We’ve been going through this text by Tsongkhapa. Almost every week we have gone through an extensive review of it before starting class. Since we’re a bit late today, we will skip the review and just come to the topic, which is voidness.
Cause and Effect
Last time, we got through the various types of mistaken understandings of voidness that Tsongkhapa points out, and we got to the point in which Tsongkhapa was speaking about how important it is to understand that voidness and the conventional existence of cause and effect are completely consistent. For that Tsongkhapa quoted Nagarjuna, two quotes, and also Matrcheta, who’s also called Ashvaghosha (Skt. Aśvaghoṣa). Just to refresh our memories on that, let me read the quotes that he gave:
As for the way to develop an unmistaken understanding, (Nagarjuna) has said in his Commentary on Bodhichitta (Byang-chub sems-’grel, Skt. Bodhichittavivarana, 88), “Anyone who, in understanding this voidness of phenomena, can thereby demonstrate (the conventional existence of) cause and effect is more amazing than amazing and more wondrous than wondrous.”
Also (Matrcheta/Ashvaghosha) has said in Praises Extolling the Praiseworthy (bsNgags-par ’os-pa bsngags-pa’i bstod-pa, Skt. Varnanarhavarnanastotra), “You do not act while discarding voidness (as irrelevant), but harmonize it in fact with conventional existence.”
Let me go on. Tsongkhapa writes:
Thus, as has been said (in these two quotations), we must see that no matter what (object our minds) have taken as the focal aim for our grasping for truly established existence, what is conceptualized (by that mind, namely truly established existence as that object’s actual mode of existence) has not even an atom (of existence).
When we focus on things, we conceptualize that it has truly established existence, but what that’s referring to doesn’t exist at all. There is no such thing as truly established existence.
Tsongkhapa goes on:
Then, taking (this) fact of reality as a (causal) condition (to prove cause and effect), we must thereby find the deepest conviction that (conventionally) “this comes about from that” with respect to everything such as bondage and liberation,
That’s referring to the twelve links of dependent arising.
karmic actions and their effects, and so on.
What I wanted to do today with this chart is to try to make a little bit clearer how cause and effect actually works. Here we’re talking about not cause and effect on the physical level of kick a ball and it goes across the room, but we’re talking about what Tsongkhapa mentions here — the cause and effect of karma, and how when we act in a certain way as a karmic cause, then eventually it will produce an effect, and how that actually happens, and how voidness is the only way that could possibly explain this, what Tsongkhapa says: conventionally this comes about from that. In other words, because things are void, therefore cause and effect works, and it can’t possibly work unless things are merely what can be imputed by names and nothing establishing it from its own side.
What do we have in each moment? In each moment, we have an experience, and that experience is made up of many, many different parts, and those parts can be gathered together in a classification scheme known as the five aggregates, the five aggregate factors of experience (phung-po lnga). In each moment there’s going to be at least one, if not more, items that could be theoretically classified into these five groups, the five aggregates. The five aggregates don’t exist somewhere by themselves; it’s just a scheme for being able to understand what we experience. That’s happening from moment to moment to moment, right? And each moment is going to be different. But there is a mental continuum (sems-rgyud) which can be imputed on those moments, which would be a way of putting it together.
The whole mental continuum of course doesn’t exist at any one moment. We’re talking about something that can be imputed in terms of moments, individual moments that follow a sequence based on cause and effect, that therefore retains its individuality. We call it the mental continuum. If we look at the various tenet systems, then there’s a great deal of discussion about what provides that continuity, what continues from one lifetime to another. We have foundation consciousness (kun-gzhi rnam-shes, Skt. alayavijnana, all-encompassing foundation consciousness) in Chittamatra (Skt. Cittamātra). We have all sorts of different explanations. But from the point of view of highest class of tantra, anuttarayoga, what provides that basis of the mental continuum would be the clear-light mind (’od-gsal), the subtlest consciousness, because that is present during the moment of death existence and bardo existence and into the next life (the grosser levels of consciousness that you would have during a lifetime will not be present during the death period), so between lives.
We have a mental continuum, or we could substitute for this the subtlest mind, the clear-light mind — I want you to acknowledge that you follow at each step, because this is going to be complicated — already we have something imputable.
On that mental continuum, we have the mere me (nga-tsam). The me, or the I, or the person can be imputed on the moment-to-moment mental continuum. We would say that the me is imputed on the mental continuum, and it can be imputed on the subtlest mind as well. The way in Tsongkhapa’s teachings that he puts together sutra and tantra explanations is to say that what really provides the continuity is the mere me, which is imputable, if we only have a sutra explanation, on the mental continuum (if we bring in the anuttarayoga explanations, it’s imputable on the subtlest, clear-light mind). That’s a way of bringing together the sutra and tantra explanations without any contradiction.
Before, Now, and Later
That mere me is imputable on the mental continuum. What else do we have on the mental continuum? If we divide the mental continuum into — now I’m just speaking very roughly — before, now, and later:
[1] Before we committed a karmic action, and that would be a cause.
What I put here is a presently happening (da-lta-ba) cause. A presently happening cause, if you think about it, that also is something imputable, because the cause is made up… I mean, if you think in terms of a type of action like killing somebody or stealing, or something like that, does that happen in one moment? No, there are many moments of it. Each moment is made up of five aggregates. Actually, to put it all together into a karmic act that would serve as a cause, even that is something which is imputed, isn’t it? Even the cause, the presently happening cause, is something imputed.
