Topics for Analysis: Karma, Self and Blame

As an introduction, we will start with a general overview of the issues that are involved in what we will be examining in this weekend seminar. The first of these three topics is karma. What is karma?

There is quite a lot of misunderstanding about karma. The topic of karma is actually about the compulsiveness that is associated with our behavior. We have a compulsive way of thinking, speaking and behaving. The topic of karma is not about the action itself. This is the most important point of all. Don’t just think in terms of action or behavior. Instead, correctly identify what the problem is with karma. The problem is the compulsive way in which we act, speak and think under the influence of our confusion and our disturbing emotions. It’s out of control. 

How does this misunderstanding about the meaning of the word “karma” come about? It is because the Tibetan word for karma is also the colloquial Tibetan word for action. If we ask a Tibetan to translate the word for karma, they of course translate it as “action.” However, when we analyze karma with that in mind, we might think that if the problem that we need to overcome to avoid suffering is action, then all we would have to do is stop doing, saying or thinking anything and we would be freed of all problems. That’s clearly absurd. Just stop doing anything and we are liberated and free? Does this make any sense? Obviously, it does not. 

This is part of the process of analysis and questioning, especially questioning translation terms, because so much of our misconception comes from the translation terms that are used. They can have a completely different connotation from the original words. If something doesn’t make sense in the teachings, we have to delve deeper and deeper to try to understand it. Obviously, if we have confidence in the teachings and in the Buddha, we are confident that what Buddha taught wasn’t nonsense. They must be talking about something that makes sense, and it doesn’t make sense that the big problem is doing just any and all kinds of action.

Please take a minute or two to think about these questions: 

• What is the difference between an action and the compulsive aspects of our behavior?
• Is the way that we act the problem or is the problem much deeper than just doing things?
• If the problem is the compulsiveness of our actions, are our actions out of control?
• Is the compulsiveness under the influence of my ignorance and disturbing emotions – my anger, my greed, etc.?
• Is it really the compulsiveness that is the problem?
• Is there a difference between a problematic action and the compulsiveness behind that action? Think about it. Is yelling at someone the problem or is the compulsiveness behind yelling the problem? Maybe sometimes yelling at somebody can be helpful; it can be, sometimes. However, with no control, if we compulsively yell whenever anything bothers us, is that the problem? We have to identify the problem. What is the problem? This is the first noble truth: identify the problem.

When we talk about karma, we are not just talking about destructive karma. There is also constructive karma. What is the problem with that? Someone cleans their house. There is nothing wrong with that. However, someone who is a compulsive cleaner, totally out of control and cleans and cleans and constantly finds a spot over there and is so worried that someone might mess it up – such a person’s cleaning is out of control. It’s compulsiveness that is the problem, not the action.

I like to be very direct and that is the most important point. If we take that home at the end of this seminar that the problem is the compulsiveness about our behavior and that our compulsiveness is what we have to work on, that would be pretty good. Maybe that would be helpful. Do we compulsively speak and act out of anger, compulsively act and speak out of greed and attachment, or compulsively act as a perfectionist? This is what karma is about. We need to recognize that our compulsions cause our actions to be out of control. Therefore, think about all of this for a moment.

[Pause]

Usually, although karma has this specific meaning, when we talk about karma, most of us include in the discussion the results of karma as well. We will also examine this aspect. What are the results of our compulsive behavior? For example, because of our compulsive behavior, we are always unhappy or always have problems or get into trouble. The results are part of the whole package of looking at karma. 

There are two explanations of karma that were elaborated by the Indian Buddhist masters of Nalanda Monastic University. The Theravadins also have their own explanation of karma, but within the framework of the Nalanda tradition, there are two. 

• The older one is the Madhyamaka presentation, found in Nagarjuna’s Root Verses on the Middle Way, Called Discriminating Awareness and elaborated upon by both Sautrantika Svatantrika and Prasangika Indian masters. Vasubandhu and his commentators also elaborated on it in the context of the Vaibhashika tenet system. 
• The other presentation was formulated by Asanga in the context of the Chittamatra system, with a Sautrantika variant of it by Vasubandhu.

