which is it is a thing which is not knowing.
He’s not knowing a thing. Not knowing a thing. It means the thing which is it is not knowing a thing which is not knowing. Well, we we don’t know it. It is unknown.
So that’s what I mean. I don’t know. I I can’t I couldn’t go through. Anyhow, I can work this out for myself. I couldn’t get it.
Are you supposed to do? That was It is the subject. Not knowing is a common not knowing is a common locus between the two. So not knowing is both a thing which is which is it and existent, which is not it. Which is not.
And it is not knowing or it It in my Q means not knowing not knowing. So the common locus so not knowing is both a thing which is not knowing and an existent which is not not knowing. And existence which is not not knowing. Not not knowing means not not knowing. So four people say there’s no common locus between the thing which is it and existence which is not it.
Let’s see what is the You debate with me. With respect to thing which is it and existent, which is what it was the pervasion. For possibility. It is not for possibility. Because you cannot name common purpose.
Reason not established. Name that commonality. Sorry. Is good. Some of that commonalities.
Thing. Yeah. We’ll make it easier. How about with the product? Product.
Okay. Is it a thing which is a product? Yes. I accept. Why?
Because it’s created from causes and conditions. We respect this product and the subject. Is it existent which is not a product? It is existent. Why?
I’m asking. It means I it means I disagree. What’s that now? Say product, the product is said it is in existence which is not it, which is not a product? It is not a product.
Now why? And you said why? Because I don’t agree that it is. I yeah. Go ahead.
Is an existence which is not a product because it is a permanent phenomenon? Because it is a permanent phenomenon. It is not established. Is product the common locus between the thing which is it and existent which is not it? Product is the subject?
It is not a thing which is a common locus? It is not a common locus between thing which is it and existent which is not it? Product is subject. Is not a common locus not Reason reason not established. You posit that common locus.
Thank you. How about Except. Different from existing as a subject. Is it a thing which is different from existing? Except.
From existing as a subject, is it is it a thing? Okay. Let’s take a look at this handout. So we’re talking about generalities and instances. Sometimes, you know, if you had if anybody has had set theory, you know, they call them set an element of a set.
That’s what that’s what we’re talking about. I and they can set an element. Like, you know, we’re talking about our old friend a and b here. We say, okay, we think we think people. People is, you know, we could call it generality.
Or sometimes you refer to it as a set, a set of people. And within this set there are many elements or instances. For example, the American people, black people, white people. So these are all elements of that set or instances of that set. So in this case, a is a is people and b is American people or black people.
So it’s not then the text begins by setting forth the definition. Now these definitions aren’t so important to know. So the first the definition of generality, a phenomenon which applies to its instances. In this case Okay. We’ll take a dog and Beagles.
Is that what you wanted? Sounds good. Okay. So which one of these is the generality and which is instance? So this is generality, beagle is instance.
So if you in this definition, phenomena which applies to its instance is a generality. So dog applies to beagle, because beagle is a dog. How about country, and Australia. So That’s right. That’s right.
Why? Because if we simply go by this definition, which we won’t usually go by, because country applies to Australia, because Australia is a country. So that’s not too difficult. And the definition of instance, a phenomenon having the same type as its pervader. Same type of its as its pervader.
If we say let’s say pot and gold pot. Rudy, which which one of these is the instance and which one is the generality? Generality is pot. Gold pot is instance. And why is the gold pot an instance of pot?
Why is the gold pot an instance of pot? Because it’s the same same type. This phenomenon is the same type as its pervader. Okay. What is what is so this is same type of what is the pervader what is the purveyor of gold pot?
Pot. Okay. Pot is kind of invading Invading. Yes. Pervading into gold pot.
Yes. It also invade and pervade into silver pot, clay pot. Clay pot. And Okay. So pot is the pot is the pervader.
And and are pot and gold pot the same type? No. Are they the same generality? Are the same type? Are pot and gold pot the same type?
I don’t know that we’re following on between the pot. Okay, I don’t know. What do we say? Are gum tree and tree the same type? How are gum tree and oak tree?
Do you Anne? They are tree substance. They have leaves and they’re based in life. So they’re they’re the same type because Which we same type respect to them, you would develop the conception of tree. If you looked at if you looked at a a gum tree and or an oak tree, you would develop the same type of consciousness with respect to you would think tree.