OK. We have that. That’s a before; that’s happened. When it was happening it was presently happening, so there’s the presently happening cause. That was before, the before time.
Participant: What is the connection between the presently happening cause and the mental continuum?
Dr. Berzin: The presently happening cause would then be either on the mental continuum or, if we want to be more precise, it’s imputable on it as an entire act, because it would have to encompass many moments.
Participant: Because a mental continuum, as I understand, is an experience.
Dr. Berzin: Mental continuum is just an imputation to put together every moment of experience, because only one moment happens at a time. Even the presently happening cause, you probably also should correct our chart and make that imputable as well, because it’s a whole event; a whole event doesn’t happen in one instant.
Participant: And the connection to that continuum?
Dr. Berzin: It can be imputed. It is merely what an imputation — I mean, here this is a very good example — it is merely what the mental construct, a whole event, a whole act of killing somebody, or a whole act of lying... Lying is made up of many words — you don’t say all of those words at the same time — and it has to be understood by the other person, and so on, and there has to be the motivation. It’s a sequence of many, many moments.
Participant: It would be a sort of Inhalt (content) of the mental continuum?
Dr. Berzin: It is a content, but is it findable? No, because the whole thing doesn’t happen all at once, does it? I think this is a very good example of mental labeling.
Participant: But, as you said, part of the completion is that the person understands your lie and believes it.
Dr. Berzin: Right. With lying, it’s not a complete act unless the other person understands your lie and believes it.
Participant: That’s not on your mental continuum but on another one.
Dr. Berzin: It’s not occurring on the — the five aggregates are made up of things that are part of the mental continuum and things that are not part of the mental continuum. When I look at the wall, the wall isn’t part of my mental continuum — when I talk to you, you are not part of my mental continuum — but it’s part of the five aggregates that make up each moment of the experience. Aggregates aren’t always connected to the mental continuum. However, you can impute a mental continuum on the basis of the five aggregates. That’s why I say the five aggregates factors of our experience — it makes up our experience.
Participant: In other words, the five aggregates are the products, all products, all existing…
Dr. Berzin: The five aggregates are all… What can be included in the five aggregates are all non-static phenomena (mi-rtag-pa), all products. You don’t include the static ones (rtag-pa) there. You don’t include voidness there, you don’t include space there, etc. OK?
We will impute a cause on the basis of a sequence of moments of an event. All right? There’s nothing on the side of the cause as a thing that is establishing it. That’s before.
[2] Now we have the now, and the now would be that whole period of time — which could cover many, many lifetimes — up until the part of the chart that I have called later.
[3] Later is when you have a presently happening result.
The presently happening result will also be an event. It’s not going to happen in just one moment. That also is something imputed, imputable. OK? Like having somebody lie to us, or not believe what we say, or cheating us, as a result of lying and cheating others.
And the mere me, by the way, can be imputed on this whole thing, this whole sequence of before, now, and later. All right?
What Connects a Cause with the Effect?
In that period in between, how does the cause connect with the effect? This is a big problem, isn’t it? What can we say about this mental continuum during this in-between period in between the cause and effect? What we can say is that there’s an absence of the presently happening cause. It’s not there. That absence — it’s a static phenomenon, it’s an absence, it doesn’t change — that is a base of negation for the no-longer-happening (’das-pa) of the cause. What does that mean?
There’s an absence of a presently happening cause on that mental continuum. It’s not there. And we can say that we also have imputable a no-longer-happening of the cause. No longer happening. The absence is a static phenomenon. The no-longer-happening is a non-static phenomenon; it’s changing from moment to moment — one moment of no-longer-happening, etc.
I didn’t write it here, but the no-longer-happening is equivalent to something which we call a previously-having-perished (zhig-pa). I’ll have to write that, but I can’t get up. Previously having perished. It perished, meaning that it ended; it previously ended. A previously ended one moment ago, and then the next moment it has changed into a previously ended two moments ago, and then a previously ended three moments ago, and then previously ended four moments ago.
Participant: Can’t you then say that you have the absence, since one moment ago, the absence since two moments ago…?
Dr. Berzin: Can you say that there’s an absence one moment ago, the absence two moments ago? The absence stays the same. But this is — it has perished; its having perished is an act. Now, mind you, it’s only Prasangika (Skt. Prāsaṅgika) that says that these are non-static. Everybody else says that the no-longer-happening is static.
Participant: What is changing in this one?
Dr. Berzin: What is changing it is its time reference. And it can be affected by things.
Participant: It can be affected? How?
Dr. Berzin: With the passage of time.
Let me write it on the board. Let me take this off a moment.
OK? There’s no nice way of saying this in English, and I’m sure there’s no nice way of saying this in German then, but there’s a phenomenon known as previously-having-perished. It’s the past tense of perish, to perish. Perish is an active verb; it means “to end.” Something ends, disintegrates. The past tense of that is made into a noun. OK?
This thing, its having-perished — its having-perished has a time signature to it, because from moment to moment it gets further and further away in time from the actual act of it perishing, the moment of it perishing. In Gelug Prasangika they say that this is a non-static phenomenon, changing from moment to moment. The previously-having-perished of the cause — it’s in reference to the cause — is equivalent to the no-longer-happening of the cause. It’s no longer happening; it’s previously perished.
Do you follow that? These are very, very difficult terms, probably the most difficult terms.
