Natural Luminosity

[Malcolm]

Westerners are really in love with God, and nothing, it seems, will prevent them from importing God into Dharma.

Well....if it wasn't for Indra and Brahma there would be no Dharma !

They are not God, G.O.D. They are gods.

[A Ah Sha Sa Ma Ha]

I have no concept of God. Maybe that's why I find the concept of Luminosity similar . I also don't have a strong aversion to the concept of God. Maybe that's why I find it easy to use that concept interchangeably when I try to comprehend the incomprehensible.

I only want to know the Truth.
Tired of secrets.

But only those that have purified themselves of obscurations, are prepared for The Ultimate Truth, like when I mentioned no mortal could see God and live.

Not trying to put G.O.D. in the Dharma, only trying to comprehend the Ultimate Truth, which is incomprehensible to common people such as myself.

Also, Adi Buddha (not a creator God), is considered the Primordial Buddha, or Originator of all phenomena, this can be confusing, as a God is also considered an Originator of all things. But, a GOD is supposedly not permanent or eternal, whereas the Primordial Buddha is.....so I would call the Primordial Buddha....The REAL God !!!!

[Malcolm]

Also, Adi Buddha (not a creator God), is considered the Primordial Buddha, or Originator of all phenomena, this can be confusing, as a God is also considered an Originator of all things. But, a GOD is supposedly not permanent or eternal, whereas the Primordial Buddha is.....so I would call the Primordial Buddha....The REAL God !!!!

The so called adibuddha has an origin. He is called the adibuddha (first buddha) because he is the first sapient being to attain buddhahood in this world cycle, not because there is some primordial buddha who hangs out in eternal time without a beginning.

[srivijaya]

The question then arises, the featureless luminosity of what? The answer, of a reflexive knower.

Great thread. I have just one question. What is meant by "reflexive" in the designation reflexive knower.

[David Reigle]

BTW, I just noticed that David Reigle, who posts here from time to time has an interesting article on just this very topic. He says:

The Sanskrit word prabhāsvara was translated into Tibetan as ’od gsal, meaning literally “clear (gsal) light (’od).” Thus, thanks to the many translations of Buddhist texts from Tibetan into English in recent decades, prabhāsvara has come to be known in English as “clear light” via its Tibetan translation ’od gsal. Translators working directly from the Sanskrit texts have usually preferred to translate prabhāsvara with words such as “luminosity” or “luminous,” for a couple of reasons. In standard Sanskrit, prabhāsvara was only known as an adjective, defined by Monier-Williams as “shining forth, shining brightly, brilliant,” and by V. S. Apte as “brilliant, bright, shining.” As we can see, the Tibetan translation ’od gsal, “clear light,” is a noun. It is hard to make “clear light” into an adjective if needed (although not impossible), while “luminosity” can easily be made into the adjective, “luminous.” Another reason would be that prabhāsvara is not a compound term in Sanskrit, like “clear (gsal) light (’od)” is in Tibetan. It consists of the main part, bhāsvara, which by itself means the same as prabhāsvara, plus the prefix pra. While prefixes such as pra obviously add something to the meaning of a word, what they add, more often than not, is not enough to require an additional word in the translation.

How, then, did prabhāsvara come to be translated into Tibetan as ’od gsal, “clear light”? One of the many meanings of the prefix pra when added to nouns, according to the Gaṇa-ratna-mahodadhi by Vardhamāna as cited by Vaman Shivaram Apte in The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary, is “purity,” giving the example, prasannaṃ jalam, which means “pure water” or “clear water.” This shows us why ’od gsal, “clear light,” was chosen long ago as the standardized Tibetan translation of prabhāsvara, rather than just ’od, “light.” Yet the related Sanskrit word prabhā was translated into Tibetan as just ’od, “light,” even though it has the prefix pra. In prabhā, as is more usual, the prefix pra does not change the meaning from “light” to “clear light.” An example of an actual compound term in Sanskrit is the title Vimala-prabhā, meaning “stainless (vimala) light (prabhā).” It seems, then, that the addition of gsal, “clear,” to ’od, “light,” serves to distinguish ’od gsal, “clear light,” as a technical term. So there is good reason to translate prabhāsvara either as “clear light” or as “luminosity.” A translator must choose one or the other, and the choice may come down to nothing more than indicating whether the translation was made from the Sanskrit directly or from a Tibetan translation.

