Review of Previous Sessions
We have been discussing the issue of time from a Buddhist and a relativistic point of view in current Western science. We’ve seen that, from a Buddhist point of view, time is a measurement of the change that occurs during the interval on a continuum between the arising of a karmic cause and the arising of its karmic effect. We’ve seen that because time is an imputation phenomenon, how it is conceived is dependent on the mental labeling system of the individual and, from a Western scientific point of view, also on the speed of the individual, etc.
We’ve also begun to look at the issues of past, present and future. We’ve seen that what the Buddhist systems are talking about is not equivalent to what Western systems call the past, present and future, but rather they are speaking about the no-longer-happening, the present-happening, and the not-yet-happening of something on the continuums of our five aggregates.
According to the Sautrantika, Chittamatra and Svatantrika tenet systems, no-longer-happenings and not-yet-happenings are static phenomena: they are the absence of the present-happening of something on our continuums – either posterior to its present-happening or prior to it. An absence of the present-happening of something is merely a fact and, as a fact, it is not affected by anything. The attainment of the absence, or the no-longer-happening, of something arises on our continuums from causes and circumstances, but once this attainment has occurred, the no-longer-happening is not affected by anything; it remains always the same.
For example, the attainment of the no-longer-happening of our performing an action – let’s say the no-longer-happening of our killing a specific mosquito – arises as a result of our accomplishment of the death of the mosquito. Once we have accomplished killing it, we are no longer killing it. No matter what else we are doing, that doesn’t affect or change the fact that we are not presently killing that mosquito, we’ve already done that and are no longer doing it. The no-longer-happening of our killing that specific mosquito – equivalent to the absence of our still killing it after we have already killed it – is a fact that is not affected by anything. Nothing can change that fact, it’s static.
In the case of anger, there are several types of no-longer-happenings. The no-longer-happening of a specific incident of anger has no end. It is no longer happening forever. It is like the no-longer-happening of our coming to class yesterday. It is a static fact that has no end; we can never again come to class yesterday. The no-longer-happening of any incident of anger, however, has an end – it ends with the present-happening of the next incident of anger. When we attain liberation (when we become an arhat), the no-longer-happening of any incident of anger lasts forever. We have attained a true stopping of anger.
According to Vaibhashika and the Gelug Prasangika systems, the no-longer-happening of something and the not-yet-happening of something are nonstatic phenomena. That means that they change from moment to moment, they are affected by causes and produce results. Moment one of something no-longer-happening – such as our killing a specific mosquito – produces moment two of it no longer happening. Thus, moment two of our no longer killing that mosquito arises as a result of moment one ceasing, and so on. This succession of moments of no-longer-happenings is an example of a sequence of nonstatic phenomena that do not degenerate.
There are two types of nonstatic phenomena: those that degenerate and those that do not degenerate. Those that degenerate are like our body – it is gradually falling apart – whereas those that do not degenerate are like our mental continuum. Our mental continuum goes on from moment to moment, and although it changes each moment as it is aware of different things, it’s not getting weaker and weaker until it finally dissipates and is finished. Like a mental continuum, it’s not that a no-longer-happening gets weaker and weaker until it ends and a not-yet-happening gets stronger and stronger until it becomes so strong that it gives rise to a presently happening result. It’s not like that.
How we define static and nonstatic is an interesting point. Static and nonstatic, as you recall, are the same words as permanent and impermanent. However, the terms permanent and impermanent can be misleading because they imply eternal or temporary, and there are some phenomena that change from moment to moment and that last forever (like the mental continuum) and others that change from moment to moment and are temporary (like our body). If we use permanent in the sense of eternal, then we can say the mental continuum is eternal because it has no beginning and no end; but, nevertheless, it’s nonstatic (it changes from moment to moment). The Kagyu tradition speaks of the mind as being permanent, but they mean eternal, which everybody would agree. Thus, we have yet another variable – or parameter, I should say: Does something degenerate or not degenerate so long as it exists? We could say that according to Vaibhashika and Gelug Prasangika, a no-longer-happening is permanent in the sense that it doesn’t degenerate; nevertheless, it’s nonstatic (it changes from moment to moment). I always think that it’s much better to speak in terms of static and nonstatic rather than permanent and impermanent.
The no-longer-happenings of things or events can last forever (the no-longer-happening of having been here yesterday in this class) or they could be temporary (the no-longer-happening of anger which can arise again), but these no-longer-happenings don’t degenerate, so in that sense, their level doesn’t change.