Participant: But then it changes to previously, then…
Dr. Berzin: Right. Previously moment number two. It previously perished two minutes ago. It previously perished five years ago. It previously perished a hundred years ago.
Participant: This is also previously?
Dr. Berzin: Right, previously. That act previously ended. It previously ended seven lifetimes ago. What we’re talking about ending was the act of lying. OK? It’s getting further and further away, so that’s changing from moment to moment. What’s being negated is the presently happening cause. The basis for it, what allows us to say that there’s a no-longer-happening of the cause, is that there’s an absence of the presently happening cause.
Jorge, are you awake?
What allows us to say — what makes it correct to say that there’s a no-longer-happening of the cause? What makes it correct to say that is that there’s an absence of the presently happening cause. The presently happening absence doesn’t change. But because there’s an absence, we can say there’s a no-longer-happening of the cause, because if it were happening now, it would be present. OK?
These are imputable.
Participant: Isn’t it that the absence of the presently-happening of the cause should be the basis for negation of the no-longer-happening?
Dr. Berzin: That’s why I say here it’s the basis for negation of the no-longer-happening. Both of these are imputable on the mental continuum: the absence and the no-longer-happening.
Participant: But I thought the absence is the basis for the no-longer-happening.
Dr. Berzin: It’s the basis of the negation; it’s not the basis of imputation.
Participant: It’s how…
Dr. Berzin: How one draws the arrow. I put the arrow like that, the arrow from the no-longer-happening to the absence.
Where is the no-longer-happening occurring? On the mental continuum. And where is the absence occurring? It’s on the mental continuum. Why can you say that there’s a no-longer-happening? You can say there’s a no-longer-happening because there’s an absence of the presently-happening. That relationship of because is this basis for negation. Where is it happening? That’s the basis for imputation.
Do you follow? These are very, very technical terms, and unless you get a clear idea of what they mean it’s very difficult to understand the whole presentation. Do you follow it at all?
Participant: Hmm, not so much.
Dr. Berzin: Not so much? Let’s think of an example. Lunch. Food in your stomach. OK? Now there’s an absence of food in your stomach. Right? Also, we can say there’s a no-longer-happening of food in your stomach. Why is there a no-longer-happening of food in your stomach? Because there’s an absence of food in your stomach. Where is the absence? In your stomach. Where is it no longer happening? In your stomach.
Participant: The absence is static, and the no-longer-happening is non-static.
Dr. Berzin: The absence and the no-longer-happening are imputable on the — its basis of imputation is the mental continuum. That’s where it is. The reason why you can say it’s no longer happening is because there’s an absence.
Participant: But if you put new food in your stomach, then the absence ended.
Dr. Berzin: The absence ended, that’s right.
Participant: So why is it static then, the absence?
Dr. Berzin: Oh, an absence can end, but it doesn’t change so long as it can be imputed. A static phenomenon… That’s why I don’t like the word permanent. Permanent sounds as though it’s eternal. Absences are not eternal — some are, some aren’t.
Participant: It changes into a non-absence.
Dr. Berzin: No, it doesn’t change; it ends.
Participant: The stomach example — this one can’t change, right?
Dr. Berzin: The absence doesn’t change into a presence; the absence ends. It’s not like a seed changing into a sprout.
Participant: But the no-longer-happening of the cause also…
Dr. Berzin: The no-longer-happening will go on. That’ll go on. The previously-perished — it previously ended — that will go on forever. But you won’t have a… This isn’t a good example of that. I mean, if you have it in terms of food, the no-longer-happening of breakfast, today’s breakfast, is going to go on forever. The absence of today’s breakfast in your stomach — actually that’ll go on as well, won’t it? Because then you’ll have a presence of yesterday’s lunch or the presence of today’s breakfast. The absence of yesterday’s breakfast is still the case. OK?
Participant: For previous breakfasts.
Dr. Berzin: Of all previous breakfasts. That absence goes on forever, and it doesn’t change. That’s a fact.
Participant: But also, there’s the no-longer-happening of today’s breakfast.
Dr. Berzin: The no-longer-happening of today’s breakfast is… Tomorrow it will be the no-longer-happening of breakfast two days ago, and then it will be the no-longer-happening of breakfast three days ago.
Participant: But it will always stay a no-longer-happening.
Dr. Berzin: It will always be a no-longer-happening. All right? It starts when you have the perishing, or the ending, of the presently happening cause, the presently happening breakfast. All right?
Now we’re talking about karmic tendencies, karmic seeds (sa-bon). They say that this is imputable on the mere me. Actually, I’m wondering whether the absence and these other things are imputable on the me as well. I don’t know. But in any case, in Prasangika it always says that these karmic tendencies are imputable on the mere me — because the mere me goes on from lifetime to lifetime — not the gross consciousness or subtle consciousness of the mental continuum in this lifetime.
OK, so imputable on the me are these tendencies. If we look at one moment of it, we have a presently happening tendency for the result. In each moment we’ll have a different presently happening tendency for a result, but it forms a sequence. This presently happening tendency for the result, it arises because… I mean, it’s quite closely related, isn’t it, to that there was a cause. There was a cause. The cause gives rise to a tendency for a result.
A presently happening tendency for the result, this has two aspects to it: One aspect is temporarily not giving rise to the result. Temporarily it is not giving rise to the result. That’s true. And another is the ability to give rise to a result. Imputable on temporarily not-giving-rise to a result is the not-yet-happening of the result. The not-yet-happening of the result, its basis for negation is the absence of a presently-happening result on the mental continuum.