http://prajnaquest.fr/blog/prabhasvara- ... cosmogony/

First, thank you Malcolm, for finding and translating and posting all those passages on prabhāsvara. This type of research is very helpful. As you say, “Natural luminosity [rang bzhin gyis od gsal ba], as very clearly stated in the citations above, is a description of the purity of all phenomena.”

In the paragraphs quoted from me, I see that I did not give the full etymology of prabhāsvara. After noting that prabhāsvara is not a compound term, I only spoke of the prefix pra and the main part bhāsvara. For those who may be interested, the word bhāsvara is built from the root bhās, meaning “shine,” plus the suffix vara. This vara is not the word vara, but rather is the primary affix vara. There is a rule for it in the great Sanskrit grammar by Pāṇini, 3.2.175, saying that it is used with five roots including bhās. According to the translation by Śrīśa Chandra Vasu, it has the sense of “the agents having such a habit, etc.” According to the translation by Sumitra M. Katre, it is used “to denote the agent’s habitual disposition, duty or excellence” (the meaning is carried down from 3.2.134). Two more of these five words are common, and will help to show this meaning: sthāvara, “stationary, immovable,” from sthā, “stand, remain”; and īśvara, “ruler, lord,” from īś, “rule.”

For words like prabhāsvara, whose etymology is not obvious, here is a little trick that is helpful to people like me who are not Pāṇini specialists. The very old Sanskrit-English Dictionary by Horace Hayman Wilson (has been reprinted in India), unlike the later ones by Monier-Williams and V. S. Apte that are currently in use, gives traditional Pāṇinian etymologies. It gives them using Pāṇini’s technical terms, so that you may still need a dictionary of these technical terms in order to determine the etymology (A Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar, K. V. Abhyankar and J. M. Shukla, or Dictionary of Pāṇini, S. M. Katre). Wilson does not list prabhāsvara, but he does list bhāsvara, the same word without the prefix pra. There he gives for the etymology: bhās, to shine, varac, affix. The final “c” on varac is a code letter used by Pāṇini. Looking up varac, the reference books then point you to Pāṇini’s sūtra 3.2.175.

[Malcolm]

BTW, I just noticed that David Reigle, who posts here from time to time has an interesting article on just this very topic. He says:

The Sanskrit word prabhāsvara was translated into Tibetan as ’od gsal, meaning literally “clear (gsal) light (’od).” Thus, thanks to the many translations of Buddhist texts from Tibetan into English in recent decades, prabhāsvara has come to be known in English as “clear light” via its Tibetan translation ’od gsal. Translators working directly from the Sanskrit texts have usually preferred to translate prabhāsvara with words such as “luminosity” or “luminous,” for a couple of reasons. In standard Sanskrit, prabhāsvara was only known as an adjective, defined by Monier-Williams as “shining forth, shining brightly, brilliant,” and by V. S. Apte as “brilliant, bright, shining.” As we can see, the Tibetan translation ’od gsal, “clear light,” is a noun. It is hard to make “clear light” into an adjective if needed (although not impossible), while “luminosity” can easily be made into the adjective, “luminous.” Another reason would be that prabhāsvara is not a compound term in Sanskrit, like “clear (gsal) light (’od)” is in Tibetan. It consists of the main part, bhāsvara, which by itself means the same as prabhāsvara, plus the prefix pra. While prefixes such as pra obviously add something to the meaning of a word, what they add, more often than not, is not enough to require an additional word in the translation.

