by Dalai Lama
Karmic Seeds and Latencies and Their Purification
Although the seeds and latencies of afflictions are different things with different functions, the seeds and latencies of karma are the same: they are the legacies of nonvirtuous actions and polluted virtuous actions that have the capacity to give rise to suffering and happiness in saṃsāra. Their fruits are ripening results, causally concordant behavioral and experiential results, and environmental results. Karmic seeds that cause rebirth in saṃsāra are true origins but are not afflictive obscurations. While they are not eliminated at arhatship, these seeds can no longer ripen because craving and clinging, the factors that stimulate their ripening, have been eradicated.
In the context of the ten paths of nonvirtue, the three that are done by mind — covetousness, malice, and wrong views — are afflictions, so when they cease they leave seeds of afflictions on the mind. The mental factor of intention that shares the same primary consciousness with those afflictions is karma, and that intention leaves seeds of destructive karma on the mindstream. The mental paths of virtue — noncovetousness, nonmalice, and correct views, which are not just the absence of covetousness and so forth, but mental factors that are the opposite of them — leave the seeds of those virtuous mental factors when they cease, and the intentions that accompanied them leave seeds of constructive karma.
In the chapter on fortitude in the Supplement, Candrakīrti speaks of the great adverse results that arise from one bodhisattva becoming angry at another. These range from the destruction of virtue created over thousands of eons, to suffering experiences, to obstructions preventing advancement to higher paths. Even when neither the angry person nor the person he is angry with are bodhisattvas, anger can destroy the roots of virtue. The Questions of Upāli Sūtra (Upāliparipṛcchā Sūtra) speaks of three levels: the roots of virtue being “diminished, thoroughly reduced, and completely consumed.” “Diminish” means the increase of roots of great virtue dwindles, but the pleasant results are not destroyed. “Reduced” means that the pleasant results are minimal, and “completely consumed” indicates that the virtuous karma cannot ripen. With the last, the potency of the seed to bring pleasant results is destroyed, not the seed itself. These seeds of virtue are those from the collection of merit — created by generosity, ethical conduct, fortitude, and other compassionate actions. They are not seeds of virtue from the collection of wisdom, which are created by meditating on selflessness and emptiness, and by arranging for texts on these topics to be taught.
The Ākāśagarbha Sūtra says that transgressing the root bodhisattva precepts destroys previously created roots of virtue, and Śāntideva’s Compendium of Instructions warns that spending time with benefactors with the motivation to receive gifts from them, bragging that we possess spiritual attainments that we lack, and abandoning the Dharma by giving incorrect teachings but saying they are the Buddhadharma also destroy our roots of virtue and impede our progress on the path.
The question arises: The Teachings of Akṣhayamati Sūtra (Akṣayamatinirdeśa Sūtra) says that just as a drop of water that falls in the huge ocean is not consumed until the ocean dries up, so too merit derived from actions motivated by bodhicitta and dedicated for awakening are not exhausted until awakening. If this is so, how can anger destroy this virtue?
The analogy of the drop of water in the ocean indicates that the merit of those actions is not exhausted when its effects arise; that merit will continue to bear fruit until awakening. Nevertheless, these roots of virtue may still be harmed by anger.
In the case of purifying nonvirtue, when we ordinary beings apply the four opponent powers, we impede the ripening of seeds of destructive karma by diminishing, reducing, or completely consuming their potency, as described above. Depending on the strength of the four opponent powers, the potency of the seed may decrease or the coming together of the cooperative conditions for the seed’s ripening may be delayed. If purification is strong, the potency of the seeds — their negativity (pāpa) — is disabled, although those deactivated seeds remain on the mindstream, like burnt rice seeds that remain in the ground. The seed is there but it cannot bear a result even if suitable conditions occur. Purification by means of the wisdom directly realizing emptiness, which begins with the path of seeing, is the most powerful purification. It thoroughly destroys those seeds of nonvirtue.
Vaibhāṣikas and Sautrāntikas say that it is not possible to purify seeds of destructive karma completely; some result must be experienced. As proof, they recount a sūtra passage attesting that the Buddha experienced pain after stepping on a thorn due to a subtle remaining karmic seed. Similarly, they say that Maudgalyāyana’s tragic death in which he was beaten by robbers was due to previous destructive karma, the seeds of which remained on his mindstream even after he attained arhatship. Cittamātrins and Mādhyamikas, however, assert that all seeds of destructive karma can be completely purified so that no suffering ever results from them.
Seeds and latencies are abstract composites; they are neither form nor consciousness. Of the five aggregates that are the basis of designation of a person, they are included in the fourth aggregate, the aggregate of miscellaneous factors. While the actions and afflictions that create seeds and latencies may be virtuous or nonvirtuous, the seeds and latencies themselves are neutral.