It would be better if these two, by the way, were reversed on the chart. It would be easier to see.
Participant: I’m just wondering about terminology. You can only say that a not-yet-happening of the result is imputable on the not-happening result if the result could still happen.
Dr. Berzin: Right. This is what we’re getting to — this is exactly what we’re getting to — that we can only impute a not-yet-happening result on a temporarily not-giving-rise to a result so long as there’s an ability to give rise to a result. OK?
A presently happening tendency for the result. Two aspects, two parts of it: it’s temporarily not giving rise to the result, and it has an ability to give rise to a result.
Participant: A tendency for me has the taste of there being something in the cause that… it’s the tendency that forms the result.
Dr. Berzin: He says that there’s a tendency findable — where? In the cause? The cause is no longer happening. In what?
Participant: Where does the tendency come from?
Dr. Berzin: Where does the tendency come from? The tendency comes from the… When the presently happening cause ends, perishes, then what does it produce? It produces a no-longer-happening of a cause, and it produces a presently happening tendency for a result. Does the no-longer-happening of the result exist already in the presently happening cause? No. The no-longer-happening doesn’t exist inside the presently-happening. Does the tendency for a result presently happening exist already in the presently happening cause? No.
You could probably impute on the presently happening cause a not-yet-happening of a tendency for a result. The tendency for the result is not presently happening at the time when the cause is happening, is it? It has to finish happening in order to have a tendency for a result.
If the action is not complete, as in the example of: I say a lie to you, and either you don’t hear me, or you do hear me and you don’t believe me. Then it’s not complete. What does complete mean? Complete means that it will give the fullest amount of result. If I don’t believe you or I didn’t hear you, then your action of saying those words has become idle gossip, idle chatter. It’s just stupid words that you thought had meaning and don’t have meaning. But even that is only complete when you’ve finished uttering it, you’ve finished saying those words. Is there a tendency for a result of idle chatter inside… I mean, this is how you analyze.
I say that “Jorge, you have horns on your head.” OK? If you believe me that you have horns on your head, then aside from being an idiot, I have lied. Right? If you don’t believe me, I’ve just said stupid words, so this is idle chatter. Now, what is inside those words? There’s nothing inside those words. Those are just sounds, aren’t they? You can say there’s a not-yet-happening tendency for a result. Is there an ability to give rise to a result imputable on the presently happening cause? Probably. I don’t know exactly. Probably.
But here what I’ve indicated is that ability to give rise to a result, which is an aspect of the presently happening tendency, or maybe the presently happening cause, but also the tendency for the result — that’s affected by many, many conditions. What does that mean? What’s the implication of that? The implication is that, depending on the conditions, different results will follow from that tendency. It’s not inherent in the tendency what’s going to happen as a result.
It has to be reasonable of course. As a result of saying to Jorge that “You have horns,” the result has to be in accord with the cause. It can’t be that I am reborn as a doorknob or a rug. I mean, this is silly. There has to be… You didn’t understand? That was a joke.
Participant: What’s that word?
Dr. Berzin: Doorknob is the thing that you use, that you turn…
Participant: Türknauf.
Dr. Berzin: Right. I’m reborn as a plastic bag. I mean, this is silly. There are these general laws of cause and effect, that the result has to be in accord with the cause. Why? I have no idea. Probably it’s just that’s the way it is.
But this is what’s very important, is that there is no… When you talk about a presently happening tendency for a result, that’s changing from moment to moment. What result can arise is affected by all the conditions that are going on, and that’s constantly changing; that’s nothing solid. The conditions are nothing solid. That affects the ability to give rise to a result, and that affects the tendency for a result, so that’s changing from moment to moment as the no-longer-happening of the cause gets older and older (in other words, it previously perished five days ago, five years ago, five lifetimes ago). All the conditions are changing, but there is a tendency; there’s a continuity.
Do you follow? You look as though you just got a headache.
Participant: Just a headache.
Participant: In a way, there are presently happening myriads of tendencies.
Dr. Berzin: Right. There’s presently happening myriads of tendencies, that’s right. And presently happening conditions are going on all along. Which conditions are going to ripen which tendency, and when, only a Buddha knows, because it’s so complicated. Only an omniscient mind could know that.
The point being that everything here is fluid. Everything is just imputable. You can’t find anything solid here at all. And yet it functions. When the conditions are complete, then in accordance with the conditions and in accordance with what tendency there is, there will be a presently happening result. Karma can be purified. You can apply all sorts of forces so that the result will be much weaker. You could commit the action over again, and the tendency gets stronger, and it may require less strong conditions for it to ripen. This is affected by so many things, what will arise. There’s a list I think of thirteen different factors that affect it: Do you do things that counteract it? Do you repeat it? Do you feel regret? Are you happy about what you did?
Thinking in terms of voidness, it allows you to understand cause and effect. This is Tsongkhapa’s point. It’s only because of voidness and nothing in here is solid — everything is affected by other factors, and everything is just imputable (nothing is solidly there) — that the whole thing can function.
You could have bondage (in other words, you just continue in samsara), or you could have liberation, because what happens is that if you eliminate the conditions — what ultimately is the deepest condition for the ripening of karma is grasping for true existence. We have this in the twelve links:
- You have a feeling of happiness or unhappiness (tshor-ba).