They’re the same type. If you saw a pot and you saw a gold pot, would you develop the same type of consciousness? Yeah. So that you know, quite naturally. So the so these are the these two are the same type, the pot is the pervader.
So a phenomena so anything which is a phenomena having which is the same type, and gopata and pot are the same type as is pervader, as purvader is pot. Gold pot is the same type as is purvader, therefore it is an instance. So gold pot is an instance of pot, or you could say that pot is a generality of gold pot. That this has become clear. Let’s let’s try another example of a person and Kim.
Let me see. Person and Margaret? Which one is the generality and which one is the instance? Oh, I’m sorry. Betty.
Betty, it’s Bob. That’s his wife. Which of these two is the generality and which one is the instance? Person and the generality of Bob. And Bob.
And why is person the generality of Bob? If something pervades is Okay. House and Shelley. Shelley? Yeah.
Shelley? Shelley? Is of the same type as the as its pervader house. Are all the generalities the same type? Is dog is dog and cat are they the same type?
No. Are dog and cat both generalities? Yes. So are all generalities the same type? No.
No. Okay. That’s only in this case when we work with the generality and instance. That’s an extreme example. They’re not the same type?
They’re the same type of, from the point of view of existence, isn’t it? Existing? Suppose vision is the same? No, not quite. But it’ll become clear.
Mean, the actual usage of the instance in generality will become more workable as we go down to the bottom. Normally in debate you wouldn’t use these definitions. There’s a different method for establishing which is the instance of a particular generality. So there three types. It says nominal divisions of generality.
Oh, let me let me do one more. Animal. Kimberley, which one is are these two which is the instant which is the generality? Cat. Animal is the main generality?
The so the generality. Yeah. And and the cat is.. Why isn’t why is animal the generality of cat? Because animal encompasses with many instances and So there’s there’s there’s a nominal division of generality.
Nominal? What does the nominal here mean? Nominal division of generality. So what what what yeah. What does that mean?
Why do they why does it necessarily use the word nominal here? Can you guess? So when something is good when when somebody said it’s nominal, he’s the nominal head of this organization. What does that mean? In name only.
In name only. Not actually. Right? Just in name only. We say he’s the nominal head or it means he’s not really the function.
We just call him that to make him feel good or something like that. So the nominal division of generality. So these are aren’t really generalities. They’re just called that. Now which which one of these three is is a type generality, meaning generality?
Well, let’s go through them then you can tell me which one is or or perhaps all of them are just named. They’re not really. So the first one is a type generality. And whatever is in parentheses is my own is not a translation from the text. It’s my own information that I dreamed up.
So a phenomenon which is concomitant or just applicable with many of its own types is the definition of type generality. Definition of type generality. A phenomenon which is applicable with many of its own types. Type okay, then type generality and generality are mutually inclusive. Whatever is a generality is a type generality, and whatever is a type generality is is a generality.
Actually, that’s what we mean when we say generality. We mean a type generality, more or less. And the next is the definition of a meaning generality. You know, meaning generality is the mental image Mental image. So the definition of meaning generality.
But not a definition of meaning generality of pot, not just any meaning generality but meaning generality of pot or the mental image of pot is with respect to the conception apprehending pot. The superimposed factor which appears as a pot while it is not a pot. Okay, so there’s this thought thinking, Ah, pot. This ah, this is a pot, for example. I was thinking about pot.
This is the conception apprehending pot. I thought thinking this is pot. And there’s a factor which is the mental image which we superimpose, And this mental image appears as a pot, but it’s not really a pot. It’s like our mental picture of a pot. We’re always superimposing our mental pictures on the actual thing.
And this is what appears to our mind, our conception of what we think the object is, our mental image, our idea of the object. And this is what appears to us. And while it appears to be the thing, it’s not actually the thing. You know, when I think about the pot that I’m going to get to get flowers to put in in the kitchen, some kind of pot appears to my mind. But even though it appears, it’s not actually a pot.
So this is a this is a definition of a meaning generality. So is that one not mutually inclusive? Okay. Is a meaning generality a generality? What do you think?
We said that maybe one or all of these are just called generalities. They aren’t really generalities. Do you think it might apply to meaning generality? Yes, because when you say that it’s only a mental, a certain point’s No. What do think, Grind?
