Merits vs Karma

[DSFriend]

I thought of posting this topic here for us to discuss the aspects of merits and karma as I've heard these words being used interchangeably in teachings and loosely in conversations. What's important is to learn the causes which will bring about our desired results.

Are merits and karma created the same way?

What are the differences?

What are the similarities?

[Barzin]

I have learned that karma can be exhausted whereas merits can not.  Merits is like a saving bank account, whatever virtuous deeds that we do, the merits will be deposited into that merits saving bank.

whereas if you have the karma to get a slap from a person, then when the negative karma ripens, you will get the slap.

So we need a lot of merits because our amount of negative karma is accumulated lives after lives...  therefore we need to conduct more virtuous deeds  to gain merits.

[diamond girl]

This is indeed tricky and I have heard many explanations which I must admit does confuse me. After much listening and reading, my interpretation to karma and merits is like accounting. Karma is accumulated over many life times, and this we inherit into current life. So, Karma is a done deal.

Merits to me is like points we can collect through doing virtuous acts. These positive merits are used to counter the effects of the negative karma which we have accumulated. If we have the karma of being in a car accident, but if we have done good and accumulated positive merits, then the accident when it happens will not kill us.

The merits can deplete if we do not replenish it. This means that if we do harmful and bad acts we will accumulate negative merits which will wipe out the positive. This I make an analogy to assets and liabilities. However, it does not mean that if we got positive merits we can calculate and do bad acts just enough not to wipe out positive merits. This is because Karma is still the driving force behind the merits system. Have you heard this before: "The karma is so bad that they do not even have the merits to do good acts." Scary...then again very liberating when you understand how it all works.

[Aurore]

What I understand is that karma is like money you earned. You earn it and then you spend it, it's gone. Where else merits is like a fixed deposit. You earn it, it accumulates and it will not deplete nor exhausted and you can bring it forward to your next life. You can accumulate good karma by doing good actions whether it's for good motivation or not. So if you work and earn money, your return is you get to spend it on a holiday. After a holiday, it's gone.

You can only accumulate merits if you do a good deed with pure motivation. So when we consciously try to do a good deed to increase our merits, it will only be good karma    It's not so easy. But what I heard is that you perform a good deed until it becomes second nature to do good deeds with pure motivation. Guess it's a loooonnggg way to go people. 

[KhedrubGyatso]

I think we need to understand their meaning and distinctions correctly first.
The word merit is a general term for the positive potential power  one gets when engaging in  virtuous actions. This can be derived from donating to charities, helping others, acts of bravery etc. One can be decorated or cited for meritorious service in the army, or society at large etc.
The ‘true’ merit that Buddhism refers to  must be an action motivated at least by the mind of renunciation. In the Mahayana tradition , this would be bodhimind  and the wisdom mind realizing emptiness.
Any merit, no matter how virtuous the action, if derived without the above 3 types of motivation is considered mere karma or worldly merit. Hence when we see the term merit and karma used interchangeability it is becos the merit is worldly and  whatever results will ripen within samsara. They may bring positive results and happiness  in this present life ,but they will not get us out of all suffering and bring permanent happiness.
Hence ordinary merit will exhaust itself  once they ripen as good fortune in this life. If we generate bodhimind , our merit becomes transcendental and will not be depleted like the plaintain tree. Instead the fruits of true merit when dedicated to enlightenment will multiply and become inexhaustible.
The Chinese language have a clear definition of the two types of merits and do not have to use the word karma to explain worldly merit .
There is also a story to illustrate this. Bodhidharma was asked by Chinese emperor of Liang state whether he had accumulated vast merits from all the temples, schools and good things he built for his people. Bodhidharma replied ‘ none !’ … and fled for his life ! Bodhidharma is of course referring to true merit not the worldly kind.