The Chittamatra explanation is much simpler and easier to understand. It is the one that is usually taught first, rather than the Madhyamaka and Vaibhashika presentation, which is more complex and difficult to understand. However, the problem is that we want to understand the relation between karma and the self, between “me” as the agent of karma and the one experiencing the results of karma. If we are going to analyze the self in the context of the Prasangika teachings on that topic, we can’t fit that understanding of the self in with the Chittamatra explanation of karma. A Prasangika explanation of one thing in the formula has to fit with the Prasangika explanation of the other.

So, if we want to analyze the self from the Prasangika point of view and its relation to karma, we have to analyze karma from that same Prasangika point of view. I won’t go into any great detail about why the two systems don’t fit with each other regarding the Prasangika view of the self and the Chittamatra discussion of karma. It is quite complex, and one needs to study the tenet systems. However, over the course of the seminar, I may mention a few points in conflict. It is important to understand why this is relevant, why it is important to have the understanding of the self and karma align with the same philosophical basis.

What is destructive behavior in the context of the Prasangika view? It is behavior that is under the influence of disturbing emotions plus grasping for a truly existent, self-established “me.” We hurt someone because “I’m angry.” There is anger and the mistaken concept of “me.” “I have to have my own way. I’m right and you are wrong.”  

When we look at constructive behavior, although it’s not under the influence of a disturbing emotion, it is also under the influence of this grasping for a truly existent, self-established “me.” The aim is to have non-attachment and non-anger as the emotion that is there. This just means that we don’t exaggerate the good or bad qualities of things, as this is what attachment and anger are all about. 

There are two types of constructive behavior. With one, we refrain from acting in a destructive manner because we understand that if we do, it’s going to produce suffering. We don’t want to experience the result of destructive behavior and, to avoid that, we need to recognize that what is behind such behavior is continually thinking of a truly existent “me, me, me.” We are compulsively thinking, “I don’t want to experience it.” 

The other type of constructive behavior is to actually help someone, but again there can be a very strong grasping for “me.” For example, “I want to be the good one. I want to be the perfect one. I want to attain enlightenment. I want people to thank me and to appreciate me.” Although there is no influence of anger and no exaggeration of the situation or the positive qualities with attachment or greed, there is still this grasping for “me.” “I have to be the good one, the perfect one. I am the only one who can do things right.”

Even if we do something unspecified, an action, for example, such as going for a walk – which Buddha didn’t specify as being constructive or destructive in itself – it becomes constructive or destructive based on the motivation and aim behind it. We can go for a walk to kill someone, to help someone, or just go for a walk. This is what is meant by an unspecified or neutral action being dependent on motivation. However, even this can be compulsive. For instance, compulsively, every day at four o’clock, we have to go for a walk because that is our exercise time. With something like that, it’s still “me, me, me; I have to go for a walk.” 

Think about that. “I have to go to the store.” Perhaps then we complain, “I have to go out in the traffic.” There is still the “me” even in these neutral types of actions. A perfect example is that of a little child: “I don’t want to go to bed. I don’t want to eat that.” These are neutral actions, but it’s about “me, me, me.”

Therefore, in all these types of actions, whether constructive, destructive, or unspecified, underlying them all is this grasping for a truly existent, self-established “me.” Therefore, we want to deconstruct our misconception about the self, “me,” because deconstructing it is essential for overcoming being under the influence of the compulsiveness of karma. What is common to all three of these types of behavior is grasping for a truly established me. “I don’t like the way that you are doing this.” “I want to be perfect.” “I don’t want to go to bed.” It’s all revolving around our concept of “me,” isn’t it? Karma is based on this ignorance and unawareness of how we actually exist and that’s why it is so compulsive.

This understanding of the compulsiveness of karma as being based on ignorance indicates a very important principle to always keep in mind when studying the Dharma. Any teaching about a specific topic has to be understood within the context of the system in which it appears. It is a holistic view. If not, we may mix two or three things together and, because they are not based on the same assumptions, they get mixed up. Realistically, this is not so easy because it requires us to have studied and learned a great deal to be able to know the context of the larger system that any particular teaching comes from. 