Having-Ceased
Most Buddhist schools explain the process by which karma gives rise to its results in terms of karmic seeds: affirmative phenomena that have been placed on the mindstream. They do this because they consider the having-ceased (naṣṭa) of an action to be a permanent phenomenon and, as such, unable to produce a result. Prāsaṅgikas, however, assert that it is the having-ceased of an action that connects the action with its results.
What is a having-ceased? During the time an action exists, it disintegrates in each moment. All Buddhist schools accept that the disintegration or ceasing (vyaya) of a thing is a function of the causes that gave rise to that thing. An action ceases or is ceasing, and when its ceasing is complete, it has ceased. At that time, the action is no longer happening in the present; it is past. For example, we have the intention to speak and our voice continues for a while; during that time the intention and our voice are ceasing. But when they both stop, they have ceased and are now past phenomena. Most Buddhist schools say that the having-ceased that follows the disintegration of a thing is permanent, uncaused, and therefore unable to produce an effect.44 Nāgārjuna, however, says that just as the disintegration of an action — its act of ceasing — is a function of causes and conditions, so too is its having-ceased. The having-ceased of an action is a state of destruction that remains — the state of the action’s having ended. This having-ceased has the potential to bring a result in the future. According to Prāsaṅgikas, a having-ceased is an impermanent phenomenon, which regenerates in each moment until it produces its result in the future.
In his commentary to Nāgārjuna’s Sixty Stanzas of Reasoning, Candrakīrti explains why the having-ceased of an action is a conditioned phenomenon and a functioning thing. Just as the process of arising (jati) — the arising or production of a thing from its cause — is a conditioned phenomenon, in the same way, the arisen (T. skyes pa), which is the accomplished act of arising, is also a conditioned phenomenon. Therefore since the disintegration of a thing is a conditioned thing, the having-ceased, which is the complete act of disintegration, should also be a conditioned phenomenon. Being a conditioned phenomenon that arises due to an action, the having-ceased of that karma is able to connect that action to its result, which will occur in the future.
Both a karmic seed and a having-ceased remain when an action is completed. Since the action is impermanent, it ceases and is followed by a having-ceased. The action also itself gives rise to a seed, which has potency. Both the having-ceased and the karmic seed contribute to the arising of the karmic result.
Thus the potential of the physical karma of prostrating is passed on in two ways: as a latency or seed that is left by the me
ntal factor of intention that motivated that physical action, and as a having-ceased of the perceptible form that is the physical action of prostrating. The second link of dependent origination, formative action, for the action of prostrating consists of both of those.
After an action has finished, its karmic seed is placed on the mental continuum. The having-ceased of a karmic action is present with the mental consciousness. However, we don’t say it was placed on the mental consciousness. Both having-ceaseds of karmas and karmic seeds bear their results when the proper conditions have assembled.
What happens to the karmic seeds and having-ceaseds when an ārya is in meditative equipoise that directly realizes emptiness? At this time, her mental consciousness is unpolluted because it is totally absorbed in emptiness with no conceptual elaborations at all. An unpolluted mind cannot be the carrier of polluted karmic seeds and having-ceaseds. Buddhist tenet schools have different explanations, but Candrakīrti’s is the most coherent. He distinguishes between the temporary and the long-term bases of seeds and latencies. The temporary basis is the mental consciousness. After the action has ceased, the seed is placed on the mental consciousness. The continual or long-term basis is the mere I — the conventional self that exists by being merely designated. This self is a mere convention; it carries the karmic seeds and so forth when an ārya is in meditative equipoise directly realizing emptiness. Although the mere I is not findable when searched for with ultimate analysis seeking its ultimate mode of existence, it still exists nominally. It goes from life to life, carrying with it karmic seeds as well as the seeds and latencies of afflictions. Just as the mere I, which is the basis of the seeds and latencies, cannot be found by ultimate analysis, neither can the latencies, seeds, and having-ceaseds. They, too, are empty of inherent existence yet exist nominally and dependently.
REFLECTION
1. What are karmic seeds and how do they function?
2. What are seeds of afflictions and what are latencies of afflictions? How do they differ?
Other Types of Latencies
Other types of latencies influence our experience as well. One type involves dreams, memories and mental objects. For example, we see a person during the day, and the latency of seeing him is placed on our mindstreams. Then at night we dream about that person. Similarly, memory is influenced by latencies; we see a flower and later remember it. In this case, the visual consciousness has placed a latency on our mindstreams. When we do meditation retreat, we may notice that as our minds become quieter, memories of people and events that we have not thought about in years surface. These are due to latencies.
Sense faculties also leave latencies on the mindstream that make it possible for new sense sources to arise in future lives. Beings born in the formless realm do not have physical forms and thus lack sense faculties. However, after they die from that realm and are born again in the desire realm, the latencies of the sense faculties that have been on their mindstreams become the substantial cause for their five sense faculties in the desire realm.
Latencies and Ideas in Other Religions and in Psychology
Those of us exposed to ideas in non-Buddhist faiths and in modern psychology often ask if latencies are comparable with notions in these other disciplines. What follows are some general thoughts on two ideas: original sin and the unconscious.
Original Sin
Some newcomers to Buddhism ask if our discussion of afflictions and karma being carried from one life to the next resembles the doctrine of original sin taught in other faiths. These teachings are very different. Original Sin is taught within a theistic framework. In brief, according to Augustine, God created the world and the first humans. Adam and Eve were disobedient, and subsequent generations of human beings inherited this sin through the act of procreation. Jesus was born to overcome human beings’ innate tendency for evil and sin and to reconcile them with God. Cessation of sin depends on the great sacrifice Jesus made.
In contrast, in Buddhism there is no notion of a creator or an initial act of disobedience. Ignorance, afflictions, and saṃsāric rebirth have existed beginninglessly. They continue in the mindstream of an individual and are not inherited by his or her biological offspring. The Buddha held that sentient beings’ basic nature is neutral and pure; it is not inherently defiled and sentient beings have the potential to become fully awakened. Afflictions and karmic seeds are adventitious and can be completely removed by the internal method of meditating with the wisdom realizing emptiness. Each of us must cultivate this wisdom ourselves; it is not something another being, however divine, can do for us.
In theistic religions, sentient beings can approach God but not become God. The Buddha said that by following the correct path, sentient beings can thoroughly cleanse all seeds and latencies of afflictions and karma from their mindstreams. Each of us has the potential to become a fully awakened buddha.
The Unconscious
Spoken about by Sigmund Freud just before the turn of the twentieth century, the unconscious is thought to be an area of the mind composed of feelings, ideas, animal-like instincts, fears, and hopes that are not allowed expression in conscious awareness. These things may manifest and express themselves in other ways, such as dreams, anxiety, psychosomatic illnesses, and phobias. Some unconscious material is inhibited or modified by the superego in the process of socialization, enabling us to live with others more harmoniously.
Carl Jung hypothesized the existence of a collective unconscious that consists of thoughts and feelings common to humanity. This unconscious material is often expressed in myths, legends, fairy tales, archetypes, and religious stories that contain common themes. The collective unconscious is sometimes seen as a storehouse of ancient wisdom passed on from generation to generation.
The preconscious is the area of the mind having thoughts and feelings that are below the level of immediate conscious awareness but that can come into conscious awareness through the focusing of attention. Do any of these psychological theories compare to the Buddhist notion of consciousness and the seeds and latencies on it?
The Buddhist explanation of mind does not contain an exact equivalent to the Western notion of the unconscious. In an attempt to draw some possible parallels, we may speak of the Buddhist view of different levels of consciousness — coarse and subtle. The Buddhist descriptions of underlying afflictions and latencies of afflictions may also have some resemblance to the Jungian idea of the unconscious. However, none of these precisely match either the psychoanalytic meaning of the unconscious or the more common use of the word unconscious to mean lack of conscious awareness, thought, or intention.
According to the Buddha, all phenomena are potentially knowable by our minds. Much of what psychology views as unconscious or preconscious material becomes fully conscious as our minds become clearer through meditation. As our mindfulness and introspective alertness increase, we see aspects of our minds — such as preconceptions, fears, assumptions, feelings, and emotions — that have been present but not previously perceived or acknowledged. Furthermore, advanced practitioners gain certain superknowledges (psychic powers) through cultivating single-pointed concentration and can directly perceive previous lives and other events not consciously known before. In this sense Buddhism might say that everything in our experience of this and previous lives is preconscious in that by focusing our attention and concentration in specific ways, it may be consciously known.
Virtue, Nonvirtue, Merit, and Roots of Virtue
The principal cause of happiness is virtue and the chief cause of suffering is nonvirtue. Being able to discern the difference between these two so that we can practice the former and abandon the latter is essential for making wise choices in life and for accomplishing the path to liberation and awakening. In general, virtue is that which brings an agreeable result and nonvirtue is that which brings a disagreeable result. Here virtue includes constructive intentions and actions. These leave seeds of virtue on the mindstream, and these seeds bring agreeable results.
<
br /> While mental states and actions may be virtuous or nonvirtuous, the seeds of karma and latencies of afflictions are neutral. This is because virtue and nonvirtue are linked to our intention; an action becomes virtuous or nonvirtuous primarily due to our intention. Seeds and latencies, however, do not have that strong active intentional element and are therefore neutral. Thus we speak of the seeds of virtuous karma, for example, not the virtuous seeds of karma; we talk about the latencies of nonvirtuous afflictions, not the nonvirtuous latencies of afflictions.
Similarly, the pleasant or unpleasant ripening results of virtue and nonvirtue are neither virtuous nor nonvirtuous. Being born in a healthy human body is a result of virtue, but the body itself is ethically neutral. Possessing wealth is an agreeable result of the virtuous action of generosity but being wealthy itself is neither virtuous nor nonvirtuous.
What does virtue refer to? Asaṅga’s Compendium of Knowledge speaks of five types of virtue: