Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

tiltbillings wrote:

Sherab wrote: Sense consciousness is free from imputations. Therefore it is possible for the first moment of a mental consciousness arising in dependence on a sense consciousness to be free of imputations. However, mental consciousness that does arise in dependence on a mental consciousness will have to do so on a previous moment of mental consciousness. If the previous moment of that mental consciousness is free of imputations, your post would apply. So the question in my mind is under what other circumstances can the "first" moment of a mental consciousness be free from imputations? (Note: I prefer "imputations" over "conditioning" because I think no phenomena of consciousness is unconditoned. Correct me if I am wrong.)

imputations

That's coming out of a Tibetan stand point. Since this is a Theravadin forum I am inclined towards Pali/Theravadin sources, which tend to see things a bit differently.

Sherab wrote:So you are saying that when I think of my enemy, the first moment of that mental consciousness is free from conditioning? Or when I remember a woman I have a crush on, the first moment of that mental consciousness is free from conditioning?

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements."
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements."
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that -- for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person -- there is no development of the mind."
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed noble disciple discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that -- for the well-instructed noble disciple -- there is development of the mind."

Anguttara Nikaya I.49-52

This statement has engendered a great deal of controversy over the centuries. The commentary maintains that "mind" here refers to the bhavanga-citta, the momentary mental state between periods when the mental stream adverts to objects, but this statement raises more questions than it answers. There is no reference to the bhavanga-citta or the mental stream in any of the suttas (they appear first in an Abhidhamma treatise, the Patthana); and because the commentaries compare the bhavanga-citta to deep sleep, why is it called luminous? And why would the perception of its luminosity be a prerequisite for developing the mind? And further, if "mind" in this discourse means bhavanga-citta, what would it mean to develop the bhavanga-citta?

Another interpretation equates the luminosity of the mind with the "consciousness without feature," desribed as "luminous" in MN 49 and DN 11, but this interpretation also has problems. According to MN 49, that consciousness partakes of nothing in the describable world, not even the "Allness of the All," so how could it possibly be defiled? And, because it is not realized until the goal of the practice is reached, why would the perception of its luminosity be a prerequisite for developing the mind? And again, if "mind" here means consciousness without feature, how could the sutta talk of its development?

A more reasonable approach to understanding the statement can be derived from taking it in context: the luminous mind is the mind that the meditator is trying to develop. To perceive its luminosity means understanding that defilements such as greed, aversion, or delusion are not intrinsic to its nature, are not a necessary part of awareness. Without this understanding, it would be impossible to practice. With this understanding, however, one can make an effort to cut away existing defilements, leaving the mind in the stage that MN 24 calls "purity in terms of mind." This would correspond to the luminous level of concentration described in the standard simile for the fourth jhana: "And furthermore, with the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither-pleasure-nor-pain. He sits, permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness. Just as if a man were sitting covered from head to foot with a white cloth so that there would be no part of his body to which the white cloth did not extend; even so, the monk sits, permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by pure, bright awareness." From this state it is possible to develop the discernment that not only cuts away existing defilements but also uproots any potential for them to ever arise again. Only in the stages of Awakening that follow on those acts of discernment would "consciousness without feature" be realized.

TMingyur wrote:There is "mind" if there is "an object of mind" otherwise there is no "mind". It appears as if all this talk about "mind" or "the nature of mind" entails its reification.

Kind regards

Sherab wrote:

TMingyur wrote:There is "mind" if there is "an object of mind" otherwise there is no "mind". It appears as if all this talk about "mind" or "the nature of mind" entails its reification.

Kind regards

I think the key word here is "appears".
Let's wait until someone actually reify something and we take it from there.

Sherab wrote:
It would seem to me that if defilements are not intrinsic to the luminous mind (the mind the meditator is trying to develop), then it is possible that the luminous mind is the same as/part of/aspect of the "consciousness without feature." Therefore the so-called development of the mind is not really development but merely named as such.

TMingyur wrote:

Sherab wrote:

TMingyur wrote:There is "mind" if there is "an object of mind" otherwise there is no "mind". It appears as if all this talk about "mind" or "the nature of mind" entails its reification.

Kind regards

I think the key word here is "appears".
Let's wait until someone actually reify something and we take it from there.

Would you say that "mind" is different from "consciousness" which is said to be the effect of ignorance and sankhara according to the 12 links of DO?

Kind regards

TMingyur wrote:
Would you say that "mind" is different from "consciousness" which is said to be the effect of ignorance and sankhara according to the 12 links of DO?

Sherab wrote: Within a mind, there are different consciousness.

Sherab wrote:

TMingyur wrote: Would you say that "mind" is different from "consciousness" which is said to be the effect of ignorance and sankhara according to the 12 links of DO?

Kind regards

Within a mind, there are different consciousness.

tiltbillings wrote:

Sherab wrote:
It would seem to me that if defilements are not intrinsic to the luminous mind (the mind the meditator is trying to develop), then it is possible that the luminous mind is the same as/part of/aspect of the "consciousness without feature." Therefore the so-called development of the mind is not really development but merely named as such.

The question is: are you sure you can reasonably conflate all these "luminosities" to mean the same thing?

TMingyur wrote:

Sherab wrote:

TMingyur wrote: Would you say that "mind" is different from "consciousness" which is said to be the effect of ignorance and sankhara according to the 12 links of DO?

Kind regards

Within a mind, there are different consciousness.

"Within a mind ..." Now that's postulating a difference of entity and reification

Kind regards