How, then, did prabhāsvara come to be translated into Tibetan as ’od gsal, “clear light”? One of the many meanings of the prefix pra when added to nouns, according to the Gaṇa-ratna-mahodadhi by Vardhamāna as cited by Vaman Shivaram Apte in The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary, is “purity,” giving the example, prasannaṃ jalam, which means “pure water” or “clear water.” This shows us why ’od gsal, “clear light,” was chosen long ago as the standardized Tibetan translation of prabhāsvara, rather than just ’od, “light.” Yet the related Sanskrit word prabhā was translated into Tibetan as just ’od, “light,” even though it has the prefix pra. In prabhā, as is more usual, the prefix pra does not change the meaning from “light” to “clear light.” An example of an actual compound term in Sanskrit is the title Vimala-prabhā, meaning “stainless (vimala) light (prabhā).” It seems, then, that the addition of gsal, “clear,” to ’od, “light,” serves to distinguish ’od gsal, “clear light,” as a technical term. So there is good reason to translate prabhāsvara either as “clear light” or as “luminosity.” A translator must choose one or the other, and the choice may come down to nothing more than indicating whether the translation was made from the Sanskrit directly or from a Tibetan translation.

http://prajnaquest.fr/blog/prabhasvara- ... cosmogony/

First, thank you Malcolm, for finding and translating and posting all those passages on prabhāsvara. This type of research is very helpful. As you say, “Natural luminosity [rang bzhin gyis od gsal ba], as very clearly stated in the citations above, is a description of the purity of all phenomena.”

In the paragraphs quoted from me, I see that I did not give the full etymology of prabhāsvara. After noting that prabhāsvara is not a compound term, I only spoke of the prefix pra and the main part bhāsvara. For those who may be interested, the word bhāsvara is built from the root bhās, meaning “shine,” plus the suffix vara. This vara is not the word vara, but rather is the primary affix vara. There is a rule for it in the great Sanskrit grammar by Pāṇini, 3.2.175, saying that it is used with five roots including bhās. According to the translation by Śrīśa Chandra Vasu, it has the sense of “the agents having such a habit, etc.” According to the translation by Sumitra M. Katre, it is used “to denote the agent’s habitual disposition, duty or excellence” (the meaning is carried down from 3.2.134). Two more of these five words are common, and will help to show this meaning: sthāvara, “stationary, immovable,” from sthā, “stand, remain”; and īśvara, “ruler, lord,” from īś, “rule.”

For words like prabhāsvara, whose etymology is not obvious, here is a little trick that is helpful to people like me who are not Pāṇini specialists. The very old Sanskrit-English Dictionary by Horace Hayman Wilson (has been reprinted in India), unlike the later ones by Monier-Williams and V. S. Apte that are currently in use, gives traditional Pāṇinian etymologies. It gives them using Pāṇini’s technical terms, so that you may still need a dictionary of these technical terms in order to determine the etymology (A Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar, K. V. Abhyankar and J. M. Shukla, or Dictionary of Pāṇini, S. M. Katre). Wilson does not list prabhāsvara, but he does list bhāsvara, the same word without the prefix pra. There he gives for the etymology: bhās, to shine, varac, affix. The final “c” on varac is a code letter used by Pāṇini. Looking up varac, the reference books then point you to Pāṇini’s sūtra 3.2.175.

Hi David,

I think however, this is not how the Tibetan translators and their Indian informants split the term to come up with clear light ['od gsal]. I am fairly certain they split it the way I mentioned, taking svara as "clear":, from its primary meaning as tone, and prabhās meaning "light", hence the reason in Buddhist literature the frequent references to voices as "clear" in tone indicate by the alternate translation of prabhāsvara as gsal (prabhā) dbyangs (svara) translation of prabhāsvara.

We always have to keep in mind that Buddhist authors often depart from Paninian standards when etymologizing terms.

