Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The “complete way of applying instance” — three criteria that determine whether one term genuinely falls under a generality — is the through-line of this 40-minute session with Ven Jampa Gendun. Using color-and-form, sound-and-thing, and blue-and-color, he works through each condition in turn: the candidate must be the specific term, share the same entity as the general term, and leave other phenomena still holding the generality when it is removed. Along the way he develops a test for same-entity: two things qualify if they differ conceptually yet appear non-different to direct perception. The session’s sharpest illustration is “Sue’s husband and Alastair” — since eliminating Sue’s husband eliminates Alastair entirely, the third condition fails and the pair cannot stand as instance and generality. A homework problem on form and thing closes the class. Suited to students actively working through Buddhist logic and formal debate training.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 41 CT 1988 07 19.mp3
UUID: 04bc5295-a78b-46b5-b7de-83d65c43000c
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-07-19
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 39.7 minutes
Words: ~2,864
It has a relationship that is in the same entity with other knowledge. Oh, that’s right. That’s right. Okay. With respect to form and color, which is the instance and which is the generality?
Color as the subject. It follows that it is not the generality of form. Color as the subject. It follows that it is not the generality of form. Posit the way of applying instance.
Okay, we’ll just take it roughly to begin with. Why is color an instant of form? Instance of form. Because color is this is form. Why is color an instance of form?
What are they quite how do we determine that? Speak. Looked on the chart. No. I mean, that was an instance of form.
And why? Because because form is generality. Color is the instance. Form is the right. Okay.
If you see that then then Existence and phenomena. Which is the instant, which is generality? Is generality. And and existent is the? Instant.
Instant. Why? Why isn’t phenomena the instant existence or generality? Because phenomena is the pervader of existence. Isn’t existence pervader of phenomena?
Oh yes, all phenomena are existent. And aren’t all phenomena are not existence phenomena? They mutually pervasive? Don’t they pervade one another? So why do you say one is instant and one is generality?
This is generalization? This is instant. Why do you say that? So I have to say now because existence is the pervader. But isn’t phenomena the pervader of existence?
What is the with respect to existing phenomena, what is the relation? It’s both, it’s mutually inclusive. So which is the instant? Which is the generality? What was your reasoning?
Every instance of form is not color? Every instance of color is not form? Every instance of color is not hang on, sorry. Every instance of form is not card. Therefore, form provides every every instance of color is form.
Therefore, form pervades color. The color doesn’t pervade the form. Yeah. If you look at this complete way of applying the instant, if we apply it to this example of color and form. Okay, color is the subject, okay?
Why is it an instant of form? Because one, it is a form, it is form. That’s the first reason. There’s three reasons. Second, because it has a relationship of being the same entity with form.
Same entity. No, we’ll leave that we’ll go into that in the next paragraph. We’ll leave it like this for now. Color is the subject. Why is it an incident of form?
Because color is form, that’s the first. It is the same entity as form and there are many phenomena which are not color, which have a common locus with form Such as what? Salmon. Okay. This is Now what would this eliminate in this example of existence and phenomena?
This third quality eliminates these as having a relationship of generality and instant because there’s nothing If we say that phenomena is, for example, an instant of existence, then we can’t satisfy this third quality. That is, if there is There are many phenomena which are not phenomena which have a common locus with existence. Once we eliminate existent phenomena, there’s nothing left for existence to have a common locus with. So Everything that’s mutually inclusive can’t be used in this. That’s right.
They cannot have relationship of generality. That’s right, sir. Yeah. This what this third quality eliminates, mutually inclusive phenomena. That they can’t have this relationship of set and subset or generality and instant because they’re equally pervasive with one another.
If you eliminate one, then there’s nothing left. There’s nothing left for they to have a common locus with. So common locus, we’ll just abbreviate that. Okay, then it goes into the reasoning behind all these. Thing is Okay, we’ll stick with this example form and color.
Color of the subject. Why is it the same entity with color? With form? Color is the subject. Why is it the same entity as form?
Okay, so they’ve skipped you know, this is actually the second one. First one would be, Color is the subject. And then you could say, Why is it form? Color is the subject. Why is it form?
Anybody? Because it is form for an icon. That’s good. Because it is an object of icon? Considered to be form?
Okay, you can give that reason, okay? Then color is the subject. Why is it the same entity as form? Because Let me come down here to this second paragraph. It is first, it is different.
Color is the subject. It is different from form in the context of being the same entity, and if form is eliminated, color is also eliminated. Okay, so this one has two parts. One is that color is the subject. Why is it the same entity as form?
Because color is different from form. That’s one. Okay, so what does that mean? And if we had pot and pot, what is the which is the instant which is the generality? So are pot and pot the same entity?
Are pot and pot the same entity? No. Isn’t there? They’re different entities. Because they’re distinct.
Pot and pot. I don’t think I’ve quite got just it was a bit those In order for two things to be the same entity, they must be different. Strictly speaking, pot and pot are not the same entity because they’re not different. They must different. I don’t know if that means anything.
Anyway, they must be different. Two things must be different. Now why are color and form different same entity? Because color is different than form in the context of being the same entity. They not only have to be different, they have to be different and the same entity.
Different and the same entity. Does everybody know? Are pot and pillar different? Yes. Yes.
Why? And no. Why do you say yes and no? Isn’t that what you’re saying in form and color? Are are pot and pillar different or the same?
Same. Period. I see. Are poison or food the same thing? I’m not coming to your house for supper.
Poison and food. Poison and food. Poison and and How about small and big? Are they the same thing? Are they the same or different?
They the same or different, small and big? Different. I’m not sure. Why aren’t you sure? Because I’m not really following you.
How about a house and a car? How about house and how about blue and green? Are they same or different? They’re the same but different colors. Same phenomena.
They’re the same phenomena? Yeah. In what way? Because their colors are the same. Because they’re both colors are the same.
The same color. They’re the same color. Because they’re both colors. Both colors. They’re the same.
Not the same. Are you sure they’re the same as colors. As colors. They’re the same They are colors. Can’t be any.
They’re colors. Any color. Yeah. But are they same color or different color? They are different colors.
Are they different or the same? Are they the same entity? Yes. Yes? Do they appear why?
Because they’re different, but they’re the same type, like they’re color they’re both color. So anything which are different than the same type, the same entity? Are you and Betty the same entity? We’re both human beings. Are you the same entity?
Okay. How do we determine whether two things are the same entity? What would be They must be different and? They must be different and? And what?
Different entities. Yeah, they must be different and they must Okay, how do we determine whether two things are the same entity? Which each term? I don’t think it is. If two things are different but they appear to direct perception as being not different.
So the difference will be posited by our conceptual consciousness, our thinking consciousness. Difference does not appear different entities. So direct perception means visual eye consciousness, doesn’t it? In the case of visual forms. And I appear to direct perception is not different.
Is that the rest of it? Is that what you said, That’s right. That’s good. How about blue and color? Are they the same entity or different entities?
Yes. Same entity. Why? Because they could be different. Are blue and color different?
I could posit a color that wasn’t blue. Are blue are blue and color different? What do we mean by different? Color is the generality and blue is the instance. The instance.
Are pot and pot different or the same? They’re the same. Why? Why do you think I mean, you know by know by your common sense that they’re different, they’re the same.
But how do you know that? What reason do know? If I just say pot and pot, you know that they’re not different through eye consciousness even though there’s not there might not be any pot here? So your idea of this and your idea of this, there’s no difference? I didn’t say big part and small part.
I just said pot and pot. So blue in color, the same entity or different entity? Pardon? I don’t know. Okay, how do we how would we determine whether these were the same entities or not?
They have to be different and they have to appear to direct perception as not different. Are blue and color different? They’re both colored. So I don’t think they’re not. So blue and color are the same?
That’s what it seems to me. I could posit a color that wasn’t blue, but No. Blue and color are the same. It seems to me. Yeah?
They’re not different. They’re different. When you think of blue and you think of color, the same idea comes to your mind. No. Isn’t that how we determine whether things are different?
No. Really differently. So when I think blue and then when I think color, a different idea come. So that means to a conceptual consciousness if things are different, they’re different. Are blue and color same or different entities?
So they’re different entities. Why? Because they’re not same. Like because they get the first criteria, not they’re different in the first thing. But in the second one, if they appear to visual consciousness, then they wouldn’t be not different.
So blue and color appear when you see the color blue, is is the color blue a color? Yes. When you see the color blue, do you see color and blue as being different? No. But when I saw color, I wouldn’t necessarily see blue.
You wouldn’t necessarily see blue. That’s true. But if you saw a blue color, would you see that as different than color or the same as color? It’s same as color. So yeah?
If you see this red? This color? Yes. Do you see when you see this this red flower, the color of this red flower, do you see the color? Yes.
Do you see the the red the red? Mhmm. Do you see the color and the red as being different or the same? No, it’s the same. So it’s appearing to direct perception.