- Then there’s craving (sred-pa), which is to be parted from that unhappiness or to continue having that happiness or, when it’s neutral, not to let it go, not for it to change. That’s the craving link.
- And then you have an obtainer attitude (len-pa), which is to grasp for the true existence of me in all of this or of the object that we experience happiness or unhappiness with. It activates the presently happening tendency for the result, which then becomes throwing karma, for example; it will throw us into another rebirth.
What’s underlying craving and any of these obtainer attitudes is grasping for true existence, truly established existence. If you get rid of that, there are no longer any conditions that will allow us to say there is an ability to give rise to a result. If there’s no longer an ability to give rise to a result, that is a crucial aspect of a presently happening tendency for the result. You can’t say that it’s temporarily not giving rise to a result, and you can’t say there’s a not-yet-happening of a result, because there can no longer be a presently happening tendency for the result.
That’s how you get rid of these karmic tendencies, by eliminating any condition that would give any possibility for it to give rise to a result. Because to say that there’s a tendency for a result, a presently happening tendency for a result, based on the previously-having-perished cause — it can only be imputed if there was a presently happening cause in the past and there can be a presently happening result in the future. If there can no longer be a presently happening result in the future, you can’t say that there’s a presently happening tendency for a result.
To impute a tendency for a result, it’s necessary that there be the possibility to give rise to a presently happening result. You can get rid of the presently happening result. You can never get rid of the absence of the presently happening cause — it’s always going to be absent after it’s finished, and it always will no longer be happening — that’s not the problem. The problem is the tendency to give rise to the result.
Do you follow?
Participant: It’s an affirmation phenomenon (sgrub-pa). The presently happening tendency for the result is an affirmation phenomenon.
Dr. Berzin: The presently happening tendency for the result is an affirmation phenomenon, correct. And the absence of the presently happening cause, the no-longer-happening of a cause, the previously-having-perished of the cause, the absence of a presently happening result, a not-yet-happening of a result — all of those are negation phenomena (dgag-pa).
Participant: The presently happening tendency for a result could be validly cognized already also by aryas or only by Buddhas?
Dr. Berzin: The presently happening tendency for a result, could it be cognized by an arya (Skt. ārya)? I’m not quite sure, because there’s this thing of being able to… At different bhumis, you’re able to… There’s this list. I forget the numbers. But the first bhumi (Skt. bhūmi): a hundred lifetimes in the past and a hundred in the future. Then the next one I think is a thousand in the past, a thousand in the future. It’s limited. Only a Buddha can know it unlimited.
Unless you knew everything, just by seeing the tendencies in a person — by knowing the tendencies, I should say — you wouldn’t necessarily be able to know definitely what the result will be, because you’d have to know every condition that will affect the ability to give rise to the result that this person will experience in their aggregates, their five aggregates, until the result happens, until there’s a presently happening result, could you? The conditions are enormous in every moment.
Participant: It’s almost scary to think how many negative tendencies we have.
Dr. Berzin: Right. It’s very scary to think how many negative tendencies we have and how many positive ones. From beginningless time, there are more negative ones, because we have had not knowing (ignorance) much more than knowing, haven’t we?
Participant: I don’t remember.
Dr. Berzin: You don’t remember. By the way, we have a similar mechanism here for memory, but I won’t go into that.
Participant: Next time.
Dr. Berzin: Next time.
Participant: But at least we are reborn as humans, no?
Dr. Berzin: At least we’re reborn as humans? There is no guarantee of that. You remember the analogy of the blind turtle in the ocean coming up once every hundred years and coming up in a place where it sticks its neck through the yoke of a golden yoke that’s floating on the sea and being blown by the wind of karma? It’s not very certain that we’re going to be born as a human. As Geshe Dhargyey said, we’re only on a very short holiday from the lower realms, and that’s our normal residence.
But this is very, very important to try to understand, maybe not in as much detail as this, but to get the general idea that there is nothing solid at all about cause and effect, and it’s only because there’s nothing solid about it, and nothing findable and determined in it, that…
Participant: Not even the tendency?
Dr. Berzin: But a tendency for which result? Do you have a tendency for every possible result? Now you get into quantum theory. Is there a tendency for every possible result? Well, within reason. I don’t think you could say for every possible result. I mean, there’s no possibility of the result being I’m going to be reborn as a plastic bag for saying to Jorge he has horns on his head.
Participant: But he has.
Dr. Berzin: But he has. Doch, as you would say in German.
Participant: You emphasized the point that the no-longer-happening of the cause is a non-static phenomenon.
Dr. Berzin: Right. The no-longer-happening of the cause is a non-static phenomenon, according to Prasangika — to Tsongkhapa. This was a radical change.
Participant: Gelug Prasangika.
Dr. Berzin: Right. Radical change.
Participant: Could you say that this is also the case not just because like we’re counting all the time and have watches that measure this stuff, but also because generally the basis for imputing the five aggregates and the mere me, and so on, is different in each moment?
Dr. Berzin: Right. You can also say…
Participant: The frame of reference when saying the no-longer-happening of causes…
Dr. Berzin: Right. That is exactly why I changed the diagram. The no-longer-happening of a cause is changing from moment to moment because it’s imputable on the mental continuum, which is imputable on each moment of the five aggregates. The mental continuum is not happening each moment. I mean, it’s not that the whole thing is happening in any moment. It’s just you have moment to moment to moment. That’s all that’s happening. The mental continuum is changing from moment to moment, and what the no-longer-happening — what it is imputed on is changing from moment to moment. But that’s also the case of the absence of the presently happening cause, so you can’t say that that’s a sufficient reason for saying that the no-longer-happening changes from moment to moment. The voidness of the mental continuum is also imputable. That doesn’t change from moment to moment. That’s a difficult one, isn’t it?