We have to be quite clear here about how many parameters are involved when we use these words permanent and impermanent or static and nonstatic or eternal and temporary and so on. They’re all the same word in Tibetan (rtag-pa, mi-rtag-pa) and Sanskrit (nitya, anitya); although, of course, there are synonyms that can be used to specify the different meanings. Even the term “eternal” needs to be used with caution. A mental continuum is eternal in the sense of it having no beginning and no end. The no-longer-happening of a specific instance of anger lasts forever, but it has a beginning when that instance ends. The not-yet-happening of that instance of anger had no beginning, but it came to an end when the instance happened.
It’s very important not to get confused when we speak about – especially in Western terms – the past and the future. That’s where we get into trouble, and also when we try to put the Buddhist teachings together with Western science. We get into trouble if we try to look at the Buddhist explanation in terms of past and future as if the future or the past were something out there, and if we went faster than the speed of light, we could catch up with it. That’s certainly not the case. That led to our discussion of information.
If for instance, we look at the light from a star and we say, “Well, that star is one billion light-years away,” are we seeing the past when we see that light? No, we’re not seeing the past. We’re seeing the light that was caused by an event a billion years ago by our reckoning of years or by whatever standard of units we’re using; we are seeing some information, and this information is like this previously-having-perished that we were speaking about. There’s a previously-having-perished moment of the light with the information leaving that star, and then that gives rise to the next moment and a next moment and a next moment, and that’s what we are observing. The light with this information is an affirmation phenomenon (sgrub-pa), and its stream of continuity started a billion years ago. We’re not, though, seeing the past itself. That, I think, is very important. Also, to think that if we could go faster than the speed of light, we’d be able to see the future because we would go further than the information – this is also completely incorrect.
But I thought that when we see the light, we can consider the fact that it comes from a certain point. So yes, we are seeing the light in a special position, in the now. Isn’t the way that we see it – and see in terms of understanding – that the light has come from the past, and so we see the past?
Ah, now this is very good. He’s saying that when we see the light from the star that’s a billion light-years away, don’t we know from seeing the light that it originated a billion years away? Yes, we do. That’s called inference. We infer that it originated or started one billion years ago, but we’re not seeing the past.
What do we mean by the past? This is the whole confusion here. We’re seeing information that originated a very great distance in space-time away from where we are now at the present. What is it that we’re seeing? If we change to the Buddhist terminology and conceptual framework, we are seeing the presently-happening light, which indicates a no-longer-happening of the star exploding or whatever it was. We could probably analyze a little bit more specifically what the relationship is here between the light and the no-longer-happening of the explosion of the star, but in any case, that explosion of the star is no longer happening. We are just seeing information derived from that.
We could, of course, get into the discussion about whether that information is static or nonstatic. Well, here we have the same discussion that we just had. It hasn’t degenerated, but it certainly has changed from moment to moment. Why has it changed from moment to moment? In a sense, it’s moved; it’s come closer. That’s the whole point when we talk about the nonstaticness of a no-longer-happening of something – each moment it’s getting temporally further away from the event that caused it (time, remember, is an interval, so the interval is getting bigger). Furthermore, the not-yet-happening of the light reaching us is changing from moment to moment because that interval between it and the presently happening result is getting shorter and shorter, but it’s not degenerating, as in the light is not degenerating. Understand? It’s interesting.
Not-Yet-Happenings
Now, for the analysis. It’s not that the future is some sort of quantum possibility that’s existing somewhere. Yesterday, we were discussing one of the theories that all the quantum possibilities actually exist at the same time simultaneously in some sort of virtual existence, as it were.
Parallel universes upon the collapsing of the wave function.
Right. Parallel universes upon the collapse of the wave function – when there’s an observer that observes things or just the measurement by some device. There doesn’t actually need to be a person present as an observer. Is that mental labeling from a Prasangika point of view? Is that the arising of the appearance of it from a Chittamatra point of view? What is it? Let’s not get into that. However, at that point, one thing happens. It’s not that those different parallel universes, from a Buddhist point of view, have findable existence. What kind of existence do they have? It’s a no-longer-happening existence.
If we apply this idea of parallel universes and the collapse of a wave function to the analysis of karmic cause and effect, then once a karmic action is no longer happening, are there parallel universes of its not-yet-happening results and, like a wave function, these parallel universes of results collapse with the present-happening of one of them? Let’s look at the analysis from the Prasangika point of view.