[David Reigle]

I think however, this is not how the Tibetan translators and their Indian informants split the term to come up with clear light ['od gsal]. I am fairly certain they split it the way I mentioned, taking svara as "clear":, from its primary meaning as tone, and prabhās meaning "light", hence the reason in Buddhist literature the frequent references to voices as "clear" in tone indicate by the alternate translation of prabhāsvara as gsal (prabhā) dbyangs (svara) translation of prabhāsvara.

We always have to keep in mind that Buddhist authors often depart from Paninian standards when etymologizing terms.

I was not familiar with gsal dbyangs as a translation of prabhāsvara. This translation does indeed appear to break prabhāsvara as prabhā (gsal) plus svara (dbyangs). When I went to find gsal dbyangs, however, I saw that it translates a different meaning or usage of prabhāsvara. The only occurrence of gsal dbyangs shown in the Tibetan-Sanskrit dictionaries of Lokesh Chandra and of J. S. Negi is in the Mahāvyutpatti, entry no. 451 (where prabhāsvara is given in the feminine gender, prabhāsvarā). It there occurs in a list of sixty adjectives describing the voice, apparently the voice of the Buddha. So, taking svara in prabhāsvara as “voice” is fitting. It then makes a standard karmadhāraya or adjective-noun compound in the required order: “clear voice.” When prabhāsvara is translated as ’od gsal, “clear light,” however, it can no longer be taken as a karmadhāraya or adjective-noun compound, because the word order is reversed. The word would then have to be svara-prabhā, not prabhā-svara. When we follow the expected derivation, where the prefix “pra” stands for prasanna, “clear,” preceding bhāsvara, “light,” we do have the needed word order for the meaning “clear light.”

My interest in this question is because, after my own post on prabhāsvara of Feb. 25, a Sanskrit instructor from a European university contacted me and kindly pointed out that in some of my examples prabhāsvara must be the adjective “luminous” rather than the noun “luminosity.” This is because of gender agreement, as in prakṛtiś cittasya prabhāsvarā, where prabhāsvarā is feminine in agreement with prakṛti, “nature,” rather than its native neuter gender, prabhāsvaram. Therefore, this does not say that the nature of mind is luminosity, but rather says that the nature of mind is luminous. It would have been great if the difference between noun and adjective usage was shown in the Tibetan translations of these texts. That is why I wanted to follow up on gsal dbyangs as a translation of prabhāsvara as an adjective. But in all the examples I checked, of prabhāsvara as luminosity or luminous, the Tibetan translation remained the same, ’od gsal, clear light.

[Malcolm]

I think however, this is not how the Tibetan translators and their Indian informants split the term to come up with clear light ['od gsal]. I am fairly certain they split it the way I mentioned, taking svara as "clear":, from its primary meaning as tone, and prabhās meaning "light", hence the reason in Buddhist literature the frequent references to voices as "clear" in tone indicate by the alternate translation of prabhāsvara as gsal (prabhā) dbyangs (svara) translation of prabhāsvara.

We always have to keep in mind that Buddhist authors often depart from Paninian standards when etymologizing terms.

I was not familiar with gsal dbyangs as a translation of prabhāsvara.

Mahāvyutpatti entry 451.

[anjali]

Mahāvyutpatti entry 451.

David mentions that in his post four lines down.

[samsarasucks]

A word soup pointing toward nothing.

[Tom]

This thread was linked to in another thread which prompted a late reply…

These are experiences of a mind, not a cognizer itself, that should be obvious to you from the text.

I'm aware of this and mentioned that they were experiences (nyam) above.

I'm simply giving an example of the word luminosity (‘od gsal) standing in for the word clarity (gsal).

On the other, hand, if it is as you say, this is still not the rang bzhin 'od gsal, since that is clearly ultimate, and not a fleeting experience, the attachment to which results in a form realm rebirth.

Yes, and Situ Rinpoche supports my reading and comments on this line that attachment here will result in a form realm rebirth. Again, my point is only that here we have an example of the word luminosity standing in for the word clarity.

You elided rig in rang rig in your translation, in response I elided 'dzin pa.

This is a ridiculous response and why I initially thought not to bother to continue with the discussion.

Perhaps what it should read is "the unobscured luminosity of a featureless apprehension."

No, that would again be an incorrect translation. My original translation is accurate.

[Malcolm]

This thread was linked to in another thread which prompted a late reply…

These are experiences of a mind, not a cognizer itself, that should be obvious to you from the text.

I'm aware of this and mentioned that they were experiences (nyam) above.

I'm simply giving an example of the word luminosity (‘od gsal) standing in for the word clarity (gsal).

On the other, hand, if it is as you say, this is still not the rang bzhin 'od gsal, since that is clearly ultimate, and not a fleeting experience, the attachment to which results in a form realm rebirth.

Yes, and Situ Rinpoche supports my reading and comments on this line that attachment here will result in a form realm rebirth. Again, my point is only that here we have an example of the word luminosity standing in for the word clarity.

You elided rig in rang rig in your translation, in response I elided 'dzin pa.

This is a ridiculous response and why I initially thought not to bother to continue with the discussion.

Perhaps what it should read is "the unobscured luminosity of a featureless apprehension."

No, that would again be an incorrect translation. My original translation is accurate.

No, "luminosity without grasping" is not correct.

If you read it, "not grasping signs, luminosity is free from covering obscurations..." then it would be correct, likewise for the line above it and below.


ཞེན་པ་མེད་པའི་བདེ་ཆེན་རྒྱུན་ཆད་མེད། །
Without clinging, great bliss is uninterrupted.
མཚན་འཛིན་མེད་པའི་འོད་གསལ་སྒྲིབ་གཡོགས་བྲལ། །
Without grasping signs, luminosity is free from covering obscurations.
བློ་ལས་འདས་པའི་མི་རྟོག་ལྷུན་གྱིས་གྲུབ། །
Beyond mind, nonconceptuality is effortless —
རྩོལ་མེད་ཉམས་མྱོང་རྒྱུན་ཆད་མེད་པར་ཤོག
may effortless experience be uninterrupted!

As for whether here we can take "'od gsal" as being a pure gloss for gsal ba to fill in the lines of the verse — I have my doubts.

And you did elide the rig in rang rig.

[Tom]

This thread was linked to in another thread which prompted a late reply…

These are experiences of a mind, not a cognizer itself, that should be obvious to you from the text.

I'm aware of this and mentioned that they were experiences (nyam) above.

I'm simply giving an example of the word luminosity (‘od gsal) standing in for the word clarity (gsal).

On the other, hand, if it is as you say, this is still not the rang bzhin 'od gsal, since that is clearly ultimate, and not a fleeting experience, the attachment to which results in a form realm rebirth.

Yes, and Situ Rinpoche supports my reading and comments on this line that attachment here will result in a form realm rebirth. Again, my point is only that here we have an example of the word luminosity standing in for the word clarity.

You elided rig in rang rig in your translation, in response I elided 'dzin pa.

This is a ridiculous response and why I initially thought not to bother to continue with the discussion.

Perhaps what it should read is "the unobscured luminosity of a featureless apprehension."

No, that would again be an incorrect translation. My original translation is accurate.

No, "luminosity without grasping" is not correct.

If you read it, "not grasping signs, luminosity is free from covering obscurations..." then it would be correct, likewise for the line above it and below.


ཞེན་པ་མེད་པའི་བདེ་ཆེན་རྒྱུན་ཆད་མེད། །
Without clinging, great bliss is uninterrupted.
མཚན་འཛིན་མེད་པའི་འོད་གསལ་སྒྲིབ་གཡོགས་བྲལ། །
Without grasping signs, luminosity is free from covering obscurations.
བློ་ལས་འདས་པའི་མི་རྟོག་ལྷུན་གྱིས་གྲུབ། །
Beyond mind, nonconceptuality is effortless —
རྩོལ་མེད་ཉམས་མྱོང་རྒྱུན་ཆད་མེད་པར་ཤོག
may effortless experience be uninterrupted!

As for whether here we can take "'od gsal" as being a pure gloss for gsal ba to fill in the lines of the verse — I have my doubts.

And you did elide the rig in rang rig.

Your translation is improved now that you have dropped "featureless apprehension." However, in my translation it is more clear that མཚན་འཛིན་མེད་པའི with its genitive ending is modifying འོད་གསལ. Your new translation makes it seem like you are translating མཚན་འཛིན་མེད་པར.

This quibble aside, I think it is pretty clear that luminosity here is signifying clarity.

[Malcolm]

Your translation is improved now that you have dropped "featureless apprehension." However, in my translation it is more clear that མཚན་འཛིན་མེད་པའི with its genitive ending is modifying འོད་གསལ. Your new translation makes it seem like you are translating མཚན་འཛིན་མེད་པར.

This quibble aside, I think it is pretty clear that luminosity here is signifying clarity.

Actually, sometimes "kyi" does not function as a genitive in the sense that we understand it in Latinate grammatical terminology. Here it does not, it sets off a clause.

Anyway, here 'od gsal is not a gloss for clarity anymore than bde chen is a gloss for bde ba.

It is a play on words.

The normal sequence is bde ba, gsal ba, mi rtog pa, not bde chen, 'od 'gsal, mi rtog pa.

Bde chen, great bliss, is something at the ulimate level, just like 'od gsal, not the level of transient experience like simple bde ba. And mi rtog pa can be either.

So I still don't agree with you, patronizing comments aside.

[Tom]

Your translation is improved now that you have dropped "featureless apprehension." However, in my translation it is more clear that མཚན་འཛིན་མེད་པའི with its genitive ending is modifying འོད་གསལ. Your new translation makes it seem like you are translating མཚན་འཛིན་མེད་པར.

This quibble aside, I think it is pretty clear that luminosity here is signifying clarity.

Actually, sometimes "kyi" does not function as a genitive in the sense that we understand it in Latinate grammatical terminology. Here it does not, it sets off a clause.

Sometimes… not here. In the cases it does it usually comes after a verbal stem, not the verbal substantive that we see here. Moreover, it is generally conveys a concessive or restrictive meaning.

Anyway, here 'od gsal is not a gloss for clarity anymore than bde chen is a gloss for bde ba.

It is a play on words.

The normal sequence is bde ba, gsal ba, mi rtog pa, not bde chen, 'od 'gsal, mi rtog pa.

Bde chen, great bliss, is something at the ulimate level, just like 'od gsal, not the level of transient experience like simple bde ba. And mi rtog pa can be either.

Yes, this gets into the oral instructions on the verse which actually relate to how correct clarity (luminosity) is discerned from faulty clarity - not really appropriate for board discussion. Still, luminosity here is being related to clarity.

So I still don't agree with you, patronizing comments aside.

No patronizing. I’m simply responding to your comments and so I’ll leave it here.

[Malcolm]

Yes, this gets into the oral instructions on the verse which actually relate to how correct clarity (luminosity) is discerned from faulty clarity - not really appropriate for board discussion. Still, luminosity here is being related to clarity.

Your assertion was that in this verse, od sal = gsal ba; a one to one identity. I disagreed before. I still disagree.

The line concerns what we might call the "fundamental mind of clear light" in Gelug terms. In Sakyapa terms, it would be the luminosity found in between two moments of mind. However we decide to parse it, it concerns the luminosity which is the basis from which arise the three consciousnesses, ref. Jnānavajrasamuccaya.

