Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 24.8-minute talk, Lama Zopa Rinpoche conducts a detailed examination of Buddhist epistemology, exploring how phenomena appear to minds depending on whether those minds have been “introduced” to them. Using examples of dogs, a letter, and a flower perceived by a blind man, he establishes a philosophical principle: anything appearing to consciousness must appear either as a specific object or as “not that object.” The discussion proceeds through Socratic questioning and logical debate, unpacking the distinction between appearing and recognizing—between what a mind perceives and how it labels what it perceives. Suited to serious students engaged in Buddhist logic and philosophical analysis of mind and perception.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 18 WWNN.mp3
UUID: fd52ad79-361e-43fe-b738-30236e8613be
Teacher: Lama Zopa Rinpoche 1
Collection: y What the World Needs Now 1987 Audios (Lama Zopa Rinpoche 1)
Date: 1987 (exact day not recorded)
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 24.8 minutes
Words: ~1,436
So I think this is much clear. So somebody who is not in this comes here, you know, sees me dogs and discusses about Buddha House, you know? So, does that person have the appearance of dogs? Has he been introduced to an athlete? No, no, no.
Does he have the appearance of dogs during that time, while he’s meeting? Now, That person who is not interested in an arhat. This person doesn’t see dog. This person does not see dog as dog. Dog is dog.
Right? But here, this person has appearance of dog. Right? Now, this person asks, To this person, does a dog appear? That there is a dog or there is not a dog?
To this person to this person, does the dog appear? Don’t appear. Do appear. That is dog. That is dog.
To this person. Do appear. That is dog. Oh, yeah. I understand.
To this person to this person don’t appear don’t appear that is dog. Does dog appear? That is dog. Then the person who is not induced, to that person, does arhat appear? That’s the arhat.
To that person, does an arhat appear? That’s an arhat. That’s an arhat. Yeah? To that person, an arhat appears.
That’s an arhat. That that’s arhat? To that person, does arhat appear? That is arhat. That is that is arhat.
Yeah. But the, yeah, but the As arhat. So to the person, arhat doesn’t appear as arhat. Okay. To that person, does arhat appear not as arhat?
Not as an arhat. Anything if anything exists if anything exists, it appears either it is arhat, either as it is arhat or not. It is divided. It is definite for those two, Either it is an arhat or not. Anything that exists.
It should appear as it is an athlete or not. It should appear. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Right.
What was the third? What is the third? No. Yeah. So what do you know?
Anything that exists, it doesn’t have the either as arhat or not. What? So it’s tuba. So now tuba. Now tuba is what?
Tuba is another tuba another is not not To him, that uninduced person, What I’m trying to say is if anything exists, it has to be covered by these two. If anything if anything appears, it should be if anything appears, it should appear, you know, either athlete or not. I’m not clear. Either athlete if anything appears, it should appear either arhat or not or something else. You see?
It it it is definite. Yeah. That’s what I’m saying. It it is definite. So that means it’s not the the the person, you know, the person who is not the person for whom the arhat appears, who is not introduced, who doesn’t know.
You see? Now for him, the arhat, it does not appear as arhat, you see, then it should appear as not an arhat. So it appears as just a feeling to him until he knows that So for him so for him, the one arhat appears for him, the when arhat appears, it it doesn’t appear as arhat. For his mind I mean, for the third person, he’s in Adelaide. For relating to the perceivers, his own mind, he you know, for his own mind, he doesn’t know that he’s seeing an athlete.
Oh. It can be Yeah. Yeah. According to according to his mind according to his mind, recognition, you know, how the arhat looks like. For that, the athlete is like this.
You need to have that, you know, he should label, himself should label. But arhat to appear, arhat to appear doesn’t depend on himself labeling. So yeah. So I’m saying, Since anything appears since anything appears, you know, it should appear, as it is an arhat or not. So in this case, the person whom the arhat appears, if it doesn’t appear as arhat to him, then, you see, he should appear as not arhat.
Does it appear to him not the arhat? That’s only true. I think it is an arhat. It’s not an arhat. Now it looks like this.
No. By the debating side by the debating side, you see, that would say it appears to him. But, actually, you know, for meditation reason, have to say, to relate to the mind, the feeling. For example, the letter, you know, letter Z. You know?
So you see now, know, is that it and this. You see, in the debating that it’s that it appear you know, total person who doesn’t know that it’s that, who is not introduced to that. You You know, that appears, but that does not appear to him as a that. That person who the zed appears because it’s already decided that is that. And then it’s okay.
You know? That becomes valid base, and valid code already imputes on that. For the third person and the teachers, you know, who teach is, you know, in his view that that other person is I say, that is appearing when you while the child while the child is looking at that, that is appearing. You know? That’s the point, but that is not appearing as a zed.
Yeah. But I see. Yeah. But, you know, appearance. But for his own mind there’s no — he is not introduced.
There’s no mental picture of what that looks like. There’s no view of that. He has no view of that. He has no view of that. For his mind, there’s no There’s no mental picture of that.
Now, Percep. Perception. There’s no perception? There’s no perception? It’s just like this.
Right. Now you see. To a blind man. Does this flower appear as orange or not orange? Mhmm.
Okay. It appears as not orange. He he would say, I don’t know. No. He would say, him I cannot see.
He he would have to say I don’t know. Then it appears as not orange. He cannot say it appears as orange. Who does who does not see orange? Who does not see Yeah.
It’s either it must appear as orange or not orange. Yeah. Is that right? See or what? Say if it exists, if it exists, it must appear as orange or not orange.
That’s right. So this flower to a blind man, does it appear as orange or or as not orange? To a blind man. Does the flower appear as orange and not orange? To the person, you see, to that person, to that to that person, the flower doesn’t appear.
So it appears it’s not orange. There’s no base. There’s no he doesn’t see the flower. He doesn’t see the flower. Blind man doesn’t see even the flower.
To discuss about the way this is orange enough. Orange appears orange enough. It appears in my mind. It appears it’s not orange. He doesn’t see even the flower.
But if you put the question, it’s that the blind man, darkness. Blind man, darkness is darkness. You see? Yeah. You see, what you what you what say is you who is I don’t know.
It it does not appear as a one. Who is who would say, you see? If I read see, if I’m really, now know that this relating to that mind relating to that particular person’s mind, you know, he said, I wouldn’t I don’t know. But if you look at talking as a third person, he he doesn’t he for him, whatever is non orange. For him, what appears non orange?
The non orange appears. Yes. Yes. Yes. So it appears as non orange?
Yes. Appears as non orange. But not a flower. He doesn’t say flower, but the definition, for him for him, what appears nonorange, for him what appears nonorange, presumably, know, nonorange because, yeah, it doesn’t orange. So what appears to him is non orange.
It’s a dark and darkness. There’s no orange. There’s no orange. To that person, As a third person, third person For example, for this person, the adult person who is not interested in arhat, why we say we say why we say for him the arhat appears even though he’s not introduced? Because generally, it’s agreed to this athlete.
To him as third person. You know, he sees arhat appear to him. But relating to his own mind relating to his own mind, I mean, a good set arhat doesn’t appear because he doesn’t hasn’t labelled he himself hasn’t labelled yet. So it doesn’t appear to him that arhat is arhat. Arhat, as arhat.
Arhat. Yeah. Right? Yeah. So I think