This is why, as we learn and study, very often we have to revise our understanding of even the most basic things in Dharma such as impermanence or karma, our topic. We often need to revise and get a deeper and deeper understanding. Don’t ever be satisfied until becoming a Buddha. It’s one of the vows not to limit our study and understanding prematurely. I think a proper attitude to have is to look at the entire study of the Dharma as an adventure, rather than being discouraged that our understanding is so basic and it is so complicated and there is so much more. Better to look at it and think that there are all these fantastic things to discover as we go deeper and deeper. 

That’s why you have here this program Discovering Buddhism and that’s a good word because whatever we discover is like a treasure. This is because, if we apply what we’ve discovered in our lives, it decreases problems. That’s the whole point of the Dharma, to make life easier. We hear all this publicity about liberation and enlightenment. It’s very good publicity telling us we have to aim for liberation and enlightenment for all sentient beings. Then, what happens for many people is that we idealize it, and our Dharma practice becomes all-or-nothing. Either we attain enlightenment or it’s not satisfactory. 

Then we may think, “I’m not good enough. What I’m doing is not sufficient.” We push ourselves and push ourselves because we’re looking at Dharma and the attainments in Dharma as all or nothing. I think this is a big mistake because instead of Dharma helping us, it’s making us feel more frustrated, more guilty and not good enough. Because we are frustrated, we push ourselves and get stressed. Dharma practice is not something that should be stressful. Then, because we are stressed, we get aggressive. Something is wrong with this.

Remember, Dharma is a path. It’s a path to enlightenment and there are stages along the way to enlightenment. Progress is never linear. That something I always emphasize. The nature of samsara is that it goes up and down; therefore, our Dharma practice is going to go up and down. Don’t expect that it is always going to be perfect. It’s not. The main thing is that it doesn’t matter if it goes up and down. We just have perseverance, thinking that no matter what, we will continue. 

Over longer periods of time, be satisfied that it is getting a little bit better. It’s great that it’s getting a little bit better. We’re not losing our tempers so much, or we’re a little bit kinder, or we have a little bit more patience. We get along with our parents a little bit better – that’s great. 

One of the aspects of building up positive force, so-called merit, is rejoicing. Rejoice in the little things that we are able to accomplish. Don’t feel regret. Regret destroys the positive force. For example, “I wasn’t doing enough. I wasn’t good enough.” Then, we regret the positive things we have done, and it destroys the whole energy, doesn’t it? 

We want to avoid the two extremes. One extreme is being so super judgmental about ourselves that we think we are never good enough. We are not a Buddha, so of course we can always do better. That’s not the question. However, we need to not be so hard on ourselves, judging, thinking, “I’m not good enough.” That’s the “me, me, me” coming in here again. 

Dharma practice shouldn’t be compulsive, with “me, me, me” having to be perfect, having to attain enlightenment by this evening. That’s not going to happen and it’s self-defeating. That’s one extreme, the extreme of blame. “I’m too lazy, I’m not good enough,” etc. This is an extreme, whether we are talking about our regular behavior or our Dharma practice. The same issues are involved. 

The other extreme is to think, “It doesn’t matter. I don’t care and I can do anything.” This attitude of “whatever” is not taking responsibility for our practice or our behavior. 

Of course, it isn’t easy to overcome compulsiveness and we don’t want to become this stiff, uptight practitioner that always has to be the policeman with ourselves. This is very dualistic, isn’t it? Part of me is the policeman and the other part is the bad boy or bad girl. This causes intense unhappiness. However, the other extreme that we want to avoid is being too lenient in terms of the attitude that it doesn’t matter what we do, and we should just be natural and do whatever we feel like doing. Then, we are completely compulsive.

There’s a delicate balance here because we need to be relaxed. There’s a certain art to practicing the Dharma. It is relaxed, responsible, not uptight. We are not treating ourselves like a baby, and we’re not treating ourselves like a criminal. That’s the balance that we need to find. If we don’t have great expectations, then there will be no great disappointments. This is a basic instruction in meditation. No expectations and no disappointments. Just do it and persevere.

