The Basis for Valid Cognition of Not-Yet-Happenings (Continued)
We have been talking about the basis for an imputation phenomenon and the basis for a negation phenomenon in terms of the not-yet-happening of a karmic result of a karmic action. The mental continuum is the basis for the imputation phenomenon “the absence of the present-happening of a karmic result.” The absence of the present-happening of a karmic result, in turn, is the basis for the negation phenomenon “the not-yet-happening of a karmic result.”
I’m surprised that the basis for the negation for the not-yet-happening is the absence of the result because then the basis for the negation is a negation. I would have expected that it’s the mental continuum or something.
Both a basis for an imputation phenomenon and a basis for a negation phenomenon can be either an affirmation phenomenon or a negation phenomenon. But let’s continue.
As I was saying, the mental continuum is the basis for the imputation phenomenon “the absence of the present-happening of a karmic result.” The mental continuum is also the basis for the imputation phenomenon “the conventional ‘me’” and the conventional “me” is the basis for the imputation phenomenon “the karmic tendency for the present-happening of a karmic result.” The not-yet-happening of a karmic result is a facet of that karmic tendency, and the karmic tendency is the basis for the imputation phenomenon “the not-yet-happening of a karmic result.” The not-yet-happening of a karmic result cannot exist or be known independently of the tendency for the present-happening of the karmic result. The basis for the negation phenomenon “the not-yet-happening of a karmic result” is the absence of the present-happening of the karmic result on the mental continuum. Only on the basis of that absence can there be the not-yet-happening of a karmic result.
When, conceptually, we explicitly apprehend this karmic tendency, which is an affirmation phenomenon, we implicitly apprehend this facet, which is a negation phenomenon – namely, an implicative negation phenomenon. As an implicative negation phenomenon, when this not-yet-happening of a result explicitly excludes the present-happening of the karmic result, it tosses in its wake or shadow (bkag-shul) the negation phenomenon (temporarily-not-giving-rise-to-its-result) and the affirmation phenomenon (the giving rise to its result when the circumstances for its giving rise to its result are all complete).
When there is an absence of a karmic result on the mental continuum as its basis for imputation, there is also an absence of its karmic cause. That absence of a karmic cause can be the absence of a karmic cause that is no longer happening or a karmic cause that never happened. In the case of this absence being the absence of a no-longer-happening karmic cause, there is a karmic tendency with a facet that is the not-yet-happening of its karmic result. In the case of this absence being the absence of a karmic cause that never happened, there is no karmic tendency and thus no not-yet-happening of a karmic result. This is in accord with one of the laws of karma – if we have not committed a karmic cause, we will not experience its karmic result. But whether or not we have committed the karmic cause, an absence of a karmic result can arise of the mental continuum
Let’s give an example – my rebirth as a frog – and let me simplify it a bit. A rebirth as a frog is the karmic result of a karmic cause for such a rebirth. Okay, I look at myself in a mirror, and I see the form of a human and not the form of a frog. I do not see the form of a frog because there is an absence of the present-happening of my rebirth as a frog on my mental continuum. My mental continuum is the basis for the imputation phenomenon “an absence of the present-happening of my rebirth as a frog.” But is that absence of the present-happening of my rebirth as a frog a basis for the negation phenomenon “the not-yet-happening of my further rebirth as a frog”?
My mental continuum is the basis for the imputation phenomenon “the absence of anything other than what is presently happening on this mental continuum.” That absence can be the basis, dependent on which there can be two different sets of negation phenomena. One set is “the no-longer-happening of the karmic cause for my rebirth as a frog” and “the not-yet-happening of my further rebirth as a frog as a result of that karmic cause that is no-longer-happening.” The second set is “the absence of a karmic cause for my rebirth as a frog” and “the not-happening of my further rebirth as a frog as a result of a karmic cause that never happened.” Only in the case of the first set will my mental continuum also be the basis for the imputation phenomenon “a karmic potential for a further rebirth as a frog,” where that karmic potential will have as a facet “the not-yet-happening of my further rebirth as a frog.”
Do you see the difference? I mean, this is very important in terms of what a Buddha sees. All that could ever be manifest is a mental continuum and an absence of anything other than what is presently happening on that mental continuum. That’s all that could appear. Okay?