[vajrastorm]

Yes, KG has given a clear definition of 'merit' and of  'good/positive karma'.I just wish to add that merit is the positive potential imprinted in the mind-stream that is the result of a virtuous action that has been motivated by a pure motivation that is free of the eight worldly concerns. Merit is also accumulated in conjunction with the three Fundamentals of the Path - Renunciation, Bodhicitta and the Correct View of Emptiness.   

[WoselTenzin]

I thought of posting this topic here for us to discuss the aspects of merits and karma as I've heard these words being used interchangeably in teachings and loosely in conversations. What's important is to learn the causes which will bring about our desired results.

Are merits and karma created the same way?

What are the differences?

What are the similarities?

There has always been much confusion over the difference between the karma and merit.  It is very important for us to understand the distinction as it will inspire our practice towards the right direction.

A similar virtuous action can create karma or merit depending on the motivation of the subject. For merit to be created our motivation for a particular action must be free of the 8 worldly concerns whereas if we are motivated by any of the 8 worldly concerns, we will only be creating karma. 

Merit will not be exhausted until we reach enlightenment meaning it is something that will create all the necessary conditions for our life in order to lead us to the path of enlightenment.  For eg in order to achieve enlightenment we need to have a healthy body, meet a guru, receive the Dharma and have all the necessary conditions for practice.  Merit will provide all that until our final goal of enlightenment is achieve.  Since merit lead us to the highest goal, all other goals below is provided for.  Therefore, accumulating merit is like exploiting the our virtuous actions to its fullest potential but this can only be achieve if our motivation is not tainted by the 8 worldly concerns.

Having said that, merits accumulated if any must be dedicated towards our enlightenment immediately. Merits not dedicated in such a way can be destroyed by the emotion of anger. By dedicating our merits towards enlightenment, we sealed our merits from destruction so that it can be support our practices until we reach enlightenment.

Karma on the other hand is exhausted once the effect is ripened.  For eg, if we wish for wealth, once the effect is ripened and we received wealth, the karma is exhausted.

Merits are extremely important because it fuels the opening up of our Dharma imprints in our mindstream and facilitates our realization and attainments.  If we have a lot of merit, we will quickly transform and gain attainments.  Our path out of suffering and to happiness and eventual enlightenment will be quicker, shorter and a lot less painful.

[hope rainbow]

Yes, KG has given a clear definition of 'merit' and of  'good/positive karma'.I just wish to add that merit is the positive potential imprinted in the mind-stream that is the result of a virtuous action that has been motivated by a pure motivation that is free of the eight worldly concerns. Merit is also accumulated in conjunction with the three Fundamentals of the Path - Renunciation, Bodhicitta and the Correct View of Emptiness.   

Some replies to this topic do confuse me and sometimes even contradict my understanding of merits.
This is how I understand it, so please correct me if I got it wrong.


KARMA

positive or negative karma is created very simply.
Hurting others (or our self) creates causes for us to be hurt in the future.
Helping others (or our self) creates causes for us to be helped in the future.

The mind doing these actions is of great importance.
Example: if I give with the motivation to get back, it is an act of generosity that is tainted with self-concern, and the positive karma obtained is worldly karma, that is: I create the causes to receive in the future but I will receive conditionally (example I will get a good salary from a boss that wants something in return).
Another example: I help an old woman to cross the street, but I do it because I want to look good in front of my girlfriend would have a result similar to the cause and I would receive some help in the future that is not sincere and therefore not reliable.

There is no such thing as worldly karma, for karma is worldly by nature, let it be positive or negative, so we just need to say "karma", to say "worldly karma" is redundant.


MERIT

Merit is karma that is not worldly, so here there is no such thing as "worldly merit", for that is contradictory.

As Vajra Storm says it very clearly:
" [...] merit is the positive potential imprinted in the mind-stream that is the result of a virtuous action that has been motivated by a pure motivation that is free of the eight worldly concerns.
Merit is also accumulated in conjunction with the three Fundamentals of the Path - Renunciation, Bodhicitta and the Correct View of Emptiness."

