Does the "luminous mind" debate carry any significance for those of us who are not yet anagamis?

Discussion
21

I do not know Maha Boowa’s background @Martin . I know there are much more teachers, in all kinds of traditions, also religious mystics, who describe a knowing which has not the usual structure of an observer-and -the- observed, or subject-and-object. Non-dual it is called.

From the Glossary of Arahattamagga/phala : "The true nature of the citta is that it simply “knows”. There is no subject, no object, no duality; it simply knows. The citta does not arise or pass away; it is never born and never dies". (page 107)

I belief this does not refer to a vinnana.

On the same page:

“Normally, the “knowing nature” of the citta is timeless, boundless, and radiant, but this true nature is obscured by the defilements (kilesa) within it. Through the power of fundamental ignorance, a focal point of the “knower” is created from which that knowing nature views the world outside. The establishment of that false center creates a “self” from whose perspective consciousness flows out to perceive the duality of the “knower” and the “known”. Thus the citta becomes entangled with things that are born, become ill, grow old, and die, and therefore, deeply involved it in a whole mass of suffering”(page 107)

I do not belief maha Boowa saw this citta as an atman but, i think, more like the nature of the mind or heart, hearts essence.

I think the factor of awakening is not that this hearts essence is Me or mine, but at that moments one directly knows and sees that it was, has never been, and will never be a self who does the knowing. One directly sees that the nature of mind is not a subject, a self, a Me. Something like this.

2 Likes
22

To share some info which might be helpful, from the Glossary of arahattamagga-phala words on vinnana and on citta:

Vinnana:

Viññãna: Consciousness; simple cognizance. As the fifth component of personality, viññãna khandha simply registers sense data, feelings, and mental impressions as they occur. For instance, when visual images make contact with the eye, or when thoughts occur in the mind, consciousness
of them arises simultaneously. When that object subsequently ceases, so too does the consciousness that took note of it"

Citta.

“The citta is the mind’s essential knowing nature, the fundamental quality of knowing that underlies all sentient existence. When associated with a physical body, it is referred to as “mind” or “heart”. Being corrupted by the defiling influence of fundamental ignorance (avijjã), its currents “flow out” to manifest as feelings (vedanã), memory (saññã), thoughts (sankhãra), and consciousness (viññãna), thus embroiling the citta in a web of self-deception. It is deceived about its own true nature. The true nature of the citta is that it simply “knows”. There is no subject, no object, no duality; it simply knows. The citta does not arise or pass away; it is never born and never dies.
Normally, the “knowing nature” of the citta is timeless, boundless, and radiant, but this true nature is obscured by the defilements (kilesa) within it. Through the power of fundamental ignorance, a focal point of the “knower” is created from which that knowing nature views the world outside. The establishment of that false center creates a “self” from whose perspective consciousness flows out to perceive the duality of the “knower” and the “known”. Thus the citta becomes entangled with things that are born, become ill, grow old, and die, and therefore, deeply involved it in a whole mass of suffering.
In this book the citta is often referred to as the heart; the two are synonymous. The heart forms the core within the body. It is the center, the substance, the primary essence within the body. It is the basic foundation. Conditions that arise from the citta, such as thoughts, arise there. Goodness, evil, happiness, and suffering all come together in the heart.
Samãdhi meditation provides confirmation of the heart’s significance. When the citta gathers all of its outflowing currents into one point, the calm, still state of samãdhi arises. From the meditator’s perspective, that experience is centered in the middle of the chest. The stillness, the brightness, and the awareness of this experience appear to emanate prominently from the region of the heart. The knowing nature of the citta is pronounced right there. Thus, the true seat of consciousness is in the heart; and it is wise, therefore, to avoid thinking of the “mind” as essentially cerebral and located in the head.
There is a strong tendency to think that consciousness results purely from complex interactions within the human brain, and that when the brain dies, consciousness ceases. This mechanistic view is wholly mistaken. While there is evidence that certain parts of the brain can be identified with certain mental functions, that does not mean that the brain produces consciousness. In essence, the brain is a complex processing organ. It receives and processes incoming data impulses that inform about feelings, memory, thoughts, and consciousness, but it does not generate these mental functions; nor does it generate conscious awareness. That is entirely the province of the citta. (for a more detailed discussion see the Appendix on page 95)”

1 Like
23

I believe was written by Ajahn Dick Silaratano, the translator of this book.

1 Like
24

This actually sounds like Ven. Sariputta’s description of the “fourth attainment of vision” in his Lion’s Roar at DN 28:

Furthermore, some ascetic or brahmin attains that and goes beyond it. They understand a person’s stream of consciousness, unbroken on both sides, not established in either this world or the next. This is the fourth attainment of vision.

He uses the term a Vinnana, not Citta. This distinction between Citta and Vinnana seems particular to the Thai Forest Tradition, which creates some confusion.

1 Like
25

I remain quite skeptical about this whole matter. To put it quite simply, if a key aspect of awakening was the realization of some special form of unconditioned vinnana or citta, I would expect the suttas to be full of references to it rather than merely finding a handful of somewhat vague phrases, often in verse, the could easily refer to a million things other than an unconditioned state of pure knowing.

4 Likes
26

Yes, i recognize that doubt.

I belief awakening means that we understand that our daily mind, our commen understanding, our dialy condition, that, is a special kind of awareness, not given at all, not absolute, not original at all, constructed, strongly influenced by defilements/conditions, taken in control by defilements, distorted.
But one cannot see this without a reference. I belief for an awakened mind this is no theory anymore.
I think Maha Boowa, and others show this. They have seen the nature of mind free from the distorting influences of arisen defilements, especially avijja.

We perceive the mind is a Me, an I, an ego, some kind of subject or entity inside who feels, sees, thinks, tastes, knows, perceives, cognises etc. We do not really understand this is a perception based on the influence of defilements. We think this is the real nature of mind, this subject-object duality.

I think the clue to awaking is that one really understands/sees that this is a construction too, conditionally arising.

27

From what i think to understand of Maha Boowa is that we are deluded about mind’s nature when we look at it with a defiled mind, a mind with asmi mana and avijja for exemple. That mind is fundamentally mistaken about it’s own nature. For example, where it’s essence is emptiness, it perceives a self.

Due to defilements, especiall avijja, we are from within wrongly informed about the nature of mind. I think maha boowa taught that a key aspect of awakening is to see the nature of mind when it is free of all defilements. I think that is what he is trying to describe. He talks about the disappearance of avijja, and that is the moment the pure citta arises.

Maha Boowa says: “The avijjã-citta seems to have every virtue: it is bright, it is bold, it is supremely contented and its quality of knowing seems limitless. But, despite knowing every conceivable sort of thing, this knowing nature does not know itself. This is the fundamental ignorance of genuine avijjã. As soon as this knowing nature turns back and looks into itself, avijjã disintegrates. This disintegration, in turn, reveals the truth about the citta, the truth about Dhamma. Only avijjã keeps this truth hidden from view.” (page 66)

The key seems to be…the knowing nature does not know itself…it thinks it is an ego, a Self, a Me ( i interprete).

The real nature of the citta is well concealed by avijjã, he says. We are mistaken about the nature of the citta.

About the extinction of avijja he says:

“Avijjã’s extinction is unlike that of all other things that we have investigated up to this point. Their ending was accompanied by a clear and definite understanding of their true nature. Uniquely, the radiance of avijjã is extinguished in an instant, like a flash of lightening. It is a moment of being that happens spontaneously: it just flips over and vanishes completely. Only then, when the radiance disappears, do we know that it was really the genuine avijjã. What remains is entirely unique. Its nature is absolutely pure. Although it has never before been experienced, there’s nothing to doubt when it appears at that moment. Anything that might cause doubt has ceased along with it. This is the end of all burdens”.

2 Likes
28

I found this explanation insightful:

"The difference between the emptiness of the avijjã-citta and the emptiness of the pure citta, free of avijjã, can be illustrated by imagining a person in an empty room. Standing in the middle of the room, admiring its emptiness, that person forgets about himself. Seeing that there is nothing around him in the room, he reflects only on the emptiness he perceives and not on the fact that he is occupying a central position in that space. As long as someone is in the room, it is not truly empty. When he finally realizes that the room can never be truly empty until he departs, that is the moment when avijjã disintegrates and the pure citta arises. Once the citta has let go of phenomena of every sort, the citta appears supremely empty; but the one who admires the emptiness, who is awestruck by the emptiness, that one still survives. The self as reference point, which is the essence of avijjã, remains integrated into the citta’s knowing nature. This is the genuine avijjã. One’s “self” is the real impediment at that moment. As soon as it disintegrates and disappears, no more impediments remain. Everything is empty: the external world is empty, and the interior of the citta is empty. As in the case of a person in an empty room, we can only truly say that the room is empty when the person leaves the room. The citta that has gained a comprehensive understanding of all external matters, and all matters pertaining to itself, this citta is said to be totally empty. True emptiness occurs when every single trace of conventional reality has disappeared from the citta" (page 64)

My own words (please correct me if i am wrong):

The clue seems to be that as long there is avijja, things are seen and experienced from a first person, subjective pole in the mind. From a subjective personal perspective or position. One can that way experience a brightness of mind, peace and calm, an emptiness, a nothingness etc. but it is still as a Me, a self, from and within a personal perspective.

Maha Boowa seems to teach: that’s why it is still part of avijja-citta (or experience). He says: “The self as reference point, which is the essence of avijjã, remains integrated into the citta’s knowing nature.”

In my own words:
All those experiences still have a sense of Me or self as a reference point. I think this also happens in jhana.

Maha Boowa also instructs that due to samadhi (and i think practice) things like peace, happiness, brightness can become so strong that one starts to see this as Nibbana, while it is still avijja-citta, i.e. it still has a sense of self as reference point.

I feel this is also the practical implication. There is no reason at all to become conceited but one can be inspired.

2 Likes
29

I think it’s reasonable to distinguish between vinnana and citta, based on sutta descriptions. For example, the third frame of satipatthana (citta) appears to describe observing one’s state of mind, which sounds quite different to the basic function of sense-consciousness described by vinnana.
The description of the third frame in MN10 concludes with: “He understands liberated mind as liberated mind, and unliberated mind as unliberated mind”, which Bhikkhu Bodhi explains as a mind temporarily and partly freed from defilements. It would be difficult to apply this description to the basic function of sense-consciousness (vinnana).

It also depends on how one interprets Nibbana, and what it means to say that Nibbana is “unconditioned”, practically speaking.
Is Nibbana an objective reality, and therefore an object that the mind contacts, is it another sphere of experience, or is it just a state of mind permanently free from the taints? Or something else?

1 Like
30

Yes, I wonder whether some of the objections to Ajahn Maha Bua’s descriptions come from back-reading citta in terms of the Abhidhammic use of citta as mind moments.

In suttas such as

A developed mind is workable.”
Cittaṁ, bhikkhave, bhāvitaṁ kammaniyaṁ hotī”ti.
AN1.21 SuttaCentral
citta seems to be describing the workings of the entire mind over time.

3 Likes
31

Yes, the kind of qualities described in the third frame in MN10 do appear to be states that persist over time. I’ve heard them described as the “weather of the mind”. Again, this sounds quite different to sense-consciousness (vinnana), which could more easily be portrayed as a succession of moments.

32

I have seen that venerable Maha Boowa talks in a way that the activities we become aware of, including the moments of consciousness, or states of happiness and suffering, flow out from the citta, maybe almost like waves in water. He talks about a mental flux. It is always unstable and unreliable. And he distinguishes this unstable mental flux of vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana from the stable knowing essence (citta). This is, an sich, not active (i think as in desireless, signless and uninclined). It is only a knowing. For example, the citta, this pure knowing aspect, can know the most intense pain without any trouble. It is like it knows but is not (personal) involved. It knows but it does not bear.

33

Against this, I’d refer to SN 12.61-62, which use “citta,” “vinnana,” and “mano” interchangeably to refer to something unstable and quickly changing:

But that which is called ‘mind’ or ‘sentience’ or ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another all day and all night.
Yañca kho etaṁ, bhikkhave, vuccati cittaṁ itipi, mano itipi, viññāṇaṁ itipi, taṁ rattiyā ca divasassa ca aññadeva uppajjati aññaṁ nirujjhati.

There are also suttas that speak of of the sphere of infinite consciousness (vinnana), which doesn’t sound like a rapidly changing sense consciousness at all. So I remain skeptical that the suttas make a hard and fast distinction between vinnana and citta.

4 Likes
34

To be clear, lest I am misunderstood, I’m a huge fan of Ajahn Maha Booa and do consider him an Arahant. I have defended him against charges of eternalism before. I do think, though, that he uses terminology in unusual/unorthodox ways, which can lead to confusion for those who are more scholastic types.

2 Likes
35

I agree that the suttas are inconsistent in the way they describe vinnana and citta, but personally I find it useful to make a distinction.
I think of the mind (citta) as the “space” where we fabricate our world, a space which can take on different colours (moods or states), a space in which thoughts arise, and so on. That’s based partly on the third frame of satipatthana description in MN10.
Meanwhile I think of vinnana as bare cognition, arising in dependence upon sense-base and sense-object - that seems to be it’s basic definition in the suttas.

36

Bodhi translates that fragment in SN12.61: ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’

But i think mentallity is an aspect of the mind, but not really the mind. It is more like colour of the mind, like @Martin says.

And what about those moments when we are in deep dreamless sleep, and we do not experience this world or even a self? Is at that moment no mind present? I think one can say there is no vinnana (?) but is there no mind? How can vinnana be the same as mind, in this case?

Some more words on the citta: (pages 96/97)

"The citta forms the very foundation of samsãra; it is the essence of being that wanders from birth to birth. It is the instigator of the cycle of existence and the prime mover in the round of repeated birth and death. Samsãra is said to be a cycle because death and rebirth recur regularly according to the immutable law of kamma. The citta is governed by kamma, so it is obliged to revolve perpetually in this cycle following kamma’s dictates. As long as the citta remains under the jurisdiction of kamma, this will always be the case. The citta of the Arahant is the sole exception, for his citta has completely transcended kamma’s domain. Since he has also transcended all conventional connections, not a single aspect of relative, conventional reality can possibly become involved with the Arahant’s citta. At the level of Arahant, the citta has absolutely no involvement with anything.
Once the citta is totally pure, it simply knows according to its own inherent nature. It is here that the citta reaches it culmination; it attains perfection at the level of absolute purity. Here the continuous migration from one birth to the next finally comes to an end. Here the perpetual journey from the higher realms of existence to the lower ones and back again, through the repetitive cycle of birth, ageing, sickness, and death, totally ceases. Why does it cease here? Because those hidden, defiling elements that normally permeate the citta and cause it to spin around have been completely eliminated. All that remains is the pure citta, which will never again experience birth and death.
Rebirth is inevitable, however, for the citta that has yet to reach that level of purity".

37

Do you think that there is a difference between vinnana at the sense level (sensory object+contact+sense organ) and vinnana as an aggregate of clinging?

What I mean is that on a basic level there is a sound, the sound waves contact our auditory system and sesnse consciousness arises. Contrast that with the vinnana of the five aggregates of clinging which the Buddha taught to abandon.

Isn’t “bare awareness” to be cultivated in order to see the vinnana of the five aggregates so that it can be abandoned?

38

I don’t think the consciousness aggregate is anything different. Consciousness as an aggregate is “that which cognises”, so it’s the same basic function of sense-consciousness. And note that consciousness as a nidana in DO is similarly described as 6-fold sense-consciousness.
Note the distinction between aggregates and clinging aggregates in the Skandhas Sutta. This suggests that (non-clinging) aggregates remain for the Arahant, including vinnana.

1 Like
39

I see what you’re saying and I’ve understood it that way. Just digging a little deeper.

So if vinnana and bare awareness are synonyms, how does one operate in “bare awareness” after vinnana has been identified as “a cancer, a dart, a killer” and subsequently abandoned?

40

In what context is vinnana described like that?