In the last session, you were talking about the basis or the location of a negation, and now you are talking about the basis for imputation.
Right. My mental continuum is both the basis for the imputation phenomenon “the absence of the present-happening of my rebirth as a frog” as well as its location. In the case of the not-yet-happening of my further rebirth as a frog, the absence of the present-happening of my rebirth as a frog is the basis for this negation phenomenon, but the location of this negation phenomenon “the not-yet-happening of my further rebirth as a frog” is the karmic tendency for the present-happening of my further rebirth as a frog, since this not-yet-happening is a facet of this karmic tendency. But let me go on.
The absence of the present-happening of a karmic result is a static nonimplicative negation phenomenon – it doesn’t change from moment to moment (it’s always the case) – but it ceases to exist with the arising of the presently-happening karmic result. The not-yet-happening of a karmic result is a nonstatic implicative negation phenomenon, since each moment, in a sense, it’s getting closer to the arising of the presently-happening karmic result. Once there is the present-happening of the arising of the karmic result, there will no longer be an absence of the present-happening of the karmic result. If the karmic tendency is only going to give rise to a result once, then the karmic tendency for the present-happening of the result won’t be there anymore once the karmic result has arisen. At that point, the not-yet-happening of a karmic result will cease to exist because it lacks both a basis for a negation (an absence of the present-happening of the result) and a location of a negation (a karmic tendency for the present-happening of a result). Do you follow?
We’re not talking about after the result is finished presently happening. Then again, there’s an absence of the present-happening karmic result, but that’s because there is a no-longer-happening of the karmic result. Is this clear?
The Passing Away of the Karmic Cause
We have already introduced the term shikpa (zhig-pa), for which there is no grammatically correct English translation. It is the past tense of the gerund jigpa (‘jig-pa), a perishing – namely, the perishing of something. The perishing of something is what happens at the conclusion of the present-happening of something. Because something has previously perished, it is no longer happening. Just as the no-longer-happening of something is used as a noun, similarly, the previously-having-perished of something is also used as a noun. For want of a grammatically correct word or phrase in English, I have been using “previously-having-perished” as a noun.
Now here’s yet another technical term – a basis having a characteristic mark (mtshan-gzhi) of something. A karmic tendency for the present-happening of a karmic result is a basis having the characteristic mark of the previously-having-perished of the karmic cause of that result. In other words, the karmic tendency is the common locus for the characteristic marks of both a karmic tendency and a previously-having-perished of a karmic cause. The karmic tendency for a presently happening result indicates that there was a karmic cause, and that karmic cause has perished since it is no longer happening. Thus, the previously-having-perished of a karmic cause is equivalent to the no-longer-happening of the karmic cause, and like the no-longer-happening, it is a nonstatic implicative negation phenomenon. The previously-having perished-one-moment-ago gives rise to the previously-having-perished-two-moments-ago and so on.
Just because the karmic tendency for the present-happening of a karmic result is a basis having the characteristic mark of the previously-having-perished of the karmic cause for that result, that does not make the karmic tendency and the previously-having-perished the same. Nor is the previously-having-perished a facet of the karmic tendency for the present-happening of a karmic result like the not-yet-happening of a karmic result is. Once there is a present-happening of the karmic result and there is only one karmic result of a karmic cause, then there is no longer a karmic tendency for the present-happening of a karmic result on the mental continuum. Because there is no longer a karmic tendency for the present-happening of a karmic result, there is no longer a not-yet-happening of a karmic result as a facet of that karmic tendency. Thus, there is no longer an absence of a karmic result on the mental continuum as the basis for the negation phenomenon “the not-yet-happening of a karmic result.”
Nevertheless, although there is no longer on the mental continuum a karmic tendency for the present-happening of a karmic result as a basis having the characteristic mark of the previously-having-perished of the karmic cause, there is still a previously-having-perished of the karmic cause. This is because there is still an absence of the karmic cause on the mental continuum, and it is still the basis for the negation phenomenon “the previously-having-perished of the karmic cause.” Because of this, then even if a karmic tendency to be reborn as a frog ripened thousands of eons ago and is no longer present on the mental continuum of someone, a Buddha would still know the karmic cause of that rebirth because the previously-having-perished of that karmic cause – in other words, the no-longer-happening of that karmic cause – was still present on the basis of the absence of the present-happening of the karmic cause. That absence would still be present on that person’s mental continuum.