The problem is very simple:
Who is motivated free of the 8 worldly concerns and acts in alignment with the 3 Fundamentals of the Path? Who?
Certainly not me, and for as long as I have not achieved at least some high level of bodhicitta, my mind cannot create merit.
That sounds like bad news, uuuhhh!!!


THE MERIT'S FIELD

Fortunately, we have access to merit's fields.

Our field is polluted by ignorance, delusions, self-grasping, attachment, and so it can only grow karma, not merit.
But, good for us, our neighbour has a pure field, for it is the field of a Buddha, free of the 8 worldly concerns, and this kind neighbour (a Buddha), is offering us an opportunity to make merit grow in his field. In a way we "tap" from the field of a Buddha to grow merit.

How do we do that? Very simple again: we participate to the activities of a Buddha.

If we have a Teacher (a Guru), we help him, we serve him, we make offerings to him (why do you think he is asking for our help, because he needs it? No, it is a service that he is giving us).
So when we offer food to even our Guru's pet, we collect merit, let's think of that.

Other things we can do: clean the temple's floor, offering candles to Buddha images, sponsoring the Sangha, requesting for Dharma teachings, prostrating to Buddha images, doing pujas, doing retreat, participating to this forum, etc...
Even if we do that with motivations that are not sincere, we create merits because we participate to a Buddha's activities.

In this light, imagine how meritorious it is to take ordination vows!


DEDICATION OF MERITS

Merits are not a bank account that is guaranteed never to bankrupt.
We can loose our merits with just a moment of anger, for anger is like a drop of cyanide in a healthy soup, no matter how healthy the soup was, the poison changed its nature.

Then how can we keep our merits while our minds are not yet safe from anger?
We apply this two laws of karma:
1. if you want something give it away,
2. if you want it to come back much more than what you gave, give it away with a mind that does not expect it back, you give it away with the only mind of benefiting somebody else, no expectations.

this is why we dedicate our merit, and this is why we should dedicate it with a conscientious effort of focusing on the benefit of others not us.

Hold on... When we dedicate, we also dedicate to our own enlightenment! Isn't that self concern?
No, it is not, because the only reason we seek enlightenment is to be able to help others, this is bodhicitta.


That is how I understand karma, merit, merit's field and dedication.

[shugdentruth]

Is it fair to say that karma is an opportunity to generate merits??
What I have gathered from reading the above, since karma is set and everything that happens to us is actually not a coincidence but our karma. We should react best we can with our karma to generate good merits. This good merits will improve the karma in the coming days. Eventually, when we have exhausted our negative karma, we have the opportunity to gain enlightenment. Does it work that way??

[hope rainbow]

Is it fair to say that karma is an opportunity to generate merits??

I understand merit can only be generated through the power of enlightened activities.
Is dealing with our karmic forces an opportunity to create merit? Maybe if it is within the realm of activities of a Buddha.
But usually, when we go through our bad karma we get at making it worse because of habits.
Example: someone yells at me, and I yell back. Thus I created further karmic causes to be yelled at and reinforced my habit. Now, if I don't yell back, I may diminish the karma of being yelled at, but does that generate merit? I don't think so, though it does reduce the karma of being yelled at and diminishes my habit of yelling-back-at.

What I have gathered from reading the above, since karma is set and everything that happens to us is actually not a coincidence but our karma. We should react best we can with our karma to generate good merits.

Again, I think merits is a very special and powerful form of karma that is linked with Buddha-Dharma-Sangha. If these 3 Jewels are not involved, it remains within the workings of karma only.
Though by reacting in wiser ways (and not yell back), we definitely get closer to wisdom if even by a notch, and may create the karma to find more wisdom until we find the enlightened wisdom.

This good merits will improve the karma in the coming days.

Merit gives us access to methods to deal with karma, and even manipulate it so as to move forward on our spiritual practice.

Eventually, when we have exhausted our negative karma, we have the opportunity to gain enlightenment. Does it work that way??

