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

Discussion
61

I’d approach this slightly different. We can ask: where is attention in each meditative state?
Since attention has a point of focus, that point of focus is an “object”.
Jhana 1-4 have mental representations of body as point of focus. With formless this representation is gone, yet we can point towards the point of focus up to “nothingness”, where the point of focus of the latter is the mental representation of “nothing”.
Then we have the “neither perception nor non-perception”. Here the object of focus is not directly clear, not because it’s not present, but because we can’t easily point it from our knowledge of mental objects.
The state, as far as I understand, has as focal point the lingering notion of “peace” when the physical and verbal processes have stopped and the mental processes come to a halt.
With cessation the mental processes have stopped as well, and with that there is no longer a focal point (but still awareness). This is where the difference between the “process” of awareness and the (focal) content of awareness becomes completely apparent, because the latter is no longer experienced.

Moving forward from that point, emerging, we find:

  1. Awareness
  2. Mental processes returning
  3. Notions of these mental processes returning
  4. Physical processes returning
  5. Notions of the physical processes returning
  6. Verbal processes returning
  7. Notions of the verbal processes returning

The reason I’m explicit about a separate notion is that it follows the actual movement. When the mind moves, the mind knows the movement as it happens, but reactive and not anticipating. There is “knowledge” of what’s happening together with the happening itself.
The only “knowledge” that rises separate is the knowledge of awareness, because this knowledge cannot emerge without mental processes.
Knowledge is thus understood to be related to the focal point, and this focal point can be recollection (and anticipation) besides direct experience.

With this description I’ve made clear that from a single experience of “mind” I can easily derive three separate “objects”: awareness, movement leading to focus and knowledge based on focus.
With the start of meditation we just mix different: we use focus to decrease movement, and based on the decreased movement different focus points become apparent leading to new knowledge (insight). As long as excitement of these discoveries does not take over (that’s the role of equanimity) the process can continue until all points of focus are exhausted and awareness remains.
It’s the total experience which gives insight in how the mind works it’s wonders.

If we now say “the mind needs to be developed” we know we refer to something crude which has to be refined, where awareness, movement and knowledge are mixed in a frenzy which makes it impossible to distinguish between them.
As we reduce the frenzy these get more and more in order, to the point where the mind lets go of them entirely, leading to complete separation of the three and disappearing of movement/point of focus and related knowledge. There is no development beyond this point, but movement/point of focus and related knowledge will (and should) return. This leaves the mind sensitive to movement/point of focus and with that related knowledge, which exists on the neutral background of awareness. But all these are mind-objects (points of focus), except when cessation is experienced again.

This might sound extremely complex for a simple yes/no question, but I’m trying to indicate that you might not be asking the right question and should work with it in a different way.
This helps since when people start talking about citta or vinnana you are not bothered too much about definitions (which might overlap, or people might use the “wrong” word) but have a point of reference to probe deeper into the matter without getting stuck on labels.

Mind: awareness, focal point/movement and knowledge related to it. I might not know the proper names, but I know the difference.

62

Hi Martin,

There have been suggestions that the first few nidanas were a reference to the Vedic creation myth. There’s a nice discussion by Ven Analyo on this and other issues that you can find from this link: https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=30940

63

I regard the arupa jhanas as states or qualities of mind, thinking of the examples given in third frame of satipatthana (MN10).
In which case, it is presumably mano-vinnana which is conscious of these states.
So for example, “infinite space” and “infinite consciousness” are descriptive of a very expansive state of mind, and this state of mind is known by mano-vinnana.

64

Clearly there is no consensus on how DO should be interpreted, just a lot of competing theories. There have been many attempts to square the circle, both traditional and contemporary, but IMO they all take liberties with the nidana definitions in SN12.2, and they all raise awkward questions
The problems are highlighted when examining DO in cessation mode. For example, the aggregates are all present in the nidana sequence from sankharas through to vedana, which implies the cessation of dukkha requires the cessation of the aggregates, including sense-consciousness. But how does the Arahant experience anything if sense-consciousness and perception have ceased? And so on.

The pragmatic solution might be to put the arguments about DO interpretation to one side, and just focus on the basic message of the Second and Third Noble Truths.

65

That’s a fair interpretation.

Like I said before, the traditional model covers three lifetimes. The ignorance and sankaras of an arahant ceases in this life, but consciousness of an Arahant (and everything below) ceases proliferating at the breakup of the body (“death”, if you will). IMHO this explanation makes the most sense of SN 12.51. The problems arise when ppl try squeezing all the links into this lifetime, which a lot of contemporary teachers try to do.

D.O. is one of the most important parts of the Buddha’s teaching. It would be a huge loss to just put it aside.

66

I have learned that even the breath and other bodily movements, thoughts, and speech are caused by sankhara’s. One cannot even lift a finger or move a leg or speak a word without sankhara’s, is told.
It is said that not sankhara’s end when avijja ends, but abhisankhara’s.

So in this explanation sankhara’s also do not end for an arahant in this life.
Abhidhamma seems to explain: sankhara in second link PS refers to abhisankhara; i.e. punnabhisankhara, apunnabhisanakhara and āneñjābhisaṅkhāro.

Can anyone tell this is all true?

67

I agree that a 1-life interpretation of DO is problematic, but I don’t think the suttas support a 3-life model either - and it’s a commentarial addition.
In cessation mode, DO describes the nidanas ceasing one after another, so IMO it doesn’t make sense to say that some nidanas persist while others don’t. According to the suttas in SN12, all the nidanas cease when ignorance ceases. “With the cessation of ignorance, there is the cessation of formations; with the cessation of formations there is the cessation of sense-consciousness…” It’s like a row of dominoes falling, a successive and inevitable cessation.

68

If the sankharas nidana has ceased for the Arahant, then does that mean the Arahant no longer makes any choices? How would the Arahant function in the world without the ability to choose?
Also, if you look at DO in cessation mode, then the cessation of sankharas leads to the cessation of 6-fold sense-consciousness. Does this mean the Arahant loses the ability to see and hear?
IMO the sequence of nidanas from formations to feeling don’t seem to fit with the rest of DO, which is an elaboration of the Second Noble Truth. It’s like they have been added in later, leaving people to puzzle over interpretation.

69

I think sankhara’s in PS refer to deep habitual formations or forces that arise in the mind and construct/give form to the way we think, speak and act at a certain moment. Those can be bad but also good (simply said).

They are described in Abhidhamma as punnabhisankhara and apunnabhisankahara’s and āneñjābhisaṅkhāro.
Punnabhisankahara’s are meritorious or moral or good formations such as formations rooted in alobha and adosa and amoha. This is connected to wholesomeness, positive kamma. Punna kamma.

Apunnabhisankhara are demeritorious or immoral or bad formations such as rooted in lobha and dosa. This is connected to unwholesomeness, negative or dark kamma. Apunna.

And there are also āneñjābhisaṅkhāro which i ignore for a moment (see further).

Also the moral or meritorious or good, the punnabhisankhara, are rooted in avijja!
See for example this fragment from SN12.51 (Sujato):

If an ignorant individual makes a good choice, their consciousness enters a good realm.
If they make a bad choice, their consciousness enters a bad realm.
If they make an imperturbable choice (that is the āneñjābhisaṅkhāro, Green) their consciousness enters an imperturbable realm.
When a mendicant has given up ignorance and given rise to knowledge, they don’t make a good choice, a bad choice, or an imperturbable choice.
Not choosing or intending, they don’t grasp at anything in the world.
Not grasping, they’re not anxious. Not being anxious, they personally become extinguished.

Those choices refer to incentives or deep habitual forces in the mind which arise out of avijja and are cut off in an arahant.

I think you can see it this way that avijja is at the base of the habitual mind, the habitual forces, the whole process of conditioning. This can be good habitual forces, punna, and also bad habits, apunna.
It is the unfreedom aspect. Not liberated. Being a slave of habits.
This will never ever be freedom from samsara.

The word sankhara’s is not easy but i feel it is the best understood as deep habitual formations or forces, incentives, rooted in the six roots, who cause and constructs our momentary habitual way of thinking, speaking and acting. Those are gone for an arahant, but not making decisions, i belief. Why would an arahant not make a decision to teach about this or that, or to travel to this or that town etc?

To see the difference: Those sankhara’s in PS are about unfreedom. About habitual forces, deep ingrained in the mind, which overcome the mind, shape the mind, colour the mind, and give direction to our way of thinking, speaking and acting. It is slavery, unfreedom, not Nibbana. This is also true for good habits.

But Nibbana is about freedom from this slavery, this dependence, this rulership of punna, apunna and anenjabhisankhara’s. An arahant has realised this.

Another way to say this: sankhara’s in non-arahant are often kammiccaly active formations (rooted in amoha, moha, greed, non-greed, hate and non-hate) and they form a kammiccaly active or motivated vinnana. Ready to act. If we act upon those sankhara’s we accumulate kamma. We strenghten the unfreedom aspect.

But the sankhara’s in an arahant are not kammiccaly active. A kammically active vinnana does not arise anymore.

Maybe it is a good idea to move these last posts to the topic about sankhara?

70

Hello friends,

Here how i understand this problem of radiant mind, nature of mind etc. :

Concider a simple system with an 1 and an 0 (zero), where 1 represents sankharas (phenomenas) and 0 represents mind or citta.

Like silence makes sound be manifest, like white paper makes colors be maanifest, like empty space makes objects manifest, like beach makes vawes be manifest, like a stilness makes movement be manifest, in the same way 0 makes all the complexity of maths being manifest. Therefore we can consider that between 1 and 0 there is consciousness.

Even 999…999 can not impact 0 by its weight.
Even 0,00…001 can never touch 0 by its proximity.
Zero is unborn, uncreated, unformed, unconditionned, unlimited, immesurable, boundless, it have no weight (dukkha), it’s pure of all formations, it’s radiant in all direction, it have limitless potential… It can be took as a refuge and provide protection from the complexity of phenomenal, superficial world, because phenomenas can not touch it, there is no contact between 0 and 1, there is always a wise distance, a secure distance and because of that wise distance mind can directly observe phenomenas as not me, not mine, not myself and therefore be protected and not cought in. In the same way as if one shore of a stream will never touch the other shore.
Therefore we can consider that 0 is unconditionned by phenomenas themselves.

But there is a trap of delusion.
While 0 is unconditionned by the complexity and changing nature of phenomenas, it is still conditionned as a numer 0 itself… In other words when meditator take 0 as something tangible, as me, mine, my self, when he is attached to the protection, purity, lightness, radiance of this beatifull citta, he fails to understand that for him this radiant citta still “something”, its an object, a number 0, but in reality 0 represents nothing but the absence of numbers, there is no such thing as “0”, zero is a convention, an illusion of asmimana, of avijja… One should go beyond that radiance, and see for himself that there is nothing to be attached to and there is nothing further… There is no “here” (penomenas), no “there”(radiant citta), nor “between”(consciousness between 0 and 1).

To answer the question of the Topic Starter : yes, i suppose that the problem of radiant mind is an Anagami problem.

Those noble ones who’s mind is attached to the 0 of radiant citta and to all its wonderful qualities are reborn in Pure Abodes, and there they learn to abandon 0 as number as such. Those who gone beyond 0, understood true nature of 0 and abandoned all mathematics of Samsara as a whole system, after breaking up of the body they attain Parinibbana.

In the same way while the river is dry up - both shores disapear. So until one is still attached to any of both shores - river will flow. Radiant citta is a boat that helps us to cross the flood and which protects us from the water and it flows and dangers, but it is only a means to cross the flood and once consciousness is fully crossed, is fully understood, this wonderfull, beatifull radiat citta should be crossed over too in order to step on the true firm ground, not the “boat floor” which is also firm and dry and therefore can be mistaken with the true stability and groundness of Nibbana, of Dispassion, of Freedom…

Can these illustrations be usefull :pray:

2 Likes
71

Welcome to the community @Alino ! Enjoy exploring all the wonderful resources available here.

If you have any questions or need any help, please feel free to ask; just tag @moderators in a topic or send a PM.

with Metta :sunflower::pray::sunflower:

1 Like