[mzaur]

Malcolm, thanks for the post. Very interesting.

is the ground clear light experienced at death something else then? I always thought of this as literally experiencing light

[Temicco]

I have some hangups with respect to how to interpret all these quotes. It's clear that luminosity indeed functioned as a metaphor for purity, but can one exhaustively and reductively state that (natural) luminosity is a metaphor for purity? I'm not so sure. It seems like luminosity could also feasibly fill a variety of other roles, such that if someone comes across a decontextualized line like "the mind is luminous", it may not necessarily be a reference to (only) purity. I basically think that two things account for most of these quotes: one-sided entailment, and juxtaposition. Entailment is expressed logically with a conditional, and juxtaposition with a conjunction; so, many of these quotes assert luminosity--> purity or luminosity/\purity, but not the luminosity<-->purity stance that is necessary for true, exhaustive equivalence (which, in semantics, is defined as a reciprocal entailment). There are a few outliers, which I include below:

The Ārya-prajñāpāramitānayaśatapañcāśatikā states:

• Since prajñāpāramitā is totally pure, all phenomena are naturally luminous.
  

I honestly don't understand this one -- what is PP's relation to all phenomena?

The Ārya-bodhisattvapiṭaka-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:

• If it is asked what is luminosity, that which is natural is without affliction, like space, the nature of space. Follow space. That which is equivalent with the extent of space itself is extremely luminous by nature. Therefore, the immature are temporarily afflicted because they do not comprehend natural luminosity. Since sentient beings do not know natural luminosity, they must comprehend natural luminosity…Due to understanding the natural luminosity of the mind just as it is, the unsurpassed perfected awakening through the discerning wisdom possessed by an instant of the mind is called “full buddhahood.”

This one doesn't really make sense to me. The first line seems to actually say that natural-->pure. The whole chain seems to be natural-->pure-->space-like-->luminous, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

The Ārya-sarvabuddhaviṣayāvatārajñānālokālaṃkāra-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:

• Mañjuśrī, because the mind is naturally luminous, the secondary afflictions are exhausted by temporary secondary afflictions, but the primary afflictions do not exist by nature. Whatever is naturally luminous is without primary afflictions…
  Mañjuśrī, awakening naturally luminous through the natural luminosity of the mind. If it is asked what is luminosity, whatever is natural is without the primary afflictions, is equal with space, has the nature of space and is included in space, and is like space because of being extremely luminous by nature.

The first part of this is just the luminous-->pure relationship, which I don't deny. The second is again saying something like natural-->pure, which I don't understand. Basically the logical connections in this and the previous quote just don't follow, IMO.

The Ārya-cintye-prabhāsa-nirdeśa-nāma-dharmaparyāya states:

• The child asked, how shall I discern this? The mind is naturally luminous, within that afflictions are not produced and it does not become afflicted.”
  The Bhagavān replied, “It is just as you have said. The mind is always luminous, the common people become afflicted by temporary afflictions."

What does "within that" mean in the first line?

The Āryātajñāna-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:

• Since all phenomena are naturally luminous,
  one should fully cultivate the perception of nonperception.

Don't really see how this relates.

The Ārya-Śūraṃgamasamādhi-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:

• All phenomena are naturally luminous,
  those are not real entities.
  When something is a nonentity,
  that is the purity of phenomena.

Is the first line meaing something like, "all phenomena, being naturally luminous, are not real entities"? Regardless, just A-->B-->C, so A-->C, so just luminosity-->purity.

The Ārya-bodhisattvagocaropāyaviṣayavikurvitanirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:

• Due to not being asserted in other vehicles, the mind is pure. Due to the removal of the turbulence of the afflictions, the mind is not afflicted. Due to naturally luminosity, the mind is luminous.

Is it just saying that because phenomena are naturally luminous, so is the mind, since all phenomena are one's mind? Regardless, this quote doesn't seem to be relevant either.

The Ārya-tathāgatamahākaruṇānirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:

• