Lam-rim 46: Purification of Karmic Potentials; Eliminating Activating Factors

In this discussion of karma, we’re speaking about the factor of certainty – namely, whether or not it is certain that a karmic potential will ripen. According Vasubandhu’s and Asanga’s systems in common, there are three possibilities: 

• Whether a karmic potential will ripen in a specific time – in this lifetime, in the immediately following next lifetime, or in some lifetime after that 

Again, we’re talking about when a karmic potential will begin to ripen, not when it will finish ripening. That’s because one karmic potential can produce not just one, but a whole series of results that can ripen in many lifetimes. Also, many karmic potentials can combine to produce one result or many results. 

Unlike Vasubandhu, Asanga asserts a fourth possibility:

• Whether a karmic potential will ripen at all 

We saw that, according to the Hinayana schools in general – so, Theravada, Vaibhashika and Sautrantika) – all the negative karmic potentials need to ripen before one’s death in the lifetime in which one becomes an arhat, a liberated being. There are certain exceptions to that, though. For instance, after one has achieved the patience stage of an applying pathway mind – the path of preparation – one can no longer be reborn in a worse rebirth state. Those karmic potentials are finished. However, from a Mahayana point of view, it is possible to get rid of all the negative karmic potentials so that they don’t ripen at all. 

“Devastate” versus “Destroy”

Then we looked at the positive karmic potentials. Although there were some Chittamatra schools within Mahayana that said the so-called roots of virtue (positive force) could be severed – in other words, completely destroyed – most Mahayana schools disagree. When they say that anger can “destroy” positive karmic potential, they’re referring to when we have directed strong anger toward a bodhisattva and we feel no regret. Also, the positive potential they’re referring to here is one that was not dedicated to enlightenment and was not accompanied by an understanding of voidness. Nevertheless, the positive potential would not be eliminated completely; it would just be weakened severely. “Devastated,” then, is the way we would translate the word “destroyed” here, meaning that its ripening would be postponed for a very, very long time and the results would be much, much weaker. 

So, we can’t completely get rid of our positive karmic potentials. On the other hand, the negative karmic potentials we can completely get rid of. We can be purified of them. Purifying negative karma, or negative karmic potentials, doesn’t mean that we clean the potentials so that they are better; rather, it’s that we purify or cleanse our mental continuums of those potentials so that we no longer have them. 

Purifying the Negative Karmic Potentials

Then we discussed how we can get rid of the negative potentials completely. The way to do that is to get rid of any possibility for the potentials to ripen. This has to do with the non-conceptual cognition of voidness. If we have that and we have that all the time, then the unawareness and the disturbing emotions that activate the karmic potentials will no longer arise. This refers, within the 12 links of dependent arising, to clinging (thirsting): clinging to happiness – “I don’t want it to go away” – which of course involves exaggerating the positive qualities, etc.; clinging to unhappiness – “I’ve got to get rid of it” – exaggerating the negative qualities, etc.; or clinging to a neutral feeling – “May it just continue. May I be in some sort of oblivion with no feeling.” It also refers to an obtainer attitude. There’s a whole list of obtainer attitudes, but the strongest one is grasping for a solid “me” that’s experiencing all of this happiness, unhappiness, and so on. These activate the karmic potentials so that a throwing karmic impulse arises and that propels the mental continuum into experiencing further rebirth – so, further unhappiness, tainted happiness, etc. Therefore, if we get rid of the factors that activate the potentials, we can’t say that the potentials still exist. 

We had a big discussion about what this actually means: we’re talking about a temporal sequence that has a cause at one end of the sequence and a result at the other end. A karmic potential is a potential for the arising of a result and is an imputation phenomenon on the basis of a mental continuum. It arises on the mental continuum with the arising of a karmic impulse for a karmic action. The potential then continues on the mental continuum until it finishes giving any result or until it is purified away. Up until that time, we can say that there is a potential, a presently-happening potential, for a result – a not-yet-happening result – to arise. If, however, it becomes impossible for a presently-happening potential ever to give rise to a presently-happening result, then we can’t say that there is still a potential for a result to arise. 

For example, we could say that from the time I was born up until the time I turn 60-years-old, there is a potential to live to be 60-years-old. But if I die at the age of 50, we can no longer say that there’s still a potential to live to be 60. That potential is no longer there; it can no longer be seen to exist as an imputation phenomenon on my mental continuum. In technical language, there is a non-analytical stopping (so-sor brtags-pa min-pa’i ‘gog-pa) of that potential. Another example we used: If a tree that has the potential to bear fruit is locked up in a dark place and not given water – so, it’s deprived of the necessary conditions for it to produce fruit – we can’t say that it still has a potential to produce fruit. 

