Milindapañha light/dark in mindfulness exegesis

From the Milindapañha, we have this exploration of mindfulness:

What, Nāgasena, is the characteristic mark of mindfulness?”

“Noting and keeping in mind. As mindfulness springs up in the mind of the recluse, he repeatedly notes the wholesome and unwholesome, blameless and blameworthy, insignificant and important, dark and light qualities and those that resemble them thinking, ‘These are the four foundations of mindfulness, these the four right efforts, these the four bases of success, these the five controlling faculties, these the five moral powers, these the seven factors of enlightenment, these are the eight factors of the noble path, this is serenity, this insight, this vision and this freedom.’ Thus does he cultivate those qualities that are desirable and shun those that should be avoided.”…

“How is keeping in mind a mark of mindfulness?”

“As mindfulness springs up in the mind, he searches out the categories of good qualities and their opposites thinking, ‘Such and such qualities are beneficial and such are harmful’. Thus does he make what is unwholesome in himself disappear and maintain what is good.”

This is Milindapañha. Not an EBT. But the exegesis of mindfulness contained therein may well be closer to the mark than what various other sources may attest to. Milindapañha, after all, for right or wrong, AFAIK, is part of the Burmese Tipiṭaka, “Buddhavacana” for all intensive purposes therein to some metrics we may well here call “traditionalist”. This attests, to the very least, that it has a historical popular precedence in lines of the transmission of Buddhist literature (Milindapañha exists in numerous lines of transmission, after all, such as the Chinese Nāgasenabhikṣusūtra (T 1670b, 那先比丘經).

I am wondering about the light/dark dyad that accompanies wholesome/unwholesome, blameless/blameworthy, & insignificant/important. What does light/dark mean in this context.

Is this teaching presented in the Milindapañha consonant with presentations of mindfulness attested to elsewhere amoungst substantiated EBTs? If not, how does it differ?

1 Like

I thought he is reffering to bright, darks kamma etc.

As far as I know, the sukkā dhammā vs. kaṇhā dhammā distinction doesn’t crop up in any satipaṭṭhāna-related suttas.

In the Abhidhamma’s Dhammasaṅgaṇī, the sukkā dhammā are hirī and ottappa, and the kaṇhā dhammā are their opposites, ahirika and anottappa.

However, in the case of the Milindapañha’s compound, kusalākusala-sāvajjānavajja-hīnappaṇīta-kaṇhasukka-sappaṭibhāgadhamme, I rather suspect that the four dyads are meant to be taken as terms “differing in phrasing but not in meaning.”

1 Like

To me, it seems that here mindfulness is a broader category encompassing the enlightenment factors of mindfulness (sensu stricto) and discrimination of states and right effort, i.e:

Noting and keeping in mind.

= Enlightenment factor of mindfulness
(Is ‘noting’ an accurate tanslation of the word in Pali? I’m just asking knowing the importance of that word nowadays)

As mindfulness springs up in the mind of the recluse, he repeatedly notes the wholesome and unwholesome, blameless and blameworthy, insignificant and important, dark and light qualities and those that resemble them thinking, ‘These are the four foundations of mindfulness, these the four right efforts, these the four bases of success, these the five controlling faculties, these the five moral powers, these the seven factors of enlightenment, these are the eight factors of the noble path, this is serenity, this insight, this vision and this freedom.’

= Enlightenment factor of discrimination of states

Thus does he cultivate those qualities that are desirable and shun those that should be avoided.”…

= Right effort; 4 right strivings

Same with the second paragraph.

IMO, this definition of mindfulness seems to be broader that in the EBTs maybe…?