The topic of karma is very complicated, so let’s just speak in terms there being a karmic action, such as killing a mosquito, and a karmic result from that. In between the two, there is a nonstatic karmic tendency – that’s the word seed (sa-bon) – as an imputation phenomenon on the basis of the mental continuum. Usually, the discussion of karma is always presented in terms of the tendency or the seed because that helps a bit with understanding causal processes, like a sprout comes from a seed. It is a term that can also include karmic potential as well. But let’s not get into the difference.
So, there’s a temporal sequence here, a causal sequence, of a karmic action, a tendency for the result and a karmic result all occurring on an individual mental continuum. Where in this sequence is the not-yet-happening of the result?
Various phenomena have different features or facets (cha). The Tibetan word literally means “parts,” but not like the removable parts of a table – the four legs and the tabletop. A feature or facet of something cannot be separated from it. A feature or facet of something is also not the same as what I translate as an aspect (rnam-pa) of something, which is equivalent to a reflection on our mental continuum of something external, and which arises to our minds like a mental hologram of it. A facet is more like a side of something, though not in a physical sense. There is no equivalent word in English.
The not-yet-happening of the result, then, is a feature or facet of a karmic tendency. Thus, the not-yet-happening of a karmic result is defined as a karmic tendency’s facet of temporarily not giving rise (re-zhig-gis ma-skye-pa’i cha) to a result so long as there was the prior existence of its karmic cause and so long as the contributing circumstances for the karmic tendency’s giving rise to its result are incomplete. The tendency, then, must be a tendency with the ability to give rise to the result.
The temporarily-not-giving-rise-to-its-result is a negation phenomenon and is equivalent to the not-yet-happening of the result. How do we apprehend it? The apprehension (rtogs-pa) of something is an accurate and decisive cognition of something, and it may both explicitly and implicitly apprehend something. With explicit apprehension (dngos-su rtogs-pa), what is apprehended appears in the cognition, which means it arises in the cognition somewhat like a mental hologram; with implicit apprehension (shugs-la rtogs-pa), what is apprehended does not appear like that. Nevertheless, both what is explicitly apprehended and what is implicitly apprehended are manifest (mngon-‘gyur) in the cognition. Both are cognized non-conceptually and are not mere conceptual constructs. For example, when we see a dog, we explicitly apprehend a dog (the mental hologram of a dog arises), and we implicitly apprehend not-a-cat (no mental hologram of not-a-cat arises). Objectively, the dog is not a cat. When we explicitly apprehend a karmic tendency, then, we implicitly apprehend the implicative negation phenomenon that is its facet – the not-yet-happening of its result.
The not-yet-happening of the result, being a nonstatic implicative negation phenomenon, is a noncongruent affecting variable – in other words, a nonstatic phenomenon that is neither a form of physical phenomenon nor a way of being aware of something. As a noncongruent affecting variable, it is an imputation phenomenon – a phenomenon that cannot exist or be known independently of a basis for an imputation phenomenon (gdags-gzhi). The basis for the non-yet-happening of the result is the karmic tendency for the result. The karmic tendency, in turn, is an imputation phenomenon that has as its basis for imputation the conventional “me” (tha-snyad-du yod-pa’i nga), according to Gelug Prasangika, and the conventional “me” has as its basis for imputation the mental continuum.
This relation of an imputation phenomenon and its basis for imputation is somewhat like various things being piggy-back on something else. Like we say in English, piggyback – something carrying it on its back. Thus, the not-yet-happening of the result piggybacks on the karmic tendency, the karmic tendency piggybacks on the conventional “me,” and the conventional “me” piggybacks on the mental continuum. They all are manifest in the cognition of a mental continuum, though they are not necessarily all distinguished.
A basis for an imputation phenomenon must be differentiated from a basis for a negation phenomenon (dgag-gzhi). The basis for a negation phenomenon, where the negation phenomenon is the not-yet-happening of the result – the reliance from which and dependent on which the not-yet-happening of the result emerges – is the absence of the present-happening of the result on the mental continuum. It is on the basis of there not being a present-happening of the result that we can say there is a not-yet-happening of the result. The mental continuum is the basis for the imputation phenomenon that is that absence. The mental continuum is what is devoid of the object to be negated (dgag-bya). The object being negated (dgag-bya) in the not-yet-happening of the result is the present-happening of the result. The present-happening of the result is an affirmation phenomenon (sgrub-pa).