Then the objection was raised that as long as the tree is still alive, there is always a potential. We then clarified that: When we talk about potentials in Buddhism, we’re not talking about something that exists with its result already existing inside it, as if the result were just sitting there, waiting to pop out – which is the Samkhya position in Indian philosophy, a simplified version of the Samkhya position. Rather, we’re talking about an imputation phenomenon. Then we got into a long, more technical presentation of this – that what we’re talking about is, in fact, the mental continuum of a person and that only one moment of that continuum is happening at a time. 

On the basis of each moment of the mental continuum, there are both a no-longer-happening cause – namely, the karmic impulse for a karmic action that gave rise to the karmic potential – and a presently-happening potential for results. One facet of that presently-happening potential is its ability to give rise to a result when all the circumstances are complete: it could give rise to a result. On the basis of that ability, there is the imputation phenomenon of the not-yet-happening of a result. That not-yet-happening result, however, isn’t sitting inside this ability as if it already existed. As imputation phenomena, none of these phenomena are solidly existent. They’re not forms of material phenomena, nor are they ways of experiencing something, states of mind, like happiness or unhappiness. They’re non-congruent affecting variables that can neither exist nor be known independently of their basis for imputation. 

Likewise, we have to consider that that aspect of a potential that could give rise to a result, which is not yet happening, can only give rise to a presently-happening result when the not-yet-happening conditions are all assembled.  So, it gets a little complex in terms of no-longer-happenings and not-yet-happenings.

The point is that we can’t say that there is a potential for a result to arise if a potential’s ability to give rise to a result when all the circumstances are complete is no longer a facet of it. Without that facet, we can’t say that there is still a potential. That’s the way that we rid the mental continuum of karmic potentials. A potential cannot exist as an imputation phenomenon on the mental continuum if a presently-happening result can no longer arise. At that point, all we can say is that there is a no-longer-happening cause and a no-longer-happening potential. But we can’t say that there’s a presently-happening potential. OK? 

That is a summary of what we lost due to our technical problem.

To deal with our negative potentials prior to having non-conceptual cognition of voidness all the time, what we first need to do is to openly admit whatever destructive things that we’ve done. We have to recognize these destructive things, and we have to admit openly that doing them was a mistake. 

Admitting Our Mistakes Is Not the Same as Asking for Forgiveness 

Participant: Do you tell them to someone else, or do you just tell them to yourself or to the Buddhas and bodhisattvas?

Dr. Berzin: This is a point that I forgot to mention. Openly admitting our negativities, our past mistakes, is usually translated with the word “confession” (bshags-pa, “confession”). However, it doesn’t mean that we are confessing to anybody and asking for forgiveness. That is not the issue here. The issue is just being honest and admitting that what we did was a mistake. So, then the question is, do we admit it just to ourselves? Do we admit it to the Buddhas and bodhisattvas?

Participant: Or do we admit it to another person.

Dr. Berzin: Well, it’s very interesting. We could, certainly, admit it to the Buddhas and bodhisattvas, but not in the sense of “forgive me.” The Buddhas are omniscient anyway. They know what we’ve done, so there’s no necessity to admit it to them. I think this is just about being honest with oneself. The word for “openly admitting” in Tibetan just means “opening up” – like splitting a log open with an axe. There’s nothing in the word that means communicating to anybody. So, it just means that we are acknowledging that what we have done was a mistake. Now, there are various sutras, like the Sutra of Golden Light, in which one lists all the possible negative things that one has done. We certainly can recite those sutras – and those are recited – but I don’t think that that means that we’re asking for forgiveness. 

What does forgiveness imply? Forgiveness implies that somebody didn’t forgive us, that they in a sense have a grudge, and that now we want them to forgive us. So, whom would we be asking to forgive us? The Buddhas don’t have grudges. It’s not that there’s anything wrong with forgiveness – and certainly, if others apologize to us, we need to accept their apologies. That’s one of the bodhisattva vows: to accept apologies from others. And although the vow doesn’t use the word “forgive,” it certainly implies forgive – not to hold a grudge. 