What do you think? You have an image from the foot in your head. That’s what you carry with you all the time, imprinted in your mind. It’s not how you say it, but something different. It’s your idea about an object.
The library is in right. Yeah. Mental label. Mental image. So that’s not actually a generality.
That’s why they that’s why it’s only a nominal, normally called generality. There’s not an actual generality. And then the last of these three divisions, collective collective generality is a gross form which is an aggregation of many parts. A gross form which is an aggregation of many parts is the definition of collection generality. For example, pillar, pot, table.
So these are just in a table, body. They’re just collection of aggregation of many parts. And the table has legs and the top. The body has arms, legs, head. Is a collection generality a generality?
Is a body a generality? Yes. So there’s only this second one, meaning generality. Is this called a generality? It’s not really a generality.
Is this called that? So then then the text actually goes through some a little bit of debate here. So it’s taking the subject object of knowledge as a subject. Why is it a generality of Okay. Why why is it a generality of thing?
Okay. So we have we have object Object of knowledge and thing. Which one of these is the generality and which one is the instance? Or do they have that type of relationship? Okay.
Object of knowledge as the subject. Why is why is it a generality of thing? So object of knowledge is a generality of thing. Because Why? Because thing is an instance of object of knowledge.
So if something If a a is a generality of b, then b is the instance of a. If a is this is instead of b? I don’t if that b. Okay. If a is the generality of b, b is an instance of a.
If a is the father of b, and b is the child of a. They have this you can you can say the same thing two different ways. A is the generality of b, b is the instance a, a is the mother of b, b is the child of a. Because thing is an instance of object of knowledge. Why is object of knowledge a generality of thing?
Because thing is an is an instance of object of knowledge. Thing is then it’s going to go on to prove. Thing is the subject. It follows it is not an instance of object of knowledge, posit the way of applying instance. So we’re going to carry out a debate.
Posit the way of applying instance. In what way can we establish that thing is an instance of object of knowledge? So we take the thing as the subject. It follows that it is an instant of object of knowledge because it has the complete way of applying the instance of object of knowledge. So that’s kind of a cumbersome way to put it.
An instant will have three qualities which it must satisfy to be A subject will have three qualities which it must satisfy in order to be an instance of a particular generality. And this is what we mean when we say because it has a complete way of applying instance of in this case object to knowledge. And so the the debater says, go ahead and pause it. So these three ways. Why thing is an instance of object of knowledge.?
Number one, it is an object of knowledge. So the first reason is that thing is an object of knowledge. But maybe we’ll go through this roughly and then we’ll take an easier example and then go back to it again. The first reason why thing is an instant of object of knowledge is that because thing is an object of knowledge. The second is that thing has the relation of being the same entity with object of knowledge.
That’s a that’s a mistake. same entity with object of knowledge. You see the I made a a typing mistake. It should read, it has a relation of being the same entity. It should read something like let’s see.
It is it is it is is different. It is different when within the context of being it has the relation it has the relation of being different in the context of being the same entity with object of knowledge. So, you know, pot and thing are different, aren’t they? Yeah? Pot and thing are different, but they’re the same entity.
We’ve talked about this a little bit. Are why are different? That’s that’s the way they would relate. Why the simple fact that they’re being different. Appear differently to a conceptual consciousness.
To conceptual? To a different image arises. Yeah. So yeah. We and we have different mental images of part and thing, don’t we?
When we think of part and when we think of thing, different a different image arises in our mind. So this is what this is how we determine whether things are different. If if we have pot and pot, or if we had the or if we had pot and what, Rudy? What is it? I I can’t What is it?
What is the German for? The pot. T o p f. T o p f. So these the the are these pervader and pervaded?
Pott and Topf? Kimberley? Difficult. Are these the same or different? Pat and Tofs?
Tofs? Different because a different image arises. Yeah. That means what? Pat and Tof are what?
The same. Are the same or different? The same. Pott and Topf are the same. If I look at it, it’s the same for me because that’s the same meaning.
The same meant limits. If I said to you, or I said, bring me the Pat or bring me the tof? Yeah. Right. Bring it It’s like Because they’re two different images.
Yeah. They’re two different It means nothing to to Robin or I’ll stay up top. Means nothing. So they’re two different images. Means something for you.
Well, I know it’s the word for pot. Yet you know it now. But a different thing comes in my mind and everything. A different different association. We wonder why he’s using the word Topf.
I think a different image would arrive. If I said to Rudy, you hand me that tof? Yeah. If it’s market handed the pot. Yeah.
German is childhood, not more. So therefore, there might be suddenly a very different sort of feeling about it because of the association. Yeah. But I think it’s regardless. Do whether even if you don’t know German, somebody told you that that was a and Topf is a pot.
Yeah. It’s alright. You can visualize them being the same. Same same object, but you’d probably have a different idea of what a part was on Topf because of your various association. You might think of Australian parts and here German parts, but they’re both parts.
How about if I you know, for example, know, Anne and the girl who lives in in the back. Anne? Anne. And the girl who lives in the in the new in the new the new building in the back. Yeah?
I do know her? The girl who’s moving. Alright. The girl who’s moving out. Sorry.
Moving out. Think we’re listening last time here, but okay. Anne and the girl who’s moving out. Are they the same person? Are they different or the same?
Are Ann and the girl who’s moving out different or the same? What does anybody else think? In America we use the same word biscuit, but in America biscuits means scones. They were talking about a little bit different. That’s a different object, doesn’t it, the term?
Yeah. A little bit different, I think. A different thing happens in in my mind with with Anne and the girl who’s moving out. Don’t don’t you think so, I’d say, Oh, old Anne. If I heard, The girl’s moving out, oh, I’d feel sad.
And I would have a different feeling about it. Someone told me that, right? Anne’s moving out or the girl is moving out, and I knew Anne’s Yeah. But now you’re now you’re now you’re just substituting. Relate to them both together.
I can say, hey. Yeah. That girl is Anne. That’s why she’s moving out, and it’s still the same Which part? The better part is?
The lower part? The answer is forty two. No, I think you have different feel. How about how about I don’t know what what do you have different feelings about? Jump on and the monk who’s here who’s talking about Collected Topics.
Monk talking. Okay? Talking. You think they’re the same or different? The sign.
Yeah. Name. How about the You don’t have any different feeling toward this. What do you have different feelings? You have that rule in the past.
But when somebody says Will, you know, isn’t Will a great guy? Or, the house manager’s coming to get the rent? And that Yeah. But that’s his difference. He Ah, it’s it’s it’s isn’t it?
He’s like no. He’s not. Will He’s not Will. Right? Okay.
Let’s look at Will. Alright. And you say, house manager. You you look at him as a whole. No?
No. You don’t divide him. You don’t I don’t try to look at Will separately and say, oh, yes. Will is a person. He’s a really nice person.
And then say, oh, yes. Will is a house manager as well. He’s different. There’s two different half parts because he’s one whole person. And within this person, he does both those things.
So I can’t see how he’s different. Does that make sense? How Will? Will, who’s Lindy’s husband? Yeah.
And Will, the house manager? Are those the same person? Are those the same or different? I mean, not the same person. Are they same or different?
Are they same or different? They’re different in different situations. That will behave in different situations. But these are the same object. They’re both their will, aren’t they?
Right. Yeah? So the same entity but they’re different. Will, the husband of Lindy, and Will, the house manager, are same entity. They refer to the same person.
If you looked at them, you wouldn’t be able to say, Oh, this that’s Will, who is the house manager, and that’s Will that It appears the same, you know, like if you’re eye consciousness. But you have a different feeling about Will is Lindy’s husband and Will? Yeah. I agree with Okay. So they’re a little bit different.
Will, say it again. Slightly. Slightly though. Okay. A little bit different.
So the second for the second one I left out a I have to I left out a couple words there. The the main idea is that that these it has the relation of being different in the context of being the same entity with object of knowledge. For example, pot and thing are different but same entity. They’re different because they appear to conceptual conscious differently, pot and thing, and they’re the same entity because they appear to direct perception as not different. Get to conception they appear different, to direct perception they appear not different.
You know, when I see this pot, the thing thing and pot, I can’t say this is the thing and this is the pot. But when I think about pot, I can think about the pot and and thing, the ability to perform a function. They seem like two different things. So that’s the second quality is that mainly we’re talking they have to be different, okay? They have to be different.
And there are many phenomena which are not thing, which are also common locus with object of knowledge. Okay, so if we if we were to eliminate thing and then there are still other phenomena left over which are common locus with object of knowledge such as definiendum has a common locus, also definition. So let’s take it let’s take an easier easier example.