In the process of studying Dharma, when trying to understand a certain dharma or to contemplate the logical relationship between that dharma and other dharmas, we often use instances of that dharma to help with comprehension. Below is a brief introduction to what constitutes an “instance” of a certain dharma.
When A serves as an instance of B, it can be expressed as: A is B. The word “is” expresses the instance relationship.
“A is B” means that A fully conforms to the definition of B; that is, A must possess all the characteristics included in the definition of B.
The term “definition” refers to the strict definition stipulated in the canonical texts. Each definition corresponds to exactly one definiendum, and each definiendum corresponds to exactly one definition. Not all dharmas have corresponding definitions, because for some dharmas the definition has not been written in the texts in the form of a strict definition.
For example, a golden vase is an instance of vase, expressed as: a golden vase is a vase. This is because a golden vase conforms to the definition of vase—namely, it possesses all the characteristics contained in “that which has a bulging belly, a constricted base, and performs the function of holding water.”
Suppose there is a basket that has a bulging belly and a constricted base; this basket is not an instance of vase, because although it possesses the characteristic of having a bulging belly and constricted base, it does not possess the characteristic of performing the function of holding water; therefore, it is not an instance of vase.
The mouth of a vase is not an instance of vase, because the mouth of a vase does not possess the characteristics of “having a bulging belly and constricted base and performing the function of holding water.”
Some instances do not exist. For example, a rabbit’s horn is an instance of a non-existent. The supposed definition of “rabbit’s horn” is a horn growing on a rabbit’s head. Rabbits do not grow horns on their heads; someone might mistakenly take rabbit ears for rabbit horns, but rabbit horns do not exist. Therefore, a rabbit’s horn is an instance of a non-existent.
“A is B” does not entail “B is A.” For example, a golden vase is a vase, but a vase is not a golden vase. If A is not an instance of B, it is expressed as: A is not B, e.g., a basket is not a vase.
Note that the instance relationship is not transitive (not in the context of set theory, used independently here). For example, even if A is B and B is C, it does not necessarily follow that A is C. For instance: a vase is a dharma, “dharma” is permanent, yet clearly a vase is not permanent.
Beginners need to clearly distinguish in logic between three things: “A itself,” “what is A,” and “A is what.”
Examples:
- “Impermanence itself” refers only to the single dharma of impermanence.
- “A is impermanent”: here A refers to an instance of impermanence, e.g., a vase is impermanent, a golden vase is impermanent.
- “Impermanence is A”: here impermanence serves as an instance of A, e.g., impermanence is a dharma.
The previous post in this series:
The next post in this series:
Distinction of Two Dharmas
The distinction of two dharmas is a powerful tool for categorizing dharmas (phenomena), aiding memorization of terms, grasping subtle differences, and applying concepts broadly. Before diving into main subject divisions, grasp this method first. When comparing two dharmas, their instance scopes yield just four relationships: equivalence, contradiction, …
For the example “Taco is an instance of Mexican food” (A is an instance of B) it does not quite follow that “A is B” (taco is Mexican food) because “taco” fails to encompass the full breadth of “Mexican food,” which also includes “enchilada, tostada”…etc. in this example we cannot go beyond the limit of “is an instance of”. This might be an English language thing but perhaps you can elaborate?