Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Using set theory as an analogy, Ven Jampa Gendun opens this 47-minute class by resolving a carry-over homework debate before introducing generality and instance. He defines a generality as a phenomenon applicable to its instances (dog to beagle, country to Australia) and an instance as one sharing the type of its pervader (gold pot to pot). He then distinguishes three nominal divisions: type generality (the genuine article), meaning generality (a mental image only nominally called a generality, not truly one), and collection generality (an aggregation of parts such as a table or body). A lively classroom exchange — debating whether Will-the-husband and Will-the-house-manager are the same or different — grounds the abstract point that phenomena can be the same entity yet appear differently to conceptual consciousness. Suited to students already working through the Collected Topics curriculum.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 40 CT 1988 07 19.mp3
UUID: db8b9173-6f85-4d2d-bd6e-25bb82bcf588
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-07-19
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 47.0 minutes
Words: ~4,375
So you always keep reviewing, keep 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 establish basis. And what was after Established Basis? I think it’s quite nice of that. Is that after? Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. You don’t know. I think so. Anybody remember?
The third subdivision? Identifying isolates. And then? Reverse of being, reverse non Reverse of reverse of non being. Is not 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 pot and things like this too. And what is, you know, the various divisions. And so we’ll cover this sixth 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.
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 all these different subdivisions relate with one another. The different divisions of established bases, isolates, isolates, instances, reverse of non being, being, and now generality and instance. So I’ll pass up. This is a study sheet for generality and instance.
Wait. There was one one bit of a homework, wasn’t there? The what was the thing which is it and existent. Let’s take a vote. Anybody anybody have come up with a mutually exclusive?
Two, three, four. Mutually mutually inclusive? Any votes? Inclusive. Got a one, four, and one.
Three possibilities. Four possibilities. How many how many abstentions? Hard to say. 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 it and exist, which is not what is the pervasion. Ex exist how can I say it?
What is that? The correlation is in mutually mutually good. Yes. It is not mutually inclusive because you can’t learn a converse. I don’t accept.
Name that converse. Not knowing. Not knowing. Is not knowing a thing which is it? Is not knowing a thing which is not knowing?
The the thing which is it is a thing which is not knowing. Is not knowing a thing? See. It’s not knowing a thing. It means a thing which is it is not knowing a thing which is not knowing.
Well, we we don’t know it. It’s unknown. So that’s what I mean. So I don’t know. I I can’t I couldn’t go through.
Anyhow, I can work this out from my head. I couldn’t get it done. Fine. Not knowing is a common you’re saying 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. Not it. And it is not knowing or it It in my view means not knowing. So common locus is So not knowing is both a thing which is not knowing and an existent which is not not knowing. An existent which is Hey, Ruth.
Let’s never try it. 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 which is it. Revelation, you you debate with me. With respect to thing which is it and existent, which is not it, what is the pervasion?
For possibility. It is not for possibility. Because you cannot name common locus. Reason not established. Name that common Thing is a subject.
Is a thing thing which is thing? Yeah. We’ll make it easier. How about with the product? Product.
Thank you. Is it a thing which is a product? Yes. Accept. Why?
Because it’s created from causes and conditions. It is an existent. Why? That that means I disagree. What’s the question?
Was asking. Say, product the product is subject, it is in existence which is not it, which is not a product. Why? Don’t agree that it is. Yeah, go ahead.
Is an existent which is not a product because it is a common locus? Because of the common locus. It is not established. Is product a common occurrence between thing which is it and existence which is not it? Product is the subject?
It is is what do you say? It is not a thing which is a common locus? It is not a common locus between thing which is it and existence which is not it? Product is the subject. Is not a common locus between thing which is it and existence not a.
Accept. So with respect to thing which is it and existent, which is not it, there is no. Reason reason not established. How about Different from existent as a subject. Is it a thing which is different from existing?
Different from existent as a subject, is it is it a thing? It’s not a thing. Why? Okay. Okay.
It’s a mystic. Let’s take a look at this 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 we’re talking about.
An element set. 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, 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 American people, black people, black 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 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 dog and Bingo what? Bingo. Is that what you wanted?
Sounds good. Okay. So which one of these is the generality and which is is instant? Dog is the generality, beagle is instant. 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? 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 phenomena having the same type as its pervader. The same type of its as its pervader. We say Let’s see, pot and gold pot.