Participant: What is it good for, to make this distinction to call it a non-static phenomenon, the no-longer-happening of the cause?
Dr. Berzin: What is the purpose — I’m repeating your question — of Tsongkhapa stating that the no-longer-happening of the cause is changing from moment to moment, that it’s non-static? Why did he change this from everybody before him saying that it was a static phenomenon? That’s a good question. I must confess that I knew that at one time, and it doesn’t come instantly to my mind. It’s in that article on what a Buddha knows when a Buddha knows the past, present, and future. Let me think for a moment.
Participant: I have it written here.
Dr. Berzin: I wouldn’t be able to find it so quickly. Let’s look that up. And try to remind me. We’ll come back to it next week. I may forget, so if you send me an email — because I’m going to Romania the rest of the week, I will be quite occupied with other things.
Participant: Maybe to make the connection between the no-longer-happening of the cause and the presently happening tendency.
Dr. Berzin: I think that this is certainly part of it. It is much easier to connect the presently happening… Oh, this is what it was. I see. Yes, yes, this is the reason, that a presently happening cause… What is it? The no-longer-happening of a cause… No, that’s not it. The no-longer-happening of the cause doesn’t give rise to the presently happening result. That doesn’t work. I don’t know. I’ll have to look this up. I’m sorry.
Participant: I’m thinking further about a Buddha again. What he really knows for sure are the conditions that make one aspect of the presently happening tendencies. If he knows the conditions, he knows the tendencies.
Dr. Berzin: A Buddha knows all the conditions that are going to happen, and therefore a Buddha knows… I mean, it is not manifest though. What a Buddha knows now… Let’s try it again: The future…
You see, you never have these words in Sanskrit or Tibetan. You don’t have past and future. Past and future, from our way of conceptualizing it, sounds as though the future is happening now — it could be happening now somewhere, light-years away — or the past is happening now. If you think about it, now we get into stars. This is a hundred light-years away, so what we’re seeing now — what are we seeing now? Are we seeing the presently happening light of the star? No. We’re seeing a continuum of it, a previously-having-perished; it’s a no-longer-happening.
Participant: I think that’s giving the name of the result to the cause.
Dr. Berzin: It’s giving the name of a result to the cause, but we’re not seeing the absence. How could you see the light from the star? Maybe this is a good example of why it has to be non-static. What are you seeing?
Participant: Is it a presently arriving light?
Dr. Berzin: You see the presently arriving light, right, in a continuity from the no-longer-happening of that emission. It emitted the light. That perished, that stopped, that moment stopped. But then there’s a continuity of it, of a presently happening light, on the basis of the previously-having-perished explosion of the star.
Participant: But isn’t it the light which arrives now this way?
Dr. Berzin: The light arrives now. I mean, this isn’t an exact analogy, but we’re just talking about the no-longer-happening of the explosion of the star.
Participant: But during this no-longer-happening of the emission, it has the tendency of going to multiple places, but also, one of these, the tendency to go to Earth, into my eye.
Dr. Berzin: Right. I’ll just repeat that. From the perishing, or the ending, of the explosion of the star, there is a… What can we say? A tendency for it to be seen…
Participant: Multiple tendencies.
Dr. Berzin: For it to be seen by many, many others. Then we have a no-longer-happening one light-year ago, a no-longer-happening of two light-years ago, etc., etc. I mean, I’m using the terminology very loosely, because a light-year is obviously a distance, not a time. But it could be seen by anybody. That no-longer-happening will go on and on, and it will still have the tendency to be seen by those who are even further apart, further distant.
Participant: But you don’t see the no-longer-happening. You see the happening from the…
Dr. Berzin: Right. You don’t see the explosion.
Participant: No, you don’t see the stopping of it.
Dr. Berzin: You don’t see the stopping of that explosion.
Participant: You see the past emission.
Dr. Berzin: You see the past emission, but the past emission didn’t exist when the thing exploded. What are you seeing? You’re seeing a presently happening light on the basis of the no-longer-happening of the original explosion which perished a hundred light-years ago.
Participant: There’s no now that we can perceive, because each feeling… I mean, this goes through nerves and stuff like this.
Dr. Berzin: Right. There’s no now that we can perceive. Exactly. It is imputed. It’s imputed on the passage of things through your nerves and so on. It takes time. Only one microsecond happens at a time. Exactly. Now you’re starting to understand.
Participant: Yes.
Dr. Berzin: Don’t get proud. I’ll hit you with a stick.
Participant: This is no Zen Buddhism.
Dr. Berzin: This is no Zen Buddhism. Ah. It’s a no-longer-happening Tibetan Buddhism, and now there was a tendency for it to become a Zen Buddhism. And it’s dangerous — I have this stick, this pointer.
Participant: I’ve got a water bottle.
Dr. Berzin: You have the water bottle ready, aha. OK.
Coming back to the Buddha: What a Buddha sees… I mean, a Buddha doesn’t see a presently happening result, because the presently happening result is not happening now in this moment when a Buddha sees it. What a Buddha sees is a nonmanifest — it’s not manifest. It comes in the category of these totally imaginary forms (kun-brtags-pa’i gzugs) of what a Buddha sees. That’s just a way of translating it. I don’t know how to translate it. Imaginary sounds like it’s not real, and not real is a terribly loaded term.
Participant: It’s an accurate understanding of a not-yet-happening result.
Dr. Berzin: It’s an accurate understanding of a representation of a not-yet-happening result. A Buddha would see that, given these conditions, there’s a not-yet-happening of this kind of result, result A, and given different conditions, there will be a not-yet-happening result B. But then Buddha knows all the conditions that will cause each of the conditions to arise, and each of the causes, because each of the conditions is likewise affected by a million other factors.
The condition of you walking into the room when I’m here — that Jorge walked into the room so that I can tell him that he has horns on his head. How many causes are there that cause you to walk into this room? Quite a lot. Including that your mother gave birth to you. I mean, lots of causes. Many things could have affected that you didn’t come here. Like, for instance, there could have been a lot of traffic. Many things could have happened. There’s nothing firm that I was going to say the lie to you that you have horns on your head this evening, is there? But because of that, because everything is imputable — nothing’s sitting there already fixed from its own side — cause and effect works.
Participant: It’s difficult to imagine the Buddha doing all this without thinking.
Dr. Berzin: That a Buddha does all this without thinking? Now you have to define thinking. What does conceptual thought mean? It means in terms of categories. Buddha isn’t using categories.
Participant: But how do we know how a Buddha thinks?
Dr. Berzin: How do we know how a Buddha thinks? We don’t. We can just conceptualize it.
Participant: You always say a Buddha does this and this and this. You’re making statements about a Buddha’s mind.
Dr. Berzin: Right. We’re making statements about a Buddha’s mind based on what we read in the texts, which are a conceptualization of it, which is an approximation of it. If we go to other traditions, they will say it’s beyond words, beyond concepts. Thank you very much. Of course, it’s beyond words and beyond concepts, but can we communicate it at all?
Participant: Yeah, I wonder. Because it says so precisely, “This is how the Buddha perceives it.”
Dr. Berzin: I’m sorry, but it’s going back, way, way back — there are all the qualities of a Buddha, of a Buddha’s mind, of a Buddha’s compassion, of a Buddha’s speech. They’re all in the sutras. What does that mean? That means that Buddha probably said what the qualities were. In any case, we don’t have to understand what a Buddha understands. What we’re trying to understand here is how cause and effect works on the basis of voidness and how it couldn’t possibly work if things were established from their own sides sitting there fixed already. Because everything in this chart is imputable. It’s imputed. All that’s happening is moment to moment — and that’s made up of parts, in any case — so it is imputed, isn’t it? And it’s because of that that things can function. This is what it said here, that (this is Nagarjuna):
Anyone who, in understanding this voidness of phenomena, can thereby demonstrate (the conventional existence of) cause and effect is more amazing than amazing and more wondrous than wondrous.
If we can understand it… I’m just trying to give a chart that helps us to understand it. I’m trying to indicate that it’s not so simple, but I think that this gives us a clue of how to understand it. If I visualize it, I tend to think in terms of sort of an amorphous cloud in terms of the cause, in terms of the tendencies, in terms of the effect. Each of these clouds is being affected by a million different things, and there’s nothing solid about it.
That opens up all sorts of possibilities to change things. And it opens up the possibility of understanding that somebody came late. There can be zillions of causes why they came late, not just this one cause — “Ooh, they don’t like me anymore. They’re disrespectful of me.” This is ridiculous. That’s based on such a strong grasping for me, as if I’m the center of the universe and I’m the only cause for why things happen.
And guilt, making guilt out of “Ooh, I did this.” It was made up of so many parts, and it arose from so many conditions, and I acted on the basis of so many instincts and so many disturbing emotions and so many karmic urges. There’s nothing solid about it at all, so what am I guilty about? Nevertheless, one can impute something — and this is what Tsongkhapa says — you can impute that, OK, I made a mistake. He says it very clearly. He says:
We must see that no matter what (object our minds) have taken as the focal aim for our grasping for truly established existence,
The focal aim here is the mistake that I made — that’s what I’m focusing on — which could be imputed on what happened (I made a mistake). That’s the conventional thing. But it’s also a focal aim of our grasping for truly established existence.
He says:
what is conceptualized (by that mind, namely truly established existence as that object’s actual mode of existence) has not even an atom (of existence).
I made a mistake. Conventionally, yes — it arose, causes and conditions, and so on — we could label it a mistake. There’s a convention that it was a mistake. Others would agree it was a mistake. I’m not making it into “Oh, this horrible thing that I’m so guilty about.” Conventionally, OK, it was a mistake, but if I conceptualize it to be powered by itself as a mistake and then it’s sitting there, then of course I feel guilty, because I’m grasping to it as being something solid and I won’t let go of it. And I grasp to me as being the guilty one, and I won’t let go of that either. Then you have full-blown guilt, and it feels lousy.
Participant: But don’t we then run into the danger of excusing everything?
Dr. Berzin: No, it’s not excusing everything, because conventionally it was a mistake. I made a mistake. I got on the subway, the U-Bahn, in the wrong direction. It was a mistake. That’s clearly a mistake. I was confused. Surely that’s happened to you. It’s happened to me. You got on in the wrong direction. Conventionally it’s a mistake. Everybody would agree I went on in the wrong direction. Am I guilty? Am I the idiot — “Oh, I’m such an idiot. I’m so stupid”? This is ridiculous.
Participant: It has an effect.
Dr. Berzin: But it has an effect — therefore I am late for class.
Participant: Yeah. You end up coming late or whatever.
Dr. Berzin: Right. It had an effect. It happened. It was conventionally a mistake. Was I stupid and confused? Yes. Am I established from my own side as this idiot that can’t do anything right, and then I have low self-esteem about it? No, this is absurd. That’s how you dissolve all these things. You don’t deny conventionally that I made a mistake. But because of voidness, it arose from causes and conditions.
The tendency for the result — it can be changed. The result could be that I’m not allowed into the room. At my fitness club if you come more than five minutes late, they will not let you into class. You haven’t done the warm-up. They won’t let you in. Here what happens if you come five minutes late? I let you in. I could decide not to let you in. Rainer could have locked the door, and we don’t hear you. Many things could have happened. It all depends on the — on many things. Only two people could have shown up and I decided not to have class, and by the time you arrived it was all locked up again. Did that happen at the time of the cause, when you got on in the wrong direction? No. There’s nothing fixed.
Participant: Where is this terminology coming from? What’s the source for all these explanations?
Dr. Berzin: The source for all these explanations is… All these terms that I’m using here are translations of Tibetan terms, and I got this much more full explanation from Geshe Tenzin Zangpo, Serkong Rinpoche’s teacher, when I was in India a couple years ago. I mean, you’ll find this here and there, the pieces of this, in the various commentaries, but it would be very hard to find it put all together like this. I put it together.
Participant: From Geshe…
Dr. Berzin: Tenzin Zangpo. It’s in this article What a Buddha knows when a Buddha knows past, present, and future. All of this stuff. I’m just taking what’s in there.
Participant: I mean the name probably isn’t written there.
Dr. Berzin: Yes, it is.
OK, so let’s end here with a dedication. I hope this is a little bit clear. I don’t really want to go over all of this again, since it will take a whole class. But think about this. Tsongkhapa is saying this is one of the most crucial points in the understanding of voidness — not to negate conventional truth, that this arises from that, but to see that voidness makes it all possible.
Participant: Can you say two more sentences, or five more sentences, about the relationship between the no-longer-happening of the cause and the arising of the result, the presently happening result?
Dr. Berzin: Can I say something about the relation of the no-longer-happening of the cause and the presently happening result? When the presently happening result is occurring, we will still have a no-longer-happening of the cause.
Participant: For its arising, isn’t it like…
Dr. Berzin: For its arising, there has to be a no-longer-happening of the cause. The result can’t be simultaneous.
Participant: It’s represented as being the connection, or…
Dr. Berzin: The no-longer-happening of the cause… You see, what’s not clear here is the relation between the no-longer-happening of the cause and the presently happening tendency for the result. Both of them are… This is what I’m wondering whether the no-longer-happening of the cause is imputable on the mental continuum or if it’s also imputable on the me. I tend to think — since I haven’t seen it spelled out — it probably, like the tendency, is imputable on the me. You have both of these imputable on the me. Now, are they imputable on each other? This I don’t know. I’d have to look it up. Geshe Tenzin Zangpo gave all of this in the most quick, fast, super debate language, and it’s been very difficult for me to pull out the meaning from it. But I’d have to see what the relation is between the previously-having-perished, or no-longer-happening (these are equivalent), and the tendency.
Participant: Then the presently happening result that ripened from the tendency.
Dr. Berzin: The presently happening result arises from the tendency for the result. Right. The presently happening cause gives rise to the presently happening tendency. It also gives rise to the no-longer-happening. The presently happening tendency will come to an end when you have a presently happening result. The no-longer-happening will not have an end. They’re different. The presently happening cause gives rise to several things. When the presently happening cause perishes, when it ends, an absence of a presently happening cause will start to be the case. It’s a fact about the mental continuum. It doesn’t arise organically; it’s just a fact. OK? Good.
Participant: We can find this chart on the internet?
Dr. Berzin: Can you find this chart on the internet? This is a horizontal presentation. There’s a vertical presentation in that article, which is probably not as clear. It’s in the article in section level five — level five? I think it’s level five — of Fundamentals of Tibetan Buddhism: What does a Buddha know when a Buddha knows the past, present, and future? No. It would be level four, in the subdivision called Time. I believe it is in part four of that five-part article, because I looked it up in order to get this chart and draw it.
OK. Let’s end with the dedication. We think whatever understanding, whatever positive force has come from this, may it go deeper and deeper and act as a cause for reaching enlightenment for the benefit of all.
Let me add one more thing. The fact that all of these are imputable… We’re talking about the absence of the presently happening cause, the no-longer-happening of the cause, the mere me, the presently happening tendency for the result. All these things are imputable. Imputable means imputable by conceptual thought, right? However, you don’t have to actively impute it in order to say that it’s imputable. Why? Because these things are carried into future lives. What does that mean? They’re carried into future lives on the subtlest, clear-light consciousness. The subtlest, clear-light consciousness is more subtle than the conceptual level of mind. It’s not that you yourself are imputing it. It is imputable. Even though it is imputed by concepts, it has nothing to do with the presence of concepts and conceptual thinking in order to say that this is its mode of existence, that it exists dependent on what a mental label refers to. OK? That’s an important point.
Thank you.