Now the absence of the present-happening of the karmic result that is also on that person’s mental continuum when the karmic result is no longer happening will no longer be the basis for the negation phenomenon “the not-yet-happening of a karmic result.” It will be the basis for the negation phenomenon “the no-longer-happening of the karmic result.” Do you follow?
If I have the karmic tendency to be reborn as a frog once, that karmic tendency is a basis having the characteristic mark of the no-longer-happening of the karmic cause – for example, my having called an arhat a frog or something like that. Suppose that karmic tendency ripened into that rebirth as a frog many thousands of years ago. What happens after that? A Buddha comes along and sees me and cognizes the no-longer-happening of that karmic cause (my calling an arhat a frog). A Buddha is able to cognize that because the no-longer-happening of the karmic cause is still present on my mental continuum because there is still there an absence of the present-happening of the karmic cause as its basis. A Buddha also cognizes the no-longer-happening of that karmic result (my rebirth as a frog). The no-longer-happening of the karmic result is still present on my mental continuum because there is still an absence of the present-happening of the karmic result as its basis.
Thus, for a Buddha to know the past – the no-longer-happening of a karmic cause – there does not need to still be present on the mental continuum a karmic tendency for the present-happening of the result. For a Buddha to know the future – the not-yet-happening of a karmic result – however, a karmic tendency for the present-happening of the karmic result still needs to be present.
In any case, as I already mentioned, according to Prasangika and Vaibhashika, both a no-longer-happening and a not-yet-happening are implicative negations. After they conceptually exclude the object to be negated – the present-happening of the karmic cause or the present-happening of the karmic effect – they leave in their wake both a negation phenomenon and an affirmation phenomenon. In the case of the no-longer-happening of the karmic cause, the negation phenomenon it tosses in its wake is the previously-having-perished of the karmic cause, and the affirmation phenomenon is the arising of the karmic tendency for the karmic result. In the case of the not-yet-happening of a karmic cause, the negation phenomenon it tosses in its wake is the temporarily-not-giving-rise-to-its-result, and the affirmation phenomenon is the giving-rise-to-its result when the circumstances for its giving rise to its result are all complete.
What Does a Buddha Know in Having Omniscient Deep Awareness of the Three Times?
Now, very interesting, what does a Buddha know with his omniscient deep awareness of the three times? Let’s just stick to the Prasangika explanation. A Buddha knows not-yet-happenings, present-happenings and no-longer-happenings of karmic causes and effects. No-longer-happenings of karmic causes and not-yet-happenings of karmic results are nonstatic implicative phenomena. They change from moment to moment because, as nonstatic phenomena, they are affected by causes and conditions. Once a karmic tendency for the present-happening of the result arises with the perishing of the karmic cause and with the arising of a not-yet-happening of a result, the karmic tendency, being nonstatic, is affected by everchanging causes and conditions. Consequently, the no-longer-happening of the cause, whose defining characteristic mark is present on the basis of the karmic tendency, and the not-yet-happening of a result, which is a facet of the tendency, are simultaneously also both affected by these same everchanging causes and conditions. This, in turn, affects what will presently happen. So, nothing is fixed and static. Even the causes and conditions are affected by other causes and conditions, which means there is a network of dependent arising that encompasses all phenomena.
This means that when a Buddha knows the not-yet-happening of a result or the no-longer-happening of a cause, the not-yet-happening of a result does not transform into the present-happening of the result. The result that presently happens will be different from the result that was not yet happening because of the dependent arising of further causes and conditions affecting what happens. Even to postulate that a Buddha knows what result can possibly happen doesn’t make sense. None of them might happen, again because of the effect of dependent arising.
Furthermore, at the time of the not-yet-happening of a result, the present-happening of the result does not already exist somewhere just waiting to happen. It’s not that there is this big spatial-temporal grid, and a Buddha sees what has not yet happened located somewhere on it. If the not-yet-happening of a result already existed on that grid, it would already be presently happening there. On the other hand, although there is an absence of the present-happening of the result, that doesn’t mean that at the time of the not-yet-happening of a result the present-happening of the result is totally nonexistent. If it were totally nonexistent, it could never happen.
