Source"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements." {I,v,9}
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." {I,v,10}
"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." {I,vi,1}
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind." {I,vi,2}
Another instance is the following, from the Kevatta Sutta:
(trs Thanissaro Bikkhu)Where do water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing? Where are long & short, coarse & fine, fair & foul, name & form brought to an end?
"'And the answer to that is:
Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around: Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing. Here long & short coarse & fine fair & foul name & form are all brought to an end. With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness each is here brought to an end.'"
The point about ‘luminous mind’ is that it seems somehow mystical in a way that the rather more realist Abhidhamma account of 'momentary dhammas' is not. Accordingly, it is difficult to accommodate in the technical vocabulary of the Theravada, a fact that is reflected in Thanissaro Bikkhu’s comments:
.This statement has engendered a great deal of controversy over the centuries. The commentary [presumably Theravada] 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?
The idea of 'luminous mind' re-appears in the Prajnaparamita Sutra:
In an essay called Consciousness Mysticism in the Discourses of the Buddha Peter Harvey says that the idea of ‘stopped’, ‘unsupported’ or ‘objectless consciousness’ is practically synonymous with ‘nibbanic consciousness’ or, indeed with nibbana itself. Harvey suggests that the Mahayana idea of bodhicitta is anticipated by the very phrase ‘luminous mind’ after which the sutta is named. Although bodhicitta is often translated as ‘the intention to attain enlightenment’, in many places bodhicitta is equated with the path itself - both the means and the end of Mahayana philosophy (see for instance Lama Yeshe's Bodhicitta: Perfection of Dharma).when a Bodhisattva courses in perfect wisdom and develops it, he should so train himself that he does not pride himself on that thought of enlightenment [with which he has begun his career]. That thought is no thought, since in its essential original nature thought is transparently luminous.
So - can the notion of 'luminous mind' be reconciled with the momentary 'bhavanga-citta' which is regarded by many as the sine qua non of Buddhist philosophy of mind?
