Fascinating study of a controversial passage. An interesting thing that I think is left out is that the Dharmaguptaka version of many stories agrees with the Theravada versions. The two canons seem closer to each other than the Theravada is to the Sarvastivada. So, it’s not particularly surprising to me that the Sarvastivada version of the Kevaddha Sutta doesn’t agree with the Theravada (saying that consciousness is vast rather than luminous). They often diverge in these cases.
I personally wouldn’t change the Theravada reading given that it’s very close to the Dharmaguptaka reading; DA 24’s verses are a strong confirmation of the reading in DN 11 given the overall agreement between DA and DN compared to the Sarvastivada parallels that exist.
Well, the issue is that there is not one single Theravada reading, as Analayo notes. So the reading of “giving up” is also a Theravada reading. I think in these cases, when you have alternative readings from the same tradition, you can use historical comparative studies like Analayo’s to choose which way to go. So I think Sujato’s choice here is apt (especially since there are already other translations that have the other reading).
Yes, it’s one of those passages that turned into a focal point of attention, perhaps used as evidence in debates. It seems sometimes what happened with those passages is that each canon rewrote them to make refuting the others a simple matter. “Oh, well, we don’t recognize that reading. Our sutra says this.” The result is that the original reading is probably lost to the proliferation of meanings, as it were.
DA 24 obviates the issue of consciousness being essential by immediately saying that it ceases after saying that’s luminous. So, it wouldn’t serve as a way to argue otherwise. Tough call to make in the Pali translation. Sometimes a translator ends up playing, “Eeny-meeny-miney-moe, with which of these readings shall I go.” People will be unhappy if it’s already controversial.
It seems the term or idea, the luminous mind (Skt: prabhāsvara-citta or ābhāsvara-citta, Pali: pabhassara citta; C. 光明心 guangmingxin; J. 光明心 kōmyōshin) is not found in SA/SN, particularly the major portion of SA/SN.
I can’t speak to SN, but I just clicked through every occurrence of 光 in SA. The vast majority of cases was the light of the gods, the Buddha, or natural light (the sun, moon, lamps, etc). In fact, there’s a sutra that says those are the three kinds of light.
The only metaphorical use of light I saw was that of Dharma or wisdom light vs. the darkness of ignorance.
So too, bhikkhus, there are these five corruptions of the mind (cittassa), corrupted by which the mind is neither malleable nor wieldy nor radiant (pabhassaraṃ) but brittle and not rightly concentrated for the destruction of the taints. What five? Sensual desire … ill will … sloth and torpor … restlessness and remorse … doubt is a corruption of the mind, corrupted by which the mind is neither malleable nor wieldy nor radiant but brittle and not rightly concentrated for the destruction of the taints. (SN V 92 and A III 16, cf. AN I 257 and MN III 243)
Yes, there’s a parallel to that gold metaphor in SA (SA 1246), though it’s not exactly the same (doesn’t use the five hindrances). The Chinese uses a term (光澤) that means “luster” or “shiny” like a polished metal or a cut gemstone, so it’s not quite the same as being radiant. It connects the four dhyanas to the purification of the mind to be like pure gold, but the Pali version would imply that since the five hindrances are what one is rid of in order to achieve samadhi.
Looking closer, I see that the same term occurs a few other times, usually when talking about purification, like sentient beings being purified by the abodes of mindfulness. So, that would be a second metaphorical use of light-like qualities for samadhi. It’s interesting that wisdom shines and samadhi is shiny, as it were.
SA 1246 is in Piyu Xiangying 譬喻相應 ( = SN 20. Opamma Samyutta) which belongs to Vyākaraṇa-aṅga portion of SA. But the Pali parallel of this SA 1246 is the first part of AN 3.100 Suvaṇṇakāra (CSA vol. 3, pp. 707, 721 note 2).
I think this is pretty solid evidence that terms like radiance and shining are metaphors for the mind in samadhi as Brahmali argues, and not prefiguring some kind of Mahayanistic pure consciousness as some believe. It’s quite a widespread practice to take the “mind is luminous” passage and say that it’s equivalent to Mahayana Buddha nature ideas or to ideas of the mind being pure in Mahayana (of course that gets interpreted in different ways too).
Okay. I would say we’d need to think about what gold represents to really make that case. Or even the whole concept of purification in Buddhism. Apparently something is being purified, which begs the question as to whether it requires some quality that makes it purifiable. I mean, this is all these metaphors are really saying to me. It’s like the clouds and sky metaphor.
Well, I think my main point is that it is a pragmatic metaphor for meditation. It’s not positing a metaphysical position about the mind. So when he uses the gold metaphor or the moon and clouds metaphor, we shouldn’t try to draw some kind of ontological theory out of these statements. Their context is always in descriptions of mental culture.
