Time and Karma

Continuing the discussion of the continuity of the mind stream

Back to my consideration of time and the “present moment.”

When we actually observe our experiences closely we discover we never really step outside of the present moment. The so called present moment is always just here. As Nagarjuna points out, our sense of past and future time is actually experiences of memory (past) and mental fabrications (future). We only ever experience NOW. But what does this mean for Buddhist teachings about karma (Sanskrit: action). According to this teaching, what happens in the “present” is a consequence of “past” moments and what happens in the present will have consequences for “future” moments. This is called karma, the consequence of actions, which is a core Buddhist teaching and much of Buddhist ethics is built on the reality of karma. But by following Nagarjuna’s way of thinking about time, how can we account for this? Again, following his view, our conceptual mind cannot resolve this problem, but by direct experience we find that phenomena, objects, etc. are not uncaused. Where does this leave us? And what does it indicate about the actual nature of a mind stream which appears to be a continuity of awareness over time?

I find that a helpful approach to these problems begins with shifting one’s perspective on one’s experience of the present moment. From the perspective of sense experience one might think of a field and focal points in the field rather than a multiplicity of things filling up the space of awareness in the present. For this metaphor I am indebted to Roger Ames and David Hall (DaodeJing: Making this Life Significant). As Nagarjuna points out, in actual reality what we take to be objects are actually empty of the solidity we project onto them. That is their emptiness nature. So if one perceives this about all the objects in a given moment of visual experience, for example, one will experience a single mass of intersecting shapes and colors rather than a group of objects. Focusing on one of these shapes/colors makes it stand out of the field. Hence the metaphor of field and focal points.

What makes this focusing naturally happen in our experience? It is generally a matter of habits motivated by a sense that things (focal points) are attractive, repellant or neutral. Even if we say that something is “interesting” rather than desirous or repellant, that could be considered neutral. And why are things attractive or repellant, causing them to arise as focal points out of the momentary field of experience? It is karma. Past experience, karmic causes, makes them stand out as focal points.

So we might say that karma is the description of how or why an aspect of the field comes into a focal point, becomes an an “object” in the present moment. But if there is only a present moment, how can karma be effective because in the absolute present there is no past or future.

Again, the resolution to the problem is a very close examination of the present. First off, in this close analysis there is no actual “present”, just a NOW. But in this case the idea of a present is useful, as seeking it focuses our attention on the NOW, which otherwise we are fairly distracted about by memories and thoughts of past and future. So if we penetrate deeply into the absolute NOW; what do we actually find? We find a uniform field without focal points. This is a matter of emptying our experience of supposed objects/focal points. And here is the resolution of the issues, which is labeled by Buddhists as the teaching of the Two Truths. From a position of not fully engaged in a total NOW we find objects/focal points which have causes and consequences, but when fully engaged in a NOW with the wisdom which empties it of focal points we find a mere objectless field of clarity and luminosity. This is called Ultimate Reality as contrasted with the Relative Reality of focus points in a field. So karma is to be found in the realm of Relative Reality but not the realm of Ultimate Reality. And the so-called continuity of the mind stream is also simply a matter of experience of the Relative rather than the Ultimate. The term “mind stream” is more or less a finger pointing at the time-bound continuity of Relative rather than the Ultimate.

Now again, this discourse might seem like mere fancy philosophical speech, and if one does not actually deeply observe one’s experience this will be a realistic conclusion. But if one DOES DEEPLY observe one’s experience of the NOW with the wisdom of emptiness, something quite different arises, and it is not mere philosophical chatter. In a sense it is indescribable, as all direct and un-cognitively mediated experience is in fact indescribable — because words are cognitive mediations. But for anyone who has had the experience it sort of reveals itself as being profoundly satisfying, peaceful and perhaps even beatific.