Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The three conditions that make clay pot an instance of pot open this 47-minute session, as Ven Jampa Gendun works through the Collected Topics logic curriculum with a small class. The central puzzle: is every instance also a generality? Through live debate, teacher and students establish that no instance escapes being a generality — because every instance, however specific, has instances of its own. The argument reaches its sharpest point with a pencil held in hand: subdivide the moment to hundredths, then thousandths of a second, and each subdivision becomes an instance of the broader moment, raising the question of whether any truly indivisible instant exists. Suited to students already familiar with the Collected Topics framework of generality, instance, and pervasion.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 47 CT 1988 08 09.mp3
UUID: a7c2da36-deaa-4181-9f0a-5a746199abaf
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-08-09
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 47.0 minutes
Words: ~4,402
Part is a generality because it has an instance. Posit that instance. Pot. Pot is an instance of part. Is it? Maybe we could go on to ask why?
Should we go on to ask why? Clay pot is not an instance of pot because it does not have the complete way of applying the instance of pot. Clay pot is not an instance of pot because, and I’m stating this negatively, Because if you that’s the bottom line on this handout sheet on the first page. Because it does not have the complete way of applying the instance of pot. Reason not a standard.
Yeah? You have a lot of confidence? Posit. Posit the quick complete way of applying the instance of pot. They want to establish that clay pot is an instance of pot.
And so what clay pot, in order to be an instance of pot must have three qualities. Must have three qualities. So let’s take a look. If an object is pot, it must be one. It must have a relationship of being the same entity.
Clay pot and pot must be the same entity. Number one, same entity. Are clay pot and pot the same entity? This is the same entity. Why why?
If we jump down here to this second second paragraph here, it gives gives the reason why two things should would be the same entity. Why is why are clay pot and pot the same entity? Because they are different and if you eliminate pot, then you eliminate clay pot. And they’re the same entity because they’re first off, they’re different. Clay pot and pot are different.
And if you eliminate pot, if you get rid of, you know, if you get rid if I get rid of, you know, I get rid of all the pots on that table, I would have to get rid of clay pot. I couldn’t it couldn’t I couldn’t get rid of all the pots and still have clay pot remaining because they’re the same entity. I mean, you take away all you take away pot, you have to take away clay pot too because you can’t divide pot out of that. They’re the same entity. I mean, clay pot and pot, though they’re different.
You know, when I when I take a clay pot, I can and then when I take a pot, it’s quite different. Not quite different, but anyway, it’s different. But they’re the same entity because I can’t take the pot out of that. If I take the pot away, I have to take the clay pot with it. Same same entity, same entity, same nature.
So this first quality is satisfies, same entity. Okay. And then pot is a clay pot. The first one is pot is a clay pot. Pot.
Pot. Clay pot is a pot. Is. Okay? So there’s three qualities.
Clay pot is a pot. Clay pot is the same entity as pot. And last but not least, that if if I take away clay pot, there are still other things which have a common locus with pot. What does that mean? That means that What what does that tell you?
That clay pot is an instance of clay of pot but it’s not the same. There’s there’s It’s like we have a class but it has more than one member. And this is and that’s all it’s it’s all that mean. If you take if you have a class, you know, if if I have if I have one student and I say, I’m I’m gonna throw the you know, you’re a terrible student, get out. I don’t have anybody left.
My class is empty. So With in order to be an instance, there has to be more than one member in the class, so that if you get rid of that one bad student you still got somebody left over to teach, something like that. Now there’s no particular reason for that. It’s just that a class has to have at least two more members. One isn’t enough to be.
So if I get rid of clay pot, are there still other objects which have a phenomena which have a common locus with pot? Yeah? For example? Glass pots. Glass pots.
Good. Good. So here’s pot. So so pot Okay. So we’re trying to see whether there’s a there’s a common locus between generality and instance.
And we said that was pot and we we decided, well, pot is a generality because why? Why is part a generality? Because it has an instance? Because it has an instance? If something has an instance, it itself is a generality?
In order in order to be an instant, in order to be Being an instant. In order to be a generality, have to have more than one instance. But to be an instant, it doesn’t have to be Right. Right. I mean, anyway, we we and this the plural doesn’t come up in Tibetan anyway.
Something is an instance, to be an instance, there has to be more than one. Really? How about one What part of the system? About one part? Is one part an is one part of the instance?
If if the generality has an instance, then for that instance, it’s an instance. So pot is a generality because it has an instance, and pot is an instance. Why? What’s the simplest? You can Because it is an because it has a generality.
So if something is a general something is a generality because it has instances, if something is instance, that’s because it has generalities. So a parent is a person is a parent because they have a child. A child is a a sibling is a child. A youngster is a child because it has a parent. They’re just interdependent.
So there is a so there is a there is a locus, common locus. So generality and instant are not mutually exclusive. Now they’re mutually inclusive. Are they mutually inclusive? No.
No? So they’re not mutually inclusive. If it’s a generality then it’s not is there something which is a generality and not an instant? Or something which is an instant and not a generality? Pardon?
It’s this one. If the is there an object which is a generality and not an instance? Pause it that that object. A grass pot. Grass pot is a subject.
It is a generality? That’s a positive subject. It is not an instance? So that’s that’s okay. So are are generality and instance mutually inclusive?
If something is a generality, does it have to be an instance? And if something is an instance, is it pervaded by being a generality? For example, posit that. Are generalities? Posit a positive instance.
Not all generalities are instances. Posit that. Not all generalities are instances. What? Give me an object which is a a generality and is not an object and not an instance.
Posit an object which is a generality and not an instance. Form. Form as a subject. It is a generality? Mhmm.
Why? Because has an instance. Because it has a form of subject. It is not an instance? I would say no.
It is an instance. It is because it’s an instance of thing. So what do you think? There is a general okay. So if an object is a generality is is not pervaded by being an instance, posit that out.
Selfless. Selfless as a subject, it is a generality. Why? Because it has instances. Selfless as a subject, it is not an instance?
It is an instance. Selfless as a subject, it is an instance because it is an instance of selfless? Selfless is subject. It is not selfless? Selfless is subject. It is not selfless? Accept.
Selfless is subject. It is selfless? Accept. Selfless is subject. It is an instant of selfless?
Can’t accept. It is an instance of selfless because it is selfless. No. Selfless is the thing. It’s not selfless.
Pardon? I didn’t give a reason yet. Selfless as a okay. Selfless as a subject, selfless as a setting is not an instance? Except.
It is an instance because it is an instance of existence. Selfless selfless as a subject. It is nonexistent? What? Self as a it is existent?
Self a subject, it is an instance of of existence? Selfless as a subject, it is an instance of existence? Not a reason. I haven’t given a reason yet. Selfless as a subject, it is an instance of existence because it is existent.
Selfless as a subject. It is it is an instance of existence because it is existent. So okay. This is a okay. Syllogism.
This is a selfless selfless is an instant of existence. The reason is because it is existent. So in order if this is the correct reason, it must have with two properties. Is this the property of the position established in this thesis? Yeah?
Why? Existence applies to selfless. Yeah. Selfless is existent. Yeah.
So this existent is applies to selfless. Selfless is existence. It’s existent. So that’s okay. Is is there pervasion?
Is the positive is this reason the positive pervasion? Is whatever is if an object is existent, is it pervaded by being an instance of existence? If an object is existent, is it pervaded by being an instance of existence? So you say no pervasion.
Okay. Why? It does not have the three ways of applying the instance. Posit three ways of applying.
So we’re that self is is existent. That’s no problem. But just because it’s existent doesn’t mean it’s an instant of existence. You know, just because it’s, you know, just because the the part it is the property of the position, Just because self is is existent doesn’t mean that it still has to be an instance of existent. Just because something is existent doesn’t mean it’s pervaded by being an instant of existent.
Why? In order to be an instant of existence, it has to have these three qualities, doesn’t it? What are these three and which of these three qualities does it have? There are phenomena which are existent but are not instances of existence. If I if I eliminate selfless, then there’s nothing left I eliminate selfless, there’s nothing left for existence to have a common locus with.
It’s it’s it’s, you know, I’ve gotten rid of all my class members. There’s nobody left in my class. If I get rid of selfless, I’ve gotten rid of there’s nobody there’s nothing left for me to have a common locus with with existence. Therefore, selfless is not an instant of existence. I’ve gotten rid of my entire class.