Therefore, the issue of “me,” the understanding of “me,” is very crucial in working with karma. If we recognize that the compulsiveness of our behavior is a problem, then we need to ask the following questions:

• Do we feel that we can’t stop ourselves from acting in a certain way? Do we feel this often? I think this really identifies the problem. For example, do we feel that we can’t stop feeling angry and yelling or can’t stop trying to be perfect in everything that we do? 
• If it is what we often feel, what does that say about our concept of “me”?
• There are two “me’s” involved when we think, “I can’t stop myself.” There is something incorrect in that, isn’t there? 

To deal with this issue of karma, who is to blame, the first thing to understand is that the problem is our compulsiveness. The second thing to recognize is that we feel, “I can’t stop myself from acting compulsively.” Now, we can get closer to the root of the problem. When we have the view of “I can’t stop myself from acting like that,” then we can see the scenario of the policeman “me” and the bad criminal “me,” which doesn’t work. This is why the correct understanding of the self, of how “I” exist, is crucial for being able to deal with karma. 

• Take a minute to reflect and think about how we experience the compulsiveness with which we act, speak, or think in a certain way. Beyond how we act and speak, we can have all sorts of really horrible thoughts going uncontrollably through our heads. 
• Ask yourself: “Can I stop myself from acting, speaking or thinking in that way?” 
• Even if we are successful at stopping ourselves, do we experience that stopping in a dualistic way? Is it the good “me” stopping the bad “me”? The policeman “me” stopping the criminal “me”?  
• Thinking in this dualistic way, we feel that we can’t stop ourselves and that even if we do stop, there is still this dualism. Does this dualistic thinking make us happy? Or does it make us really stressed and uptight, causing suffering?  
• Remember all the times we said to ourselves, in our head, “I am such an idiot” or “Why did I say that or do that?” 

[Pause]

I hope we can start to appreciate what the problem is and what the issues we need to deal with are. When we are dealing with issues of karma, it’s not just about wanting to be a good girl or good boy. We need to go much deeper than that. 

Having examined a bit about karma and the relation between karma and the self, “me,” we can now turn to the third topic, blame. The question is: 

• If we can’t stop from compulsively acting, speaking or thinking in a certain way, then who is to blame? Are we to blame? Are other people to blame? 
• For example, if you annoyed me, is it your fault that I yelled at you? Or we may blame outside factors like the economy, thinking, “I had to steal because the economy was so bad.” 

To answer this question, we need to analyze the role of the self, and the role of causes, conditions and circumstances involved in committing acts and experiencing their results.

Everything arises dependently on causes and conditions. This is a very fundamental principle in the Dharma. Because everything arises dependently on causes and conditions, the present situation changes all the time. This is because the causes and conditions bringing it about and affecting it further are also changing all the time. Furthermore, things don’t arise from just one cause. This is a basic principle in karma, in the laws of behavioral cause and effect. Therefore, everything that we experience isn’t just “my fault.” It is a combination of many factors.

I remember a teenager that I knew who had such low self-esteem that, when he went to a football game and his team lost, he would say: “They lost because I was there; it’s my fault.” It’s clearly ridiculous, isn’t it? Although, from a karmic point of view, we have built up various causes for certain things to happen to us and for us to act in a certain way, our experiences and our actions arise from causes and conditions, as well as from what other people say that trigger these things, such as economic factors. Reality and our experience of it is a big mixture or network of dependently arising factors. Not everything is simply “my fault.”

When we start thinking in terms of blame, “I’m to blame,” or “You’re to blame,” or “Society is to blame,” then that means attributing guilt. “I am the guilty one” and therefore “I’m a bad person,” or “You are the guilty one and so you’re a bad person,” or “Society is the guilty one and so society is bad for causing me to act in that way.” 