The way I understand it is that we do not exhaust negative karma, we exhaust karma (negative, positive and neutral) because we have removed the root cause: self-cherishing and enlightened our buddha-nature.
But I think there are many stages in between, where karma becomes a tool to our practice, merit being an essential part of that "karma-manipulation."

Forum friends, please correct me if I got it wrong.

[shugdentruth]

So if a person yells at you, he must be upset due to something you have done or something he has perceived you have done. That would mean that the karma is created. As a result, you do not yell back at him, you diminish the karma. If you continue by apologising and perhaps saying a few more things to improve the yeller's mood, would that generate any merits?? Karma is created that some one screams at you, you do not yell back and even make the yeller happy. Will that generate good merits??

So if a buddhist does good deeds, he gains merits. If a non buddhist does good deeds, he gets good karma? I don't understand this part. Does merits only manifest if you are a buddhist?

Is there no difference in positive, negative or neutral karma? Is it how we conceive the karma that makes it negative, positive or neutral? Back to the example, if some one yells at me. 1. If I go all crazy and yell back = the person yelling at me was negative karma. 2. I just sit there and do not react = the person yelling at me was neutral karma. 3. I say sorry and buy him a beer to cheer him up and learn not to make people upset again = the person yelling was positive karma.

Do I even make sense here?? hahahahaha.

[hope rainbow]

So if a person yells at you, he must be upset due to something you have done or something he has perceived you have done.

This is how I understand it to work:
If someone yells at me, it is because I have created the causes for that person to yell at me in the past.
And for that I must take responsibility.
The cause is not only immediate, the cause can be far away in the past for something I have done towards somebody else, and maybe I don't even remember, maybe I did not even realize.

If I don't understand that, I miss the point in karma, and I have this BIAS scenario taking place:
1. that person yells at me even though I did nothing, or even though I have been nice,
2. thus I am being yelled at for no good reason,
3. I get upset,
4. I retaliate (I yell back).

If I am fortunate to have come across teachings on karma, I may be able to watch my mind, not fall in the trap of self-righteousness and anger and react differently:
1. that person yells at me,
2. I am getting disturbed by that experience, I feel unhappy,
3. It must be that I have made someone else feel like that sometime in the past (this is karma),
4. Now i know how this feels, it is not a nice experience,
5. I regret having made others feel like this in the past,
6. The least I can do is trying not to make the yelling person in front of me feel just as I feel now by retaliating (yelling back), for I know now, this is not pleasant and I don't wish it on anyone,
7. i also do not like this experience, how best to react to it so that I don't have to experience this again,
8. I calm my mind down,
9. I think of other ways to react than yelling back.

That would mean that the karma is created.

When the person yells at me, the karma is experienced, not created.
(though the karma that I experience was created -by me- in the past).
Then the way I react to this will create a karma, positive, negative or neutral.

As a result, you do not yell back at him, you diminish the karma.

If I don't yell back the karma of "being-yelled-at" diminishes indeed.
But for that to be truly positive, it is best that I do not let anger rise in my mind, for it is possible to not yell back and still have anger. The "not-yelling-back" better be the result of having my anger countered.
In fact, it is totally possible to keep silent as a result of great anger...
The state of mind matters greatly.

If you continue by apologising and perhaps saying a few more things to improve the yeller's mood, would that generate any merits??

There might be a need to apologize, there might be no need to apologize... I think this a case-by-case thing.
I think it is good that we have the heart to apologize, but then we should also find out if apologizing is helping the yeller of if it is comforting the yeller in wrong views.
But I believe that if we can manage to improve the yeller's mood, we have created the karma to be helped later when/if we yell again, then someone will try to calm us down instead of yelling back at us.
So we experience again what we have made others experience.

Karma is created that some one screams at you, you do not yell back and even make the yeller happy.
Will that generate good merits??

That generates good karma, unless it is done taking place within enlightened activities, then it generates merit (thus if it is done so as to abide with one's refuge vows, then it creates merit).