There’s nobody left in my class. So you’re right. There’s no pervasion. If an object is an existent, it’s not pervaded by being an instance of existence. Existence.
So selfless is a generality, but it’s not an instant. Yeah. It’s not an instant. So what? They’re not mutually inclusive.
Now, are they are they three possibilities or four possibilities? Three possibilities. Which pervades which? If an object is a what? If an object is an instance related by Okay.
If if if instance, pervaded by Generality. That If Jim not debated by instance. Yeah? Yeah. Does everybody agree with that?
Alistair doesn’t agree. No. You just start with that. No. You can just It’s it’s not three possibilities.
You’re you’re disagreeing with this. Right? I take it. So then you can just begin that. It is not three possibilities because if if an object is an instant it is not pervaded by being a generality.
It is not three possibilities because an object is an instance is not pervaded by being a generality. I mean, I’m I’m not. It’s not a it is or it’s not pervaded by generality? I wish you just said it is not pervaded by generality. Well, maybe I’m just confused, but it seems to me that’s pervaded by generality, but it’s not pervaded by being a generality.
I don’t know what this is confusing. Pervaded by being a generality. If it if it is an instant, it’s it’s not pervaded by being a generality. With respect to generality and instance, the person is not. Say why?
Why? No. No. He that would be your answer. I mean, he’s Why?
There’s not three possibilities because if an object is an instance, it is not pervaded by being a generality. And if an object is a generality, it’s not Actually, you would have this. There there is a common locus. And if if an instance of a and then be a anyway, you are that’s good. Do you accept that if if if an if an object is an instance, it is not pervaded by being a generality?
Do you accept it’s not it’s not three possibilities? If an object is then you’re saying that if an object is an instant, it must be a generality. If I can you ask? Generality? Instance.
Mhmm. So any any instant must be must be a generality? That’s correct. And it right? That’s what I think.
Yeah. So then you’re not you’re not agreeing. But see, when it when it said, if an instance is pervaded by being a generality, I sort of think, well, it’s an instance. It’s not a generality. You know what mean?
It’s not if it’s an instance, it can’t be and it’s that thing in the middle. It can’t be the thing outside at the same time. Right. Because one’s little, must be. Can’t something be a member of its own class?
Okay. Yeah. I mean, like, existence is existing, isn’t it? Right. If an If an object is an instant, it’s pervaded by being a generality?
No. If an object is a generality, it’s pervaded by being an instance. If an object is an instant, it’s not pervaded by being a generality. Is it is it both are not? Is there an object is this is there something an object which is an instant and not a generality?
Anybody else? Can anybody guess? Rudy, can you guess? I just didn’t listen. I just No.
No. Honestly, I don’t. Is it is it can you think of any object which is an instance, which is not a generality? It’s impossible. No.
Impossible. What impossible? No. All links together. We’ll we’ll take a vote.
Must be all with a generality of an instance. Every every instance must have a generality. Every instance is a generality. Is a generality. Every instance whatever, any object which is an instant, that object must be a generality.
Every instance has an instance. Every instance itself has an instance. Every instance in here can also has little circles inside of it. If we blow it up, we can we can blow up. Here’s little instances in there.
What is that? What did everybody think? Except for Alastair. If an object is an instant, it’s pervaded by being a generality. And if it if an object is an instance, it itself has instances.
Can I apply man and universe to this? Yes. What? Okay. Man and what?
Man and universe? Yeah. Man and universe? That’s the subject. Right.
Because Now I I I think Why does have the same system? Right. Is man in universe is an instance? Man in universe is an instance. Man is the instance and the universe is the reality.
No. We wanna give an object which is an instance. An instance? An object which is an instance and it and which is It doesn’t have instances. Which doesn’t have instances.
Wasn’t that what? Is that what you argue with Alistair about self? And self is definitely something So selflessness is a generality which is not an instance. Now we want to know whether there’s an instance which is not a generality. Self instance is a generality because it has many instances, but it itself is not an instance.
Now we want to know is there anything which is an instance which is not a generality? That is something which is instant which has no instances. Before we said, every instance must have a generality. Every instance. Right?
No instance. Instance of it too. Yeah. Wouldn’t they say it like having a child without parent? Okay.
So aside from Alastair, everyone agrees that if something is an instance actually, what? What Alastair? What? Alastair, why isn’t selfless an instance of selfless? Who did that?
Okay. So yeah. What is this third quality of an instance? Third quality of instance. Oh, no.
I see. There are many phenomena which are there are many what? There are many phenomena which are not There are many phenomena which are not selfless. Yes. There are many phenomena which are not selfless which have a common locus with selfless.
There aren’t there aren’t any. Once you get rid of selfless, get rid of nothing left. You empty out the class. There’s nobody else to have a common locus with. That’s the only reason.
If you eliminate selfless, then there’s there’s nothing left. Right. Alastair, is there is there an instance which is not a generality? For example? One pen.
This pen. This pen. This particular pen. This particular pen. This particular pencil.
This particular pencil. That’s the subject. This particular pencil is the subject. It is an instance? Why is it an instance?
Because it is an instance of pencil. And it’s a thing. This particular pencil is a subject. It’s not a generality? It is a generality because it has instance.
Has an instance. It has an instance. Why? Why? Because it has the instance of this particular pencil this particular pencil of one minute ago and the present present two minutes ago.
This particular pencil, it did not exist one minute ago? Except. This particular pencil, does it exist presently? Except. Did it does it did it exist in this particular pencil, it did not exist one minute ago.
Then it was made. When when when was it made? This particular pencil, when was it made? This particular pencil arises from the previous pencil. Ah, then the Then this this particular pencil, when when was it made?
What time? At the time of cessation of its previous pencil. Pencil. Yeah. Particularly.
What time was this particular pencil made? How about this particular in the north, this particular pencil in the south, this particular in the east? This particular is there this particular pencil, does it exist in the north? Particular pencil? This the subject is this particular pencil as a subject.
There’s this particular pencil in my room. This particular pencil in this room. Does this particular pencil exist in this room? Does this particular pencil exist in my room? So this particular pencil has many instances?
And this particular pencil is a generality? Then if if an object is an instant and is pervaded by being a generality? Pass it that object. I’m holding my hand at this particular instance. This particular pencil that you’re holding this instance.
Okay? This particular this particular pencil that I told you in this particular hand at this particular instance as a subject. What? At not At what? Eight four and forty eight seconds.
Eight fifty four. Forty eight seconds. Okay. This particular pencil would at this particular instant, eight fifty four, forty eight seconds, does it does it exist now? No.
Then how can it be an instance that doesn’t exist now? Because it’s an of knowledge. It’s not an object of knowledge because it doesn’t exist. This particular pencil at this moment. This particular pencil at this moment.
Does it exist? It’s an instance? Is it is it a generality? Why? It is a generality because it has an instance.
If an object has instance, it’s not pervaded by being a generality? Oh, it’s a If an object has instances, it’s pervaded by being a generality. This particular pencil at this instance, it is a generality? Why? Because it has instances.
It has instances because this particular pencil at eight fifty four forty eight in the north, this particular pencil at this particular time in the south, etcetera, are all instances of this particular pencil at this particular instance. That you’re holding. Hand. Okay. Okay.
This particular pencil and the this that you’re holding your hand at this particular instance has has instances because there are the eight fifty four forty eight and point one two three four five. Those are all instances of this. All these are not instances of this? Yes. Yes.
And then this this this has many instances? Is the generality because it has instances? Who else is except? Are not instances of this. This point point forty eight eight fifty four and forty eight what do you call this?
This is forty eight hundredths of a hundred eighty one thousandths of a second, two thousandths of a second, three thousandths of a four thousandths. These are all instances of that. Why? Because they are all particular pencils in your hand at this moment. Why?
And they’re not. The pencil exists the particular pencil in your hand at eight fifty four point and four hundred eighty four hundred eighty one thousandths of a second as the subject. It is not an instance of this particular pencil in your hand at eight fifty four forty eight hundredths of a second? Yes, sir. Then then this this four four hundred eighty one thousandths of a second does not exist.
Does it exist? Does it exist at the time of eight fifty four forty eight hundredths of a second? It is it is not this. It is not this pencil. The four the pencil which exists at forty eight one four four hundred eighty one thousandths of a second, is it not a pencil in your hand, etcetera, which is at four which is a four hundred eighty Four forty eight hundredths of a second pencil?
It is a forty eight hundredth of a second pencil? Why? Because it is a four hundred four hundred and eighty one thousandth of a second pencil. Why? That’s the subject.
If something exists at one o’clock, something exists at one o’clock let’s see. If something and that I mean, does something exist at one zero one? Is is it also existent at is if something no. If something exists at one one zero one one, is it existent at one zero one? No.
I can’t say that. Did did did Tuesday what is today? Today is Tuesday. Did Tuesday’s paper exist at twelve o’clock? That exist at at one o’clock?
Two o’clock? Three. Three. So did the forty eight hundreds of this the second pencil? Did it exist at forty eight forty eight hundredths of a second pencil?
Did it exist at is is is is and forty eight hundredths of a second pencil, a four four hundred and eighty one thousandths of a second pencil? Now that’s there’s a forty eight hundredths of a second pencil. A four hundred and eighty one thousandths of a second pencil. It is. So it’s forty eight four hundred eighty one thousandths of a second.
Any instance of a forty eight hundredth of a second pencil? I mean, I could go on and specify the time. Could you? How’s your homework? Yeah.
Would always I mean, could go on it would always have an instance, wouldn’t it? Or There can only be one if you pick an exact point in time. There’s only one instance. There’s only instance. And subsequent pencils arise from that pencil.
Okay. Can you ever is there one is there ever one indivisible moment? So no matter how far you went here, you’d still have divisions. And these would all be instances of this.
Certainly, the time is different. Is is at, like, you know, twelve o’clock on Tuesday? Is twelve o’clock on Tuesday? One yeah. You know, the pencil was existed on Tuesday.
The pencil which existed on Tuesday. The pencil on Tuesday’s pencil. Is is twelve o’clock Tuesday’s pencil? Tuesday’s pencil? Twelve o’clock Tuesday’s pencil?
Is that is that an instance of Tuesday’s pencil? Yeah. So twelve o’clock Tuesday’s pencil is an instance of Tuesday’s pencil. Twelve o one twelve o one’s pencil is is is an instance of twelve o’clock. I don’t know if you can say that.
Twelve o’clock. Twelve. Mind moments now of my life. Yeah. Yeah.
And tomorrow at the same same time. What is it? I’m still myself. And you compare this with instant? And then every are there See, because you you put the time now, it makes it difficult to to judge.
So, like, is yeah. It’s the same pencil in a different part of time. I mean, the easiest. I mean, Tuesday Tuesday, you know, Tuesday’s Tuesday’s meal. Tuesday’s meal.
So it’s breakfast, lunch, supper. So Tuesday’s meal is a a generality, has many instances. Twelve o’clock. Twelve o’clock Tuesday meal. Twelve o’clock Tuesday meal.
Tuesday twelve o’clock meal. Tuesday. You said you you’d lunch? Yeah. What do you think, Alastair?
You both got lost. I do watch you. Is that, you know, if I if I like, at twelve o’clock Tuesdays, I’ll meet you for lunch at two o’clock when we have let’s have lunch at twelve o’clock Tuesday. Twelve o’clock Twelve o’clock Tuesday. Tuesday at twelve o’clock lunch.
Tuesday is twelve o’clock lunch. Tuesday is twelve o’clock lunch. Does that is that does that have instances? Instances? Yeah.
That lunch? Tuesday is twelve o’clock lunch. What? For example? You you have a plate of food and you take a spoonful.
It’s it’s it’s spoonful would be Tuesdays, twelve o’clock Tuesdays, twelve o’clock lunch. When Yeah. I was thinking I was left would would be left. Yeah. Okay.
So they had many. So is is anything which is instant in generality? Yeah? No? Can anyone think of anything?
Not a conception. Conception. Conception. Does it doesn’t doesn’t it have moments of that conception? Oh, no.
First moment of that conception, the second moment of that conception? Conception. Permanent. It’s permanent. It’s permanent.
What? Is what? Is it generality? Yeah. Well, yeah.
Because it has instances. So is is this with respect to the generality incident, is there a prevailing? No possibility.