Rudy, which which one of these is the instant and which one is the generality? Generality is pot. Gold pot is instant. 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 has the same type as its pervader. Okay. What is what is so this is same type of what is the pervader what is the pervader of gold pot? Pot.
Okay. Pot is kind of invading Pervading, yes. Pervading into gold pot. It also invade and pervade into silver pot, clay pot, clay pot. And okay, so pot is the pervader.
And are pot and gold pot the same type? I don’t know that word, if I remember the same type. Type, I don’t know. Are we saying that they’re the same? Are gum tree and tree the same type?
How are gum tree and oak tree? With respect to them, you would develop the conception of tree. If you looked at if you looked at a a gum tree 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. That you know, quite naturally. So these two are the same type, and the pot is the pervader. So a phenomena, so anything which is a phenomena which is the same type, and gold pot and pot are the same type as is pervader, as pervader 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. This will become clear. Let’s try another example person and can let me see. Person and Bob Hawkee. Something.
Bob Hawk. What? Margaret? Which one is the generality and which one is the instance? Oh, I’m sorry.
Betty. Betty and his mom. That’s his wife. Which of these two is the generality and which one is the instance? Person in the generality.
And Bob? And why is person the generality of Bob Hawkee? So if something pervades is Okay. House and Because Charlie has Is of the same type as his pervader house. Okay.
Are all the generalities the same type? Pardon? 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 go with the generality and instance. Then we can say for generality type. See, I got mixed up before. Yeah.
For example? They’re the same type of, from the point of view of existence, aren’t they? Existence? Repetition is the same as No, not quite. But it’ll become clear.
I mean, the actual usage of the instance in generality will become more workable as we go down to 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 the three types, it says nominal divisions of generality. Oh, let me let me do one more.
Animal. Animal. Kimball, which one of these two is the instance? Which is the generality? Animal is the generality.
Animal is the main generality. Sorry, the generality. Yeah. And cat is the Why isn’t why is animal the generality of cat? Living pervades or applies to any instance.
Okay. Good. So there’s there is the there’s a nominal division of generality. Nominal? What does the nominal here mean?
Nominal division of generality. So what does that mean? Why do they why does it necessarily use the word nominal here? Can you guess? I’m not really sure.
So so when something is good when 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 aren’t really generalities. They’re just called that. Now which which one of these three is a type generality, meaning generality? Well let’s go through them then you can tell me which one is 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 I added. 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 generality and generality are mutually inclusive. Whatever is a generality is a type generality and whatever is a type generality is 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. Meaning generality is the mental image. Mental images. So the definition of meaning generality.
Not just any meaning generality but meaning 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. So there’s this thought thinking, Ah, pot. This is a pot, for example. He’s thinking about pot. This is the conception apprehending pot.
The thought thinking this is pot. And there’s a factor which is the mental image which we superimpose, which and this mental image appears as a pot, but it’s not really a pot. It’s like our mental picture pot. And 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 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 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 a mini generality? Yes, because when you say that it’s only a mental a superimposed mental image, there might not really be there might not actually be a pot there. It may just be a hallucination. Is that what you mean by superimposed mental image?
No. What do you think, Grin? To. What do you think? You have an image from the foot in your head.
That’s what you carry with you of time, imprinted in your mind. Mhmm. It’s It’s your idea about this an object. The light brings the word. Yeah.
Mental mental label. Mental image. So that’s not actually a generality. That’s why they that’s why it’s only a nominal, nominally called generality. There’s not an actual generality.
And then the last of these three divisions, collection 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 a collection of aggregation of many parts and the table has legs and the top.
The body has arms, legs, head. Is collection generality a generality? Is a body a generality? Yes. So there’s only this second one, meaning generality.
It’s just called a generality. It’s not really a generality. Is this called that? So 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 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? Object of knowledge as the subject. Why is it a generality of thing? 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 an instance of a. If a is this is the set of b. Why don’t say that b? Okay.
If a is the generality of b, and 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 instance of object of knowledge. Thing is then going go on to prove. Thing is the subject.
It follows it is not an instance of object of knowledge. Positive way of applying instance. So we’re going to carry out a debate. Positive way of applying instance. In what way can I establish that thing is an instant 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 instance will have three qualities which it must satisfy to be an object 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 of knowledge.
And so the the debater says, go ahead and posit it. So these three ways. Why think is an instance of object of knowledge? Number one, it is an object of knowledge. The first reason is that thing is an object of knowledge.
We’ll go through this roughly and then we’ll take an easier example and then go back through it again. The first reason why thing is an instance 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 mistake. Same entity with object of knowledge.
You see the I made a a typing mistake. It should read, it has a relation to being the same entity It should read something like I see. It is it is it is has it 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?
Heart and thing are different, but they’re the same entity. We’ve talked about this a little bit. Pot and thing are why are pot and thing different? 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 pot and thing, don’t we? When we think of pot and when we think of thing, a image arises in our mind. So this is what this is how we determine whether things are different. If if we had pot and and pot, or if we had pot and what, Rudy?. Or if we had pot and what, Rudy?
What is it? What is the German for pot? Topf.
T o p f. So these — are these the same or different? Pot and Topf? Kimball? Difficult for me.
Are these the same or different? Pot and Topf? Yeah. So that means what? Pot and Topf are what?
The same. Are the same or different? Same. Pot and Topf are the same. If I look at it, it’s the same for me because that’s the same meaning.
The same mental image. If I say to you pot or I say bring me the pot or bring me the Topf? Yeah. Does it I bring it Because They’re two different It means nothing to to open or as they are Topf. Means nothing.
So they’re two different images. Warm means something for you. Well, I know it’s the word for pop. Yeah. And yet you know it now.
Yeah. But a different thing comes in my my mind. What’s the meaning? A different association. We wonder why he’s using the word talk.
I think a different image would arise. If I said Rudy, you hand me that Topf? Yeah. Does Margaret hand you the pot? Yeah.
He would have heard German his childhood, not more. It’s the object, but you’d probably have a different idea of what a pot was on top of that because of your various association. You might have to think of Australian parts, here German parts, but they’re both parts. How about for example Anne and the girl who lives in the back. Anne?
Anne and the girl who lives in the building in the back. Yeah? Do you know her? Was just moved out of the room that day. The girl who’s moving.
The girl who’s moving out. Sorry. Moving out. I think we’re always glad to hear that. Okay.
Are Ann 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? They’re same.
Do you have I think they’re the same, but I know what the 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 you think so, Anne? You imagine you’d put boxes in the hand. Yeah, girl who’s moving out.
If I heard Anne, I’d, Ah, good old Anne. If I heard, The girl’s moving out, oh, I’d feel sad. 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 Yeah. But now you’re now you’re now you’re just substituting. Both together. I can say, hey. Yeah.
That girl is Anne. That’s why she’s moving out. And it’s still the same person. I can’t I can’t Which part? The better part is?
The lower part? What’s the answer? The answer is forty two. No, you have different feelings. How about how about I don’t know what what do you have different feelings about?
Jampa and the monk who’s here who’s talking about collected topics. Monk talking, okay? Talking. You think they’re the same or different? They’re the same.
They’re the How about the You don’t have any different feeling toward this? But when somebody says Will, isn’t Will a great guy? Or, The house manager’s coming to get the rent? Difference. See Ah, it’s it’s it’s different, isn’t it?
He’s like, no. It’s not. Will Isn’t that Will? Right? Okay.
Let’s look at Will, alright, and you say, house manager. You you look at him as a whole, you know? 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 he’s two different 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 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. Will behave in different situations. But these have the same object. They’re both their will, aren’t they?
Right. Yeah? So they’re 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, 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 who’s Lindy’s husband and Will Yeah. Okay. So they’re a little bit they’re different. Will you say that again?
Slightly. Slightly. Okay. A little bit different. So second for the second one I left out a couple words there.
The main idea is that these it has the relation of being different in the context of being the same entity with object of knowledge. For example, part and thing are different but same entity. They’re different because they appear to conceptual consciousness differently, pot and thing, and they’re the same entity because they appear to direct perception as being not different. To conception they appear different, to direct perception they appear not different. You know, 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 the 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 were to eliminate thing and then there are still other phenomena left over which are common locus with object and knowledge such as definiendum has a common locus, also definition. So let’s take an an easier. Easier example.