Example 1: I owe money to a friend, my friend gets angry because I have not paid back yet, he starts yelling. I don't yell back and instead I try to calm him down. My motivation is not to upset further a creditor. The activities done with such motivation remain in the realm of karma only. (Though we may debate that because of my refuge vows, this is merit anyway?)

Example 2: My teacher shares teaching about karma, and ask of us to watch our behavior when encountering such situations. Then, when the situation happens and I don't yell back because I recall a Dharma teaching (or my refuge vows), and maybe I even talk a little about karma to the yeller, then, I beleive we can start talking about merits.

So if a buddhist does good deeds, he gains merits.

If good deeds are done in conjunction with a merit's filed, then I say yes.
(see post above for "merit's field")
If good deeds are done in accordance with one's precepts or vows, I say yes.

If a non buddhist does good deeds, he gets good karma? I don't understand this part. Does merits only manifest if you are a buddhist?

To my understanding, no.
For I do not believe that enlightened activities are exclusive to Buddhism (The Dalai Lama himself has met greatly realized beings in other religions, he mentioned some ascetics in Spain that made him change his views about this -dixit Robert Thurman on a you-tube video I saw a long time ago).
I believe that they may have other names for it in other religions.
ALL religions align to at least one same thing: KARMA.
It may not been called that, but the teachings align when it comes to our actions.
There is no religion that says: "Yell back when someone yells at you, you'll feel better."
No religion says that.
But all religions say: don't kill, don't lie, don't commit sexual misconduct, don't hurt people, etc...
For me, Buddhism is the best and that is why I practice Buddhism, but for someone else, Christianity or Islam, or Hinduism, etc.. is the best and so they should practice what they think is best, just as I do when i practice Buddhism.
There is no religion that is the best if nobody is there to recognize it as the best FOR THEM, not "the best" as "opposed" to other religions, that does not make sense to me.
Thus when I see a Christian recitating AVE MARIA's, I think of that Christian as someone creating merits too.
And I ask the forum here, what do others think of that?

There is a topic on this already: "CHRISTIANS AND MERITS/ENLIGHTENMENT", good to read it and participate.

Is there no difference in positive, negative or neutral karma? Is it how we conceive the karma that makes it negative, positive or neutral? Back to the example, if some one yells at me.
1. If I go all crazy and yell back = the person yelling at me was negative karma.
2. I just sit there and do not react = the person yelling at me was neutral karma.
3. I say sorry and buy him a beer to cheer him up and learn not to make people upset again = the person yelling was positive karma.

Wow, would there actually be no difference between positive, negative and neutral karma, because it is only so in my perception? That is quite a question...
I feel like saying this: did I hurt others in the past? Did they feel pain? Did they feel anguish, fear, hopelessness because of my actions? If they did, was it just a projection? And if it was, does it make their sufferings irrelevant? I don't think so, fear is real, pain is real, anguish is real. Same goes for feeling we may give to others such as hope, self-worth, love, recognition, etc... All this is real, it cannot be simply reduced to mind projections, for that is negating the experience, and the experience is real.

The way I react to the karma is different from "the karma I experience" (*).
The person yelling at me is a karma that I experience.
The way I react to it will create a new karma to be experienced in the future.
The difference depends upon how I make the person feel, but most importantly of my state of mind: "is my action or reaction motivated by anger, desire or ignorance?" For it must be, otherwise karma is not created.

(*) though there is also a karma experienced that is like an habituation. By yelling back at people and simply yelling at people again and again I create the karma for me to be very familiar with that behavior and I make it very difficult not to "yell-back". In this instance, my karma is that I find it very difficult not to get angry and not to yell at people...

Do I even make sense here?? hahahahaha.

Shugden Truth, you make me think... I like that, this is debate...
Read the chapter on Karma in "The Joyful Path" of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, I found it to be very clear, especially when read together with the same chapter in "Liberation in the palm of your hand" by Pabongka Rinpoche.

[shugdentruth]

Dearest Hope Rainbow,

Firstly, thank you so much for your response. Your very wise replies has really got me thinking too. You have been very patient and concise with me. 