Then, what does a Buddha know when a Buddha knows the three times? When a Buddha cognizes someone, what is manifest in the Buddha’s non-conceptual cognition is the person’s mental continuum, what is presently happening on that mental continuum (namely, what the person is cognizing and experiencing), that person’s conventional “me” as an imputation phenomenon on the basis of their mental continuum, and all their karmic tendencies for the present-happenings of results as imputation phenomena on the basis of their conventional “me.” Each karmic tendency for the present-happening of a result is a basis with the defining characteristic mark of the no-longer-happening of the karmic cause and has the not-yet-happening of a karmic result as a facet. Not only are all of these manifest, but a Buddha also distinguishes and explicitly apprehends all of them non-conceptually.
Also manifest on the person’s mental continuum is the absence of all the no-longer-happening causes for all karmic results that are either no-longer-happening, presently-happening or not-yet-happening on the person’s mental continuum. There is also an absence of either a not-yet-happening result or the presently-happening or no-longer-happening karmic result of all the karmic causes that are no-longer-happening on that person’s mental continuum. A Buddha’s omniscient mind explicitly apprehends non-conceptually all these absences, it does not have implicit apprehension.
In each moment, a Buddha apprehends not merely all these no-longer-happenings, present-happenings and not-yet-happenings on each person’s mental continuum, but a Buddha also apprehends all the karmic causes that are presently-happening and no-longer-happening and all the karmic results that are not-yet-happening, presently-happening and no-longer happening. In every moment, however, the karmic causes that are no-longer-happening and the karmic results of them that are not-yet-happening are affected by everchanging causes and conditions. They are affected by both what a person does and by what they experience. Nothing is fixed and nothing.
But what I am uncertain about is whether a Buddha also explicitly apprehends non-conceptually all the variables that will happen in the next moment? I don’t think that is what a Buddha’s omniscience knows, since to apprehend explicitly what will happen in the next moment implies determinism. I also don’t think in each moment a Buddha knows all the possibilities of what could happen but doesn’t know what actually will happen. That doesn’t make sense.
You wrote that Serkong Rinpoche could see that a fire was going to start in a shrine room. Can you explain this briefly?
With the various types of extrasensory and extraphysical powers, what someone knows is limited to what is presently happening. It is just that the range of what they can perceive, for instance, is greatly increased. As for what Serkong Rinpoche perceived, I must confess I don’t know if he saw a fire that was presently happening or, based on the presently-happening situation, a fire that was about to happen. It is the same when he told me that although I planned to arrive in Paris on Sunday, that I would arrive on Monday. That had not yet happened. This is why I am not 100% confident in my analysis.
Seeing something that is presently happening at a distance that we can’t see with our ordinary sense perception is different from knowing something that has not yet happened. Something that has not yet happened can’t be presently happening and be cognized because there’s nothing that is both not yet happening and presently happening. There’s no common locus of the two. Is that clear?
A not-yet-happening result that can or will happen, but which is not presently happening, is currently absent. It’s not present here and now. Nevertheless, although it’s absent, it’s not truly and totally nonexistent. As I already mentioned, but it’s worth repeating: We have to apply the Prasangika understanding. If it were nonexistent, it could never stop being nonexistent. Nor is it truly existent – for instance, in an unmanifest form inside its cause, already fixed and determined, or somewhere in another parallel universe just waiting for the circumstances to pop out. Also, if it was already present, but in an unmanifest form, it wouldn’t have to arise.
The existence of a result that can or will happen, but which is not yet happening is not established by something findable on the side of that result which either makes it the result or makes it not yet happening. It’s merely what the label result that can or will happen, but which is not yet happening refers to on the basis for its obtaining cause (nyer-len-gyi rgyu) – that’s the karmic tendency – and that can give rise to a result that’s presently happening. A result that is not yet happening doesn’t give rise to a presently-happening result. It’s the karmic tendency that gives rise to it. When we have the presently-arising result, it’s simultaneous with the ceasing of the result that’s not yet happened; the result that’s not yet happened doesn’t become the result that’s happening. Is that clear? We really have to understand voidness here, how that result that could or would happen but is not yet happening exists. It’s not totally nonexistent and it’s not truly existent; nevertheless, it’s absent, not here, not presently happening and can’t appear.
Certainty and Uncertainty of Karmic Results
What about the variable of the certainty and uncertainty of karmic results. How does that affect our analysis? There are two types of uncertainty. The first is the uncertainty of whether or not a tendency with the facet of the not-yet-happening of a karmic result will give rise at all to a presently-happening result. It will not give rise to one if it is purified away from the mental continuum by the application of opponent forces. If it is not purified away and therefore it is certain to give rise to a presently-happening result, the other uncertainty is whether or not there is certainty of when it will give rise to its result or start to give rise to it if it will have several results. The variables that determine this are whether or not the karmic cause has been enacted and whether or not is has been reinforced.
For example, if we swat a mosquito and we manage to kill it, the act of killing has been enacted. If the mosquito flies away before our swatting strikes it and so we do not succeed in killing it, the act of killing has not been enacted. There are many possibilities with which the karmic act can be reinforced. One is if we have thought it over and decided to kill the mosquito, the act is reinforced. If the mosquito lands on our arm and, without thinking it over, we just automatically swat it, the act is not reinforced. Only if the act is both reinforced and enacted is there certainty of the lifetime in which the karmic result will presently happen or start to happen. Otherwise, there is no certainty of which lifetime in which it will happen, but it will happen in some lifetime.
If there is certainty, there are three possibilities of the lifetime in which the karmic result will presently happen or start to happen – this lifetime, the immediately following lifetime or in some lifetime after that. What I don’t know is if it is certain that when it will be in some lifetime after that, is it certain in which specific lifetime after the immediately following one it will happen. I tend to think it must be certain in which lifetime it will be, since in several sutras, Buddha says in x-number of lifetimes a certain person will attain liberation.
There is a whole list of which karmic acts will have karmic results that will ripen in this lifetime, such as strongly benefiting or harming our spiritual teacher. There is a list of five so-called “heinous crimes,” such as killing one of our parents, where the karmic results are certain to presently happen in our immediately following lifetime. Any other enacted and reinforced act will have karmic results that will presently happen in a certain lifetime after the immediately following one. If a karmic act has been enacted but not reinforced, reinforced but not enacted, or neither reinforced nor enacted, its karmic result will presently happen in some lifetime after the immediately following one, but it is not certain in which one it will presently happen.
In each moment, a Buddha knows the status of certainty of the not-yet-happening result of every no-longer-happening cause. I am unsure, but I think that except for the possibility of purifying away the not-yet-happening results, the everchanging variables that affect the karmic causal process will not affect the certainty factor of which lifetime in which the present-happening of the karmic effect will take place. I think the variables affect only what the presently-happening result will be and its strength of severity. For example, if we repeat the action or feel happy about what we did afterwards, the result will be stronger, whether the act was destructive or constructive. If we regret what we did, the result will be weaker. All these things are variables that will affect the result that has not yet happened. From a Mahayana point of view, even if we’re in a bardo before a next lifetime, prayers can change what the birth will be that follows.
Multiple Possible Results of a Karmic Tendency
Let’s analyze a little further. There’s a wide range of factors that could affect the strength of the result that has not yet happened. Does that mean we have to speak in terms of results that can or will happen? I don’t think there’s anything that definitely will happen. I mean, we know that if we don’t purify away a certain tendency, it is certain that there will be a presently-happening karmic result of it. We can also know whether or not the rebirth in which it will presently happen is certain. But then there are many, many different possibilities of what that karmic result will be that eventually will presently happen. That’s what we really have to think about, all these different possibilities: Do they actually appear to a Buddha?
Well, they’re not presently happening anywhere, so how could they appear? They’re not truly nonexistent, nor are they truly existent. Does a Buddha infer them? A Buddha doesn’t know things conceptually. However, our definition of a negation phenomenon is that the object to be negated is precluded by conceptual cognition, so it could be conceived. A Buddha doesn’t have to conceive of it; it could be conceived that this result or that result would happen, and so on. I think these are the pieces of the puzzle that we really have to work with.