Color and red are appearing to be the same entity, same nature, same substance. So that would mean they’re the same entity. Whereas this table table and this pot, are they the same entity or different entities? Table and part. Here’s one.
Two. No, they’re different entities. Entities, why? Because they’re different. That’s the first condition.
But the second part, they’ve got to appear to direct perception is not different. And they don’t fulfill that second part. So do the pot and the table appear to your eye consciousness as the same or different? Okay, therefore they’re different entities. Okay.
So and then there was the third So color is the subject. It is an instant of form because it is form, because it is the same entity as form, and the third is and because there are many phenomena which are not color, which also have a common locus with form. For example, the example with sound was given. Alright. Let’s let’s take let’s do one more.
Let’s see. Let’s take a let’s see. Consciousness. And sound and things. With respect to sound and thing, do they have a relationship of instance and generality?
They do not have a relationship of instance and generality because you cannot posit which is the instance and which is the generality. Okay. Everybody agree with that so far? Yeah? Okay, sound is the subject.
It is an instance of thing. Is not an instance of thing. Pause it the way of applying instance. As a subject. It follows that it is an instance of thing because it has the complete way of applying instance of thing.
How does it satisfy the complete way of applying the instance of it? It is a thing. It has a relation of being the same entity with thing, and there are many phenomena which are not sound, which also have a common locus with thing. Okay. Such as Such as.
Odor, taste. So everybody follow that? Why is sound an instant of thing? Because it has the complete way what it can’t the complete way of applying the instant of thing. What is the complete way of applying the instance of things?
It must satisfy three qualities. First is Okay, we’re saying sound is an instance of thing. So the subject sound. Subject sound. Why is it a thing?
Because it has these three qualities, a complete way of applying instance. What are the three qualities? The first is that one, sound is a thing. Two, it’s the same entity as thing. And three, if you were to eliminate sound, there would still remain other objects which have a common locus with thing.
For example, odor, taste. Okay? So this third is necessary. Can somebody think of an example besides the one I gave before about being mutually inclusive? Which would not be how about how about something like Sue’s husband?
Sue’s husband and Alastair. Alright. Does that satisfy this third third quality of the complete instance? Sue’s husband and Alastair, do they have a relationship of generality and incense? Yes.
Yes? Okay. Yes. Okay. Sue’s husband which is the generality and which is the instance?
I’ll say Alister’s generality. Alister’s generality. Alice’s Alastair’s generality? Generality? Alastair’s husband is the instance?
Okay. They are not — Sue’s husband is not the instance of Alastair because you cannot posit the complete way. And what is the complete way of applying the instance of Alastair? One, Sue’s husband is Alastair. That’s right.
So that’s that’s good. So Sue’s husband is Alastair. Husband? No. Two.
His husband is the same entity. Okay. Good. Same entity. And number three, If you were to eliminate Sue’s husband?
Are there still phenomena which have a common locus with Alastair? If we knock if we if we got rid of Sue’s husband, would there still be other common locus would there be phenomena which would have a common locus with Alastair? There wouldn’t be. So this is a set with only one element in it. So we have to have many.
So it’s not enough to have only one example of something for it to be an instant. There has to be many instances in a way of speaking before it actually becomes a real instant. If Sue had many husbands, then this could be a generality. Could become an instance. If you get rid of Sue’s husband, you get rid of Alastair.
We didn’t get to do any debate. Any questions about so far? Thing which is existence which is not? What do you think it is? Usually, mutually exclusive class.
Thing which is not it. Thing which is not it. Okay. Yeah. Here.
Let’s try this. I don’t know. Thing which is it. Thing existent which is not it. How about existence?
The instance of existence. Instant of existence which is not in yes. It is. Instance existence.
Is a is that a common locus? Instance of existence? Instance of existence? Instant instance of existence as I said, is it a thing which is instance of existence? Anyway, as far as I can see there, these two mutually exclusive.
For your homework, Yeah. I haven’t thought of it yet. What things are the. Form form and thing? Form and thing?
Form? What what’s form and form thing? Pot. Period. And and thing.
Cat. Animal. And Okay yeah, will give you a thing which is not it and the form which is it. Which okay. Which which is the so determine which one is the generality and which one is the instance?
Which is the Which is between the incense? And where is my cat? Which is it. Thing which is not it. Through these merits, may I soon attain the enlightened state of Guru Buddha, and may lead every migrating being without exception to that state.
May the precious bodhicitta not yet born arise and grow. May that born have no decline, but increase