I would like to add my opinion to the part where you mentioned about sometimes not having to apologize because one does not want to encourage another in their wrong views. I feel sometimes, it is very important to win the heart of a person. Even if he is wrong in his wrong view, i feel its still necessary to apologize. The person with a wrong view will always have the view he has. As Galileo Galelei once said : 'You can never teach a man anything, you can only guide it to find it within himself'. Being inspired by that wise advice. I feel its most important to earn the respect and love of a person before you can guide him to have his wrong views corrected. So I think its important to win the person over first before we can guide them. Apologizing is always flattering to the other persons' ego. Its like having to be wrong to be right.

To compliment your comment about merits being created whether or not the person is a buddhist. You have made me realize that buddhism is really not so much a religion but a wholesome way of life that will bring true happiness. Because buddha was just a man like all of us. He made the effort to do virtue, he was brave enough to reach within himself to find the truth. Was kind enough to share it with all of us. Thank you lord Shakyamuni. Tayatha Om Muni Muni Mahamuni Shakyamuni Ye Soha.

Please comment on this. I really appreciate these exchanges. 

[hope rainbow]

Dearest Hope Rainbow,
Firstly, thank you so much for your response. Your very wise replies has really got me thinking too.
You have been very patient and concise with me. 

My pleasure really.
Thank you for entertaining my thoughts and making me think, I appreciate your posts very much.

You brought up 2 new topics that would be worth starting anew really:
1. apologies,
2. Buddhism as a philosophy.

I would like to add my opinion to the part where you mentioned about sometimes not having to apologize because one does not want to encourage another in their wrong views.
I feel sometimes, it is very important to win the heart of a person.
Even if he is wrong in his wrong view, i feel its still necessary to apologize.
The person with a wrong view will always have the view he has.
As Galileo Galelei once said : 'You can never teach a man anything, you can only guide it to find it within himself'. Being inspired by that wise advice.
I feel its most important to earn the respect and love of a person before you can guide him to have his wrong views corrected.
So I think its important to win the person over first before we can guide them.
Apologizing is always flattering to the other persons' ego.
Its like having to be wrong to be right.

Dear Shugdentruth,
I like what you say above, for it cares for the other person.

IS MY APOLOGY HELPING THE OTHER PERSON?

Yet, I still think that sometimes, apologizing is not the best way, though I don't mean this to be mainstream or apply in general. Mostly, we should apologize of course.
Though sometimes, it may happen that not apologizing has a more beneficial effect on someone's mind, for it might make them think.

For example, if someone ALWAYS receives apologies from EVERYONE, then it might make that person think.
There is no right and wrong here, only a matter of skillful means I think.

I remember once I was travelling back from a place where there had been an international military reunion of some kind, and the plane was so full I actually got upgraded in business class.
There there were military high ranking people from different countries, some big shots obviously.
One of them, travelling with an attendant realized that his attendant was not seated next to him, so he went towards the man who was seated next to his attendant and asked if he would exchange his seat with him. That man was seated at a window and declined, saying that he would prefer to keep his window seat.
I saw that with my own eyes.
What happened was simply flabbergasting! The military high ranking guy SUDDENLY had his blood boiling, his eyes injected with fury and he literally yelled at the man that never in his life had he encountered such rudeness.
He yelled like how you would expect a military person to yell, with power, with articulation, with... HABIT, but I can tell you his anger was real.
The whole business class cabin turned its attention to the event and the air hostess had a hard time to calm him down and even had to threaten to disembark him if he did not calm down.

Obviously this person is so used to never be refused anything, he is surrounded by people who's duty is to say "yes sir". And when that happens to someone who does not have wisdom, then it is possible that the person is transformed in a monster of self-righteousness.

So I say, in this instance, and if I had been the person seated at the window, I still would not apologize, for it would simply not help that person.
Would we agree on that one?

We may disagree actually, because the only reason I would see it would be beneficial to apologize (in that case) is if that apology brings about something else, a conversation for example, something that can help that man come down from his high horse and think deeper.

This brings me to my second point:

IS MY APOLOGY SINCERE?

I think this answers this debate on apology, and I am sure we will agree on this, because it is exactly what you are saying in your post.
I'll just rephrase it here with my words.

How sincere am I when I apologise?
In other words, what is my motivation?
on a scale of 1 to 10 (*), how well does my apology score?

(*)
1 = I do it with only my interest in mind
10 = I do it only with the other person's interest in mind
scale 10 = sincere  /  scale 1 = not sincere (rather hypocritical)

Let's take a few examples:

I am at the back  in a lift full of people, and I want to go out and I say "sorry", "sorry" so that people move out, how does that score?
Can I translate this with: "get the $#@&* out of my way people"
We often even mean it with the tone we say "sorry" in a situation like this.
Though you might say, this is not really related to an apology.... Maybe not but it uses its vocabulary, right?
Are we bad people when we do that? That's really not my point, all I am trying to do is analyse how my mind works.

Another situation, I am in a shopping center, I look at a display and I take a step back to have a better look. As I do that I walk -full on- on someone's foot behind me, hurting that person.
The moment I turn back, and without even seeing that person yet what is my train of thoughts?
I don't know about yours, but my train of thoughts is this: "ohooo, I am in trouble" (notice the I).
Do I really worry about the person's foot? No, I don't, it's only a little bobo anyway right!
I worry about how much trouble this could bring me!

The proof of that is here: I will apologise with little effort or with great effort depending on the trouble I imagine that I am in. If the owner of that foot is a tall muscle man with dark eyes, or if it is the guy sweeping the floor, or if it is a policeman!

With the policeman I would apologise with my best looking "humility and apologetic face", I might even offer to get him some doughnuts...

If it is the guy sweeping the floor, I would not even be surprised if it is HIM that apologise for putting his foot under mine... sighhhh...

For those of us that mark "1" on the scale, they would even be upset with those people that happened to put their feet under theirs... sighhhhhh....

When I apologise to my wife / husband / partner, why do I do so?
Do I want something?
Do I want them to look at me with respect again?
Do I want them to come back?
Or am I concerned about how they feel?

Of course some of us score better on that scale 1 to 10, and I might even think that I am better than that right, but does anyone score 10?

How sincere is my apology?
Do I apologise to get out of trouble, or because I really care for the person in front of me?

To compliment your comment about merits being created whether or not the person is a buddhist. You have made me realize that buddhism is really not so much a religion but a wholesome way of life that will bring true happiness.
Because buddha was just a man like all of us.
He made the effort to do virtue, he was brave enough to reach within himself to find the truth.
Was kind enough to share it with all of us.
Thank you lord Shakyamuni. Tayatha Om Muni Muni Mahamuni Shakyamuni Ye Soha.

I agree with your comment that Buddhism is a wholesome way of life that will bring true happiness, though I would like to debate your comment that Buddhism is not so much a religion.

Buddhism CAN BE less than a religion, it can, but ultimately that would be missing the point.
Buddhism can help people to deal with anger, with jealousy, with disappointment, with attachments, with finding a relativity in what we experience, etc... It can help their relationships, their working environment, etc...

And I think a lot of people, especially westerners, find Buddhism attractive because of these aspects and they do not focus so much on a) rebirth, b) karma, c) enlightenment, d) rituals, e) even Buddhas.
In fact, I have met people that leave that to "THE MONKS."

When we treat Buddhism like that, we call it a philosophy - not  a religion.
And I think it is okay, because the people that I have heard talking about Buddhism in this way are often people that would not want to even look at a Buddha statue if they thought of it as "religious."
So at least it allows them to take a bit of the teachings in their lives and create imprints and merits to receive more teachings and understand / practice them deeper in the future.