But is it necessary to admit one’s mistakes to others? Say I stole something from you. I could certainly tell you that I’m sorry. And that’s not discouraged. But even in the bimonthly ceremony in which the monks and nuns openly admit their mistakes, they don’t actually get up and recite to everybody, “I did this, and I did that. Forgive me.” So, I think it’s just being honest with oneself, acknowledging, “That was a mistake.” If it makes you feel better to tell it to somebody, fine. But one has to think: What are we seeking when we seek forgiveness, and what is the philosophical implication behind being forgiven?

Participant: I find that it is helpful to admit some things to other persons, say to a friend, without necessarily asking for forgiveness. I just say, “I did such and such a thing, and I regret it.” 

Dr. Berzin: This is a very interesting point. You’re saying that it makes you feel better when you actually verbalize to somebody else that “I did this and this, which was a mistake. I’m sorry that I did that.” You’re not asking for the other person to forgive you; you’re just asking, perhaps, for the other person to either understand or to acknowledge. 

Does Verbalizing Our Mistakes Make Our Regret More Real?

Although on a conventional level, it can certainly make us feel better, I would challenge that by asking whether telling someone that we’re sorry establishes that our regret truly exists. “If I verbalize it, then it’s real.” That’s what’s behind, for instance, wanting the other person to always say, “I love you.” If they say, “I love you,” then we imagine that actually makes it real. There are people that feel compelled to always say “I love you” to the other person. “I have to express it: I love you, I love you, I love you. And I want you to say it.” If we analyze, we can see that what underlies that is thinking that saying or hearing it makes it real, gives it true existence. Does verbalizing something establish the true existence of something? This is really the deeper philosophical question behind it. Think about it. 

I’m reminded of the line from Alice in Wonderland, “What I say three times is true.” So, saying it three times makes it true, makes it correct. There’s a lot of wisdom in Alice in Wonderland!

[meditation] 

Participant: I think that sometimes when I want to make some kind of apology, it’s so that the other person understands me. But when I think it’s good to do so, it’s more that doing so helps me to digest the situation, to understand the causes, and not to feel the effects – not to cry about it.

Dr. Berzin: This is a very good point – that verbalizing your regret is not so much about establishing the true existence of your regret or about making you feel better, although these aspects might be there; rather, it helps you to clarify your thoughts. And that is very true. It’s like going to a psychologist. Speaking about your problems to somebody and verbalizing your mistakes helps to make things a bit clearer.

Participant: And it can help you to clarify what led to the act, to understand what the causes were, so that you can avoid doing that again in the future.

Dr. Berzin: Right. That’s certainly there. 

I think that if we are going to verbalize our faults and mistakes to someone else, we need to be clear about our motives. I think what’s also very, very important is that the other person be willing to listen to us. Often it happens that – to use the English the expression – we just dump all our dirty underwear on the other person. In other words, we tell them all this stuff that is so unpleasant to hear. They don’t really want to hear it, but being very inconsiderate, we just dump it on them. That, I think, we have to be very, very careful about, especially when the other person is someone we’re in a relationship with.

Participant: What I want to do is to get rid of all kinds of negative potentials. It’s only by working with the methods given by Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha that we can really get rid of them. Trust in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. 

Dr. Berzin: Right. Following the methods that are outlined by the Buddha – openly admitting our mistakes, feeling regret, etc. (we haven’t gone through the four opponent forces, yet) – actually does help very much to get rid of negative potentials. 

We will be talking about what level of negative potentials Vajrasattva meditation gets rid of. It doesn’t get rid of the negative potentials completely. Just to give a preview, since we’ve lost a bit of time today: All that Vajrasattva meditation does, even if it’s done perfectly, is to weaken the negative potentials very, very much so that the probability of their ripening in some future lifetime approaches zero. But it doesn’t actually reach zero, so the potentials could still ripen way, way in the future in something very, very minor. 

The point is that our minds still make appearances of true existence. Because they do, there’s still the possibility of grasping for true existence, which means there’s still the possibility of being motivated by the disturbing emotions and building up more negative karma. That negative karma could get so strong that we rejuvenate, in a sense, the negative potentials that we had weakened so much with Vajrasattva. So, Vajrasattva is certainly a very, very effective method, but it’s not the complete solution. Still, it gives us a breathing space.

But just to finish with our topic of forgiveness – we’ve stated that it can be helpful to verbalize our mistakes to somebody else, particularly if they are willing to listen to us and if we don’t do it to excess. It’s very difficult, actually, to find somebody that’s willing to do that, because it can be quite depressing. Also, verbalizing our mistakes can sound like we’re complaining, “How bad I am. How bad I am.” Additionally, it’s hard for somebody just to listen and not to respond. And often, when the other person does respond, they don’t quite know what to say. “Oh, that wasn’t so bad,” or whatever. What are they going to say? 

Participant: I did it with a friend on a regular basis because the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order have that kind of set-up. If people wanted to, they could come together and talk. We did it every week or every second week. The role of the person who listened was just to listen and then to say, “I heard what you said.” If we wanted, we could talk about the causes, what led to our making the mistake and so on. I didn’t find it depressing at all, neither when telling nor when listening.

Dr. Berzin: Or the person listening could also, like a therapist, I guess, ask you, “What do you think the causes were,” to help draw you out. But here, the two people have agreed to do this.

Participant: Yeah. I find that it helps to refine one’s ethical sense.

Participant: Is this a Tibetan method?

Dr. Berzin: No, it’s from the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, which is a Western adaptation of Buddhism.

There’s certainly nothing wrong with doing it like that. And certainly, it can be helpful. In traditional Buddhist methods, one deals with it on one’s own in meditation, contemplation, etc. It’s there in the Seven-Limb Prayer, for instance.

Participant: I just told you about it because you said it might be depressing to tell others about our mistakes.

Participant: But I thought that in other traditions, the sojong (gso-sbyong; a bimonthly ceremony of monks and nuns for the purification and restoration of their vows) is done in such a way that people openly say, “I did this and this.” They confess that they weakened or broke this or that vow. Isn’t that right?

Dr. Berzin: As far as I’ve understood, when they have sojong in the big monasteries, where four thousand monks are doing it all together, each one doesn’t get up individually and confess. 

The Thirty-Five Confession Buddhas

Participant: I found that when I was waking up at five in the morning every new moon and full moon and taking refuge in a kind of ritual atmosphere and making the prostrations to the 35 Buddhas, it was really very, very helpful.

Dr. Berzin: This is very good. I had forgotten about this. I’m sorry. That is a practice in which one opens up and admits to the 35 Buddhas. Yes, definitely, there is that practice. I don’t remember the exact words that one recites, but I don’t think there’s something like “forgive me.”

Participant: You are working with your body, speech and mind. You clean them. You’re making prostrations; you’re regretting. The Buddhas are your guru. It’s really like you are talking to the guru.

Dr. Berzin: The term that’s used in Tibetan is that the Buddhas are “witnesses” to this. They witness. So, it’s like somebody hears it, which is like what you were saying earlier. Somebody witnesses it. As I say, though, one has to watch out for the danger of thinking that it makes the confession truly existent: “If I didn’t confess to someone, it wouldn’t actually exist.” But if one thinks of it in just a conventional sense, it can be OK. Also, with the 35 Buddhas, you’re not intruding on them or dumping something on them that might, for an ordinary person, be very burdensome to hear about.

Participant: And they are neutral. They’re not like friends.

Dr. Berzin: They have complete equanimity. They’re not like friends: they don’t have an emotional involvement with you.

Participant: And Buddhas can inspire you.

Dr. Berzin: Right. You can get inspiration from them and so on. So, in a sense, there are not the potential drawbacks of using a good friend to do this with.

Participant: There are very different methods used in therapy to do this.

Dr. Berzin: But to be able to hear various people’s problems without taking those problems home with you requires a very strong person, even as a therapist.

Participant: In my case, I had tried everything – psychiatry, everything. But with the method of the Buddha, you don’t go around things: you really go to the point.

Dr. Berzin: She’s saying that working with psychiatrists, psychologists, and so on is certainly not as effective as working with Buddha’s methods. I would agree with that.

[meditation]

There’s a further point that I wanted to add about verbalizing things. It’s very interesting how, when something good happens to us, something really wonderful, we want to share it with somebody else. Likewise, when something terrible happens to us, we want to tell somebody about it. That, also, is interesting to analyze. Why is it like that? Does verbalizing it make it more real? Is it that we’re so happy or so sad that we can’t really contain those feelings within ourselves? What really is going on? And is it any different from what we were just speaking about – wanting to tell somebody else when we’ve made a mistake? This is just a thought to leave everybody with. 

Participant: I had another thought. Like one Rinpoche said, it’s good, at the end of the day, to think about what we did that was good and what was not so good.

Dr. Berzin: That’s a standard practice from the lojong texts – to make a review at the end of the day. We review the positive things we did and rejoice in them and review the negative things we did and feel regret, promising to try not to repeat them the next day. Yes, that’s a very helpful, standard practice. 

Good. Thank you.