In each moment, when a Buddha cognizes a karmic tendency on someone’s mental continuum and an absence of the presently-happening karmic result of it, does he cognize all possible results that can maybe happen in general but are not yet happening, and then doesn’t know which result will happen? That seems unlikely, doesn’t it? Especially because the result that can or will happen, but which is not yet happening doesn’t transform into the presently-happening result. Or does a Buddha see the one result that definitely will happen, but which is not yet happening, and then he sees some results that could happen, but which are not yet happening and definitely won’t happen? Does he also see other results that could never have happened and are not yet happening? I mean, what does a Buddha actually know (see isn’t the proper word here, I’m sorry)?
What does a Buddha know? For instance, here are all the possibilities, and a Buddha knows which one will definitely happen? Well, there is no such thing in terms of karma. Although the karmic tendency is the obtainer cause for the karmic result in the sense that, like a seed giving rise to a sprout, the karmic tendency gives rise to the presently-happening karmic result. The not-yet-happening of the karmic result is a facet of the karmic tendency and not the karmic result that is not-yet-happening. And, certainly, the presently-happening karmic result that will happen is not sitting inside the karmic tendency as another facet of the tendency.
Also, we can’t say that that the only cause for the arising of the presently-happening karmic result is the karmic tendency for it. There are many causes and conditions, which are changing in every moment, that also affect what will presently happen. The abhidharma texts have whole lists of them.
I’m just indicating here further lines that we need to analyze and think about. However, it can’t be the case that it’s absolutely definite that this specific karmic result is going to presently happen and that it will arise by its own power independently of what else the person does or experiences during the time before it happens. Remember, it isn’t the not-yet-happening result that is definitely going to give rise to the presently-happening result. It is the tendency that does that. Now, there is just an absence of the present-happening of the karmic result, but is it a specific presently-happening karmic result that is absent? So, the question still remains, what does a Buddha actually know when a Buddha knows the past, present and future?
Maybe he only knows when the circumstances are there.
At what point would a Buddha know them? How long before the present-happening of a karmic result? Or would a Buddha only know the circumstances when they were presently-happening?
The circumstances will arise also based on other people’s karmic tendencies. For example, we killed somebody, and now we have the karmic tendency for us to experience be killed. Well, there has to be a circumstance for our experience of being killed to presently happen. Let’s say the circumstance is being hit by a car, somebody has to drive a car, and they have to have the karmic tendency to kill somebody again, and there has to be the circumstance of a road, and there has to be the circumstance of the light turning red or green, etc. There are all sorts of things that have to come together. But if the karmic cause for that karmic tendency presently happened centuries before there were cars, would the karmic tendency that had the facet of the not-yet-happening of the result of this karmic cause be so specific that the not-yet-happening result would be the present-happening of being hit by a car? Does that make any sense?
In each moment everything is changing as everything is affecting everything else. The world is in flux. Impermanence is one of the basic teachings. But does impermanence mean that what happens is random – anything can affect anything and there is no order in the universe. Science tells us at least there are laws of physics. Is what will happen a fixed script that this will influence that and so on in accord with certain laws? Afterall, Buddha taught such things as suffering is experienced as the result of destructive behavior.
And free will also comes in?
Yes, free will as well. We choose what to do, choose one thing or another thing – at least that is how we experience what we do. But does a Buddha know otherwise?
Are there larger probabilities that something will happen? Well, yes, but that will change in each moment. For instance, which karmic potential will ripen for our next rebirth? Which one is going to be activated? It will depend on the frame of mind we have at the time of death or what we have done most recently or most frequently. All these different variables could change. A Buddha is certainly aware of all these variables in each moment, but if he knows them before they presently-happen, does a Buddha just know the probability of each one that could happen? Are there certain things that are more likely to happen sooner; but nothing is definite, except that:
- If we experience unhappiness, it’s a result of destructive behavior.
- If we experience happiness, it’s a result of constructive behavior.
- If we haven’t done something, we won’t experience a result.
- Finally, the force of the negative action will get stronger and stronger the longer it has gone without us regretting it.
There are only four laws of karma. Okay? We could go on for a very long time, but I’m sorry to say, we have to stop here.
Let’s end with a dedication. Whatever positive force or understanding has come from this discussion, may it go deeper and deeper and act as a cause for all of us to reach enlightenment for the benefit of all.
[For a fuller analysis subsequent to this lecture, see: A Buddha’s Knowledge of the Past, Present, and Future]