So I never debate with them in the way I debate here about it, I say, yes, Buddhism is a philosophy (even if we know it is more than that, it also is a philosophy for if it is more it can be less too).
I also know of people that have a fascination for Buddha statues as decorative objects, and when I meet these people I also encourage that practice of Buddhism (now reduced to an interior design exercise), for it is better than nothing and it is guaranteed will trigger something in the future.
This is why I am personally not against the "BuddhaBar thing".

Buddhism is a religion because it deals with more than this life / this body.
This is common to all religions, it defines it, religion is supra-mundane.
If we remove the aspect of past and future lives (or at least a future life - as thought in some religions), it becomes mundane, it becomes a philosophy, it becomes worldly.

This is very difficult to do with monotheistic religions because we can't remove GOD from the teachings.
So they have more difficulties "becoming philosophies".
But with Buddhism it starts with a human, Buddha Shakyamuni, on a journey to enlightenment, and as you say, it makes the Buddhist teachings relevant at every stage of the progress of that human going towards enlightenment.

Having said that, I would love to call Buddhism a science though (**), because for me it is a science, and I say the most advanced of all scientific research.
But where we are now, it is more appropriate to call it a religion, and sometimes a philosophy.

(**)
In sanskrit there is no word for "religion", other than "Dharma".
And what is Dharma? It is the exposition of the laws of the universe, laws that have been tested, meditated on , realized and proven.
The only difference with science is this: we are not suppose to hear it from the mouth of the specialist and then believe it, we are supposed to hear it and then prove it to ourselves through inner contemplation, analysis, practice and realisation.
The proof is obtained there, not from a thesis.
I am my scientific laboratory.

[shugdentruth]

On the topic of apologies,

I still think its best to apologize first. In the example of the high ranking officer that lost his temper, I think whether the gentlemen with the window seat should apologize whether or not he decides to keep his seat. He does not necessarily have to do it. But I feel its the wises way to deal with the situation. Whether or not ha keeps his seat, its important not to create the karma to be screamed at nor for the high ranking officer to burn up his merits by getting angry. Nothing ever comes good from anger whatever the motivation is. It matters most we do our part. In the example of the plane seats, does it really matter so much to create karma or diminish merits? It is not really something life threatening to ourselves or our loved ones. If I were that person in the window seat, I would give my reason for not changing my seat with an apology and if the big shot or small shot makes a fuss, I'll just move while trying to control my own emotions. I feel that peace-ing somebody is always the first option. When a person is happy, he is more willing to except. It is not important on whether he is use to having things his way, but it is important that we are use to apologizing. I think apologizing is really an ego thing. I use to be really angersome, the slightest of things would agitate me. And obviously, I get agitated when things don't go my way. I would very confidently say that it has now improved leaps and bounds. I did not learn to improve from a person that was angersome, but a person that was humble. I believe you teach a person humility by being humble and not by testing his humility. A person without humility will not be able to learn humility until he sees and experiences it. I do not know what I do not know. This person taught me humility by apologizing to high ranking officers to waiters at restaurants. Consistency is the only way to test sincerity.
When you apologize to a person because you want something, or you want them to return or want respect, is not important. But it is better never to burn your bridges and have some one get angry at you. If they do return with respect to give you something, it is once again up to your wisdom to act upon it.

I am sorry, I may have made the mistake of stating that buddhism is not so much of a religion but a way of life. Its more like, buddhism is not just a religion but also a way of life. The word religion that describes buddhism to me is really just a term, but the buddhist way of life is a method that certainly works. There will always be individuals that will believe in parts and pieces of the dharma. We should always encourage the parts they believe and hope that it will grow to other parts and eventually the whole teaching. It doesn't matter what they call it, its most important they practice. I believe they will find they will find the label when their practice gives them happiness and what they do coincides with the teachings of buddha. When I first found buddhism, I didn't really understand or believe in many things. But thanks to my karma and merits, I had many friends to help me along the way. It had changed my life and I now call myself a buddhist. I hope that I have the karma and merits to encourage the people I will meet in the future. Is that the correct way to use the term karma and merits??