Let me give an example, our mental continuum. Once we have been born, there is an absence of the present-happening of our death that is an imputation phenomenon on our mental continuum. Our mental continuum is the basis for this imputation phenomenon. No one has to impute that absence, it is just a fact about our mental continuum – once we are born, we will die. The absence of the present-happening of our death is the basis for the negation phenomenon “the not-yet-happening” of our death.” It is only on the basis of death not presently happening on our mental continuum that there can be the not-yet-happening of our death once here is the no-longer-happening of the cause for death (namely, our birth) also occurring on our mental continuum. The object being negated by this not-yet-happening is the present-happening of our death. The present-happening of our death is an affirmation phenomenon.
We are going to have to bring in a number of definitions that are not terribly easy. First, we need to understand the difference between an affirmation phenomenon and a negation phenomenon. These are the technical terms. The karmic tendency and the present-happening of the result are affirmation phenomena, while the not-yet-happening of the result and the absence of the present-happening of the result on the mental continuum are negation phenomena. What’s the difference?
An affirmation phenomenon has a very technical definition; we can simplify it as well, but let’s give the technical definition first. An affirmation phenomenon is a validly knowable phenomenon that is apprehended – that means correctly and decisively cognized – in a manner in which an object to be negated is not exclusively precluded, cut off, dismissed, or rejected by the sounds that express the phenomenon.
What that means is that, for instance, with the word apple, the sound of the word apple doesn’t explicitly and directly exclude something else; it’s just apple. Remember in our seminar on negation phenomena, we discussed the word “nonstatic.” “Nonstatic” is still an affirmation phenomenon because even though we have the word non or not in that, it doesn’t explicitly exclude static or dismiss static. We didn’t have to know static, things not changing, in order to know that something is changing.
What was the other example? You used the word atom. Do you remember in that discussion, Jorge? A is “not” and temnein is “to cut,” so an atom is something that cannot be cut into parts. Well, we don’t have to know something that can be cut into parts to know something that cannot be cut into parts. The prefix “a” doesn’t explicitly cut off something or preclude something. We didn’t have to know something beforehand.
It’s like amitabha. The word amitabha is “unmeasurable light.” Well, even though there’s a word in there which is a negation, it doesn’t really negate anything in terms of being able to understand Buddha Amitabha. In other words, to know it, the sound of the words doesn’t really have to negate anything, even if it’s a negation word. That’s an affirmation phenomenon. We just know it. We can learn it. Like if we teach a baby apple, we just point to it and say apple. It’s very different from teaching the baby not an apple; the baby has to know apple beforehand.
A negation phenomenon is a validly knowable phenomenon that’s apprehended in a manner in which an object to be negated is explicitly precluded by the conceptual cognition that cognizes the phenomenon. That’s a very difficult definition.
In order to know not an apple, we have to conceptually eliminate apple, and then we know not an apple. Whereas to validly know a karmic result, that doesn’t entail any object to be negated that is being explicitly cut off by the sounds that express the karmic result. Do you follow that?
You said a nonstatic phenomenon is an affirmation?
Nonstaticness or impermanence. Let’s think in terms of impermanence. There are two different opinions here. Impermanence is an affirmation phenomenon according to the textbooks of Jetsunpa. According to some other textbooks, a textbook by Kunkyen Jamyang Zhepa, it is a negation phenomenon. This is a matter of debate. I’m just reminding us since we had a big discussion about this before. Maybe it wasn’t so wise to bring it up, so let’s not get stuck here; it’s not so relevant to our discussion. I mean, it’s basically asking: To know that something is changing from moment to moment, do we have to have a concept before of something that doesn’t change? No, not really. That’s the point. It’s not like in order to know that something is not an apple, we had to know beforehand and have some concept of what an apple is. All right.
[See: Affirmation and Negation Phenomena: Gelug Definitions]
A tendency is present as an imputation phenomenon on the basis of a mental continuum so long as there’s a possibility that it will give rise to a result. It has to have that facet of temporarily-not-giving-rise-to-its-result, which means that it could give rise to its result. If it no longer has that facet, if it can’t give rise to its result, then I don’t think we could posit the present-happening of the karmic tendency on the mental continuum anymore. There’s no tendency.
Tendency implies that it’s able to give rise to its result; it’s just temporarily not doing it. Do you follow that? That’s how we get rid of it. Because for it to give rise to the result, we need circumstances. If there are no circumstances for the karmic tendency to “ripen,” which is the technical term for its giving rise to its result, we can’t say that it’s temporarily not giving rise to its result – it can no longer give rise to a result, so it’s finished. That’s why I asked yesterday: Is there a difference between a not-yet-happening of something that could never happen and one that can no longer happen ever again? An example of a never-happen was rebirth as a truly existent person, while an example of a no-longer-happen-ever-again was anger on the mental continuum of a liberated being. These things are important to understand if we want to know how we purify away karma.
Okay. With a negation phenomenon, there’s something that is negated. What is negated with the not-yet-happening of the result? This is also important to understand. What is negated by the not-yet-happening of the result is the present-happening of the result. It’s not the result that’s being negated – it’s the present-happening of the result because it’s a not-yet-happening of the result. Do you follow that? This now becomes interesting. In order to know conceptually the not-yet-happening of the result, we just need to apprehend and then cut off the present-happening of the result. Then, the real question is: Do we have to know the result in order to negate the present-happening of the result?
To know the not-yet-happening of the result, you have to negate the present-happening of the result, but you would have to do this on the basis of the possibility of it ever happening.
Right, we’d have to do this on the basis of the possibility of it happening.
Otherwise, it would just be not-presently-happening.
The absence of self-established existence, or truly established existence, is not negating the presence of truly established existence, but the existence of truly established existence – if we can say that. Those are two different words in Tibetan at least, and in English as well. But my question was: Do we have to know the result in order to negate the present-happening of the result?
You couldn’t, because the result doesn’t only depend on the karma; it depends on some circumstances.
That’s true, the karmic tendency’s giving rise to a result can only happen when the circumstances are complete, but that still doesn’t answer my question. The object of negation of the not-yet-happening of the result is the present-happening of the result. In other words, the object of negation of the absence of the result is the presence of the result. Well, did we have to know the presence of the result beforehand in order to negate it?
It depends on how you mean it. You would have to know what the presence is of?
Well, conceptually, we could imagine it. We could imagine what the result could be. This gets into our whole quantum discussion. There are many possibilities. There are certain things that are impossible, like happiness coming from a destructive action. The result has to be in the same category of phenomena as is the cause. There are many laws here that restrict what are the possible results of a cause; however, within that, there are many possibilities – like many quantum possibilities – but they’re not like parallel universes. They have a certain manner of existence depending on the tenet system. Let’s not get into that.
This tendency to have this potentiality for it, this idea that there’s something potentially going to happen – this might be an inference of the results. You infer that there might be a result.
If it’s temporarily not happening, temporarily not giving rise to its result, that implies that it could.
You also have a notion of what could happen.
Yes, but is what could happen specific? That’s really the issue. It’s very much dependent on many different factors.
Now, there is also something called the location of a negation phenomenon (dgag-sa). For example, the absence of an apple on the tabletop. The object being negated is the presence of an apple on the tabletop. The tabletop is the location of this absence. But let’s take a pause and have our break now, and then we will return to this. This is not an easy point, and I want to check something.
At least what we need to understand is there’s an absence of the present-happening of the result on the mental continuum. Right? Because there’s an absence of the present-happening of the result, what’s the basis for saying that there is a not-yet-happening of the result? There was a cause that is now no longer happening, and so now there is an absence of the present-happening of the cause. The fact that there was a cause is indicated by there being a tendency for a result. The not-yet-happening of the result is a facet of the karmic tendency, it’s not a facet of the absence of the result. The absence of the result is a nothing, in a sense.
It’s also connected to circumstances.
Well, circumstances are necessary for there to be a present-happening of the result. We’ll get into this in terms of what is the cause of the present-happening of the result.
This is a very, very important point. Let me just introduce it here. It’s not that the not-yet-happening result changes into the presently happening result. Because remember, we were using the word common denominator. Maybe shared locus is perhaps closer to the meaning. There’s nothing that can be both the not-yet-happening result and the presently-happening result. It’s not that there’s a result on a conveyer belt that’s not yet happening and then it’s presently happening. Nor is the not-yet-happening result the obtainer cause (nyer-len-gyi rgyu) of the presently happening result. It’s not like a seed that, as an obtainer cause, transforms into a sprout as its result and then when the result arises, the seed no longer exists. That’s very, very important to understand. “What obtains the result” – sometimes that’s called the material cause, but that’s not quite accurate because we’re not talking about the elements that make up the result if the result is some physical object.