If we think, “I am to blame for what I experience,” then we think, “I am the guilty, bad one and I am being punished for what I did because I deserve it.” This is a complete misunderstanding of the Buddhist teachings on karma. It is also a misunderstanding to apply this kind of thinking in a situation where we feel that someone else is to blame, as in, “You are guilty and bad and need to be punished for making me do what I did.” Or when thinking that society is to blame, that society is guilty and bad, and that the social order needs to be demolished or destroyed for making us do what we did – going out and stealing for example.

It is very important to understand that Buddhist ethics is not based on laws made either by God or by a legislature, where we have to follow the laws, and if we don’t, we are bad, guilty and have to be punished. That’s not Buddhism. Buddhist ethics are based on understanding that if we act under the influence of disturbing emotions and the compelling impulses of karma, it will produce problems and suffering. Also, if we act under the influence of ego, it will also produce problems or suffering. 

Therefore, we want to develop discriminating awareness, not obedience to the laws. We need to discriminate between what will or will not bring us suffering. If we don’t want suffering, we don’t act that way. It’s as simple as that. Think for a moment about who is to blame for the way we act. 

• Do we feel guilty?
• Do we feel others are guilty?
• Do we feel society is guilty?
• Even if we are studying or involved with Buddhism, are we still mixing it with another system that includes this whole idea of blame, guilt, broken laws and punishment? 
• Are we thinking, “I am bad, and I want to be good so mommy, daddy and my teachers will like me” and “This will make me a good girl or good boy”?  

Is that how we are approaching this idea of karma? If so, that isn’t Buddhism. It’s mixing it with something else.

[Pause]

There is a big difference between taking responsibility for our behavior and feeling guilty and blaming ourselves for how we act. We don’t want to be the guilty, bad child in terms of how we deal with our behavior. We want to be a responsible, non-judgmental adult. There is no judge here. We are simply using discriminating awareness about what is helpful or harmful and going deeper and deeper in our understanding and analysis. 

In the beginning, yes, we just exercise self-control. But then, we go deeper and deeper and deal with the compulsiveness of our behavior and the whole aspect of how we feel that we can’t stop ourselves from acting that way and we examine our whole concept of self. We go deeper and deeper. 

I think the issue of poor self-control is tied to the whole problem of having our focus be just on liberation and enlightenment and not on rejoicing in the progress we make toward that goal. We should instead avoid thinking that we aren’t good enough because we’re not enlightened yet. The analogy would be that we think we have to get the non-conceptual cognition of voidness with perfect concentration and anything less than that is irrelevant, so we don’t even bother to exercise self-control regarding our compulsive behavior.

If we are able to exercise self-control when we feel like yelling at someone or saying something stupid, then we find that there is a space between when we feel like saying something and actually saying it. We simply stop; that is self-control. If we are able to do that, although it can be frustrating and make us feel like a policeman, still it is better than uncontrollably yelling and hurting people and saying stupid things. Simply exercising self-control is a step toward the ultimate step that we imagine we need, but we must take gradual steps to get there and rejoice in each of these. We need to not feel bad that we are not at the next step yet.

We live in societies in the West that have so much emphasis on guilt and law, whether divine law or civil law, that it leads to a lot of low self-esteem. Guilt also makes an obstacle to rejoicing. To rejoice in the little things that we accomplish rather than feel that they aren’t good enough is one of the most difficult things for us as Westerners to be able to develop. In conjunction with understanding the whole topic of karma and who is to blame, we need to develop a sense of responsibility, rather than blame. We also need to rejoice in whatever we are able to accomplish. 

Don’t feel arrogant in your rejoicing, but don’t just put yourself down, either. That may not be something that is emphasized enough in people’s practice. Learning to rejoice is not so easy for many of us. One last thought for this session: if we blame ourselves, thinking that we aren’t good enough and haven’t done enough, it really makes an obstacle to doing better. If we instead rejoice in the little things that we have been able to do, it gives us a sense of self-confidence and self-worth, which makes a much firmer basis for moving ahead and making further progress.

Let’s let that sink in for a moment and then we can have a few questions.

[Pause]

Would it be correct to say that, at this time, we can’t practice better because of our karma? Is it our karma that doesn’t allow us to practice better? If we are capable of slowly getting rid of our karma, then in time we would be able to practice better, but for now, is it that I can’t do better than I can?

It is very interesting to observe what we think our limits are and how we sometimes limit ourselves and think that we can’t do any more. I was an interpreter for my teacher Serkong Rinpoche, and he always told me that no matter how tired you are, you can always do five minutes more. I think that is very true, unless we have some medical condition or something like that in which the brain just stops functioning at a certain point. I do know someone with a brain injury in which that is the case. However, the majority of us can always do a little bit more.

For example, I do a lot of physical training, weightlifting and that type of thing. This issue of always being able to do a little bit more is very relevant because we are told, for example, to do x number of push-ups. We might think, “I can’t possibly do that many.” However, you are being encouraged – “Come on, you can do one more.” Then, I realize that there are only two more left, and although I’m really tired, I can push myself further and actually do it. 

This demonstrates, for those of us who engage in such things, that we are capable of doing a little bit more than we think we are capable of. That little bit more will increase over time. I see a bodybuilder here nodding, so you know what I’m talking about. There are realistic limits and self-imposed limits that just exist in our conceptualization about ourselves. We need to differentiate between the two.

Another interesting issue here is shame, and that is different from guilt. It seems that if we feel shame, it relates to limited and destructive actions, and it might help us to progress in our practice. Can you speak about that?

There are two mental factors that always need to be present in constructive action. Their opposites are always present in a destructive action. This is according to the abhidharma teachings. In destructive actions, the factor is sometimes translated as “no sense of shame.” Perhaps a bit more accurate translation is “no sense of self-dignity or self-worth,” in which we just don’t care about how our behavior reflects on ourselves and our sense of self-worth. The other mental factor is that we don’t care how our behavior reflects on the larger group that we are a part of. This perspective is quite prevalent in Asian culture. For example, if we are Buddhist and we act destructively, we see that it gives a bad reputation to all Buddhists, or a bad reputation to our family or to our country. The Western idea of shame is more about what other people think of us. The emphasis in Buddhism is more about what I think of myself.

On the other side, constructive behavior is always accompanied with a sense of self-worth and a sense of how our behavior reflects well on those we are close to: our parents, friends, family, religion and society. Once, I asked my class in Berlin why they didn’t go out and steal, vandalize and these sorts of things. Was it because they were afraid that they were going to go to hell? The students said “no,” that it wasn’t the motivation. 

Ask yourself: “Why don’t I go out and vandalize and destroy other people’s property?”

The answer that everybody in my class came up with was “because it doesn’t feel right.” Was that what you thought? I should have asked you.

I don’t feel like doing it. What for? I think that it might be painful for others.

Very interesting; there are obviously various reasons. The class in Berlin came up with the correct answer from the Buddhist point of view, that it just doesn’t feel right to be nasty and hurt others and so on. Why don’t we want to hurt somebody else? It is because it just isn’t right and that we have this sense of self-dignity. It’s thinking, “I wouldn’t stoop so low as to do that. I think more of myself than going out and wrecking everything and acting in a horrible and anti-social way.” This is because if we say that we don’t go out to vandalize because we don’t feel like doing it, then we would have to ask, “What if I did feel like doing it, would I do it then?” That seems to be the implication of that answer. 

In that case, if I felt like it, then I would do it.

In that case, then that is a good example of not caring and not having that sense of self-worth that accompanies a destructive action. This sense of self-worth is an issue that is very central to Buddhist ethics, and it relates to what we were saying about rejoicing and having a positive feeling and respecting ourselves. When we respect ourselves, it is much easier to take responsibility for how we are going to behave. When we have no respect for ourselves, no feeling of self-worth, then it doesn’t matter to us how we behave.

Over the continuing sessions in this seminar, we will go more deeply into these topics of karma, self and blame.

We think, whatever positive force has come from this discussion, whatever positive potential and understanding has arisen, may they go deeper and deeper and act as causes for everyone to attain the enlightened state of a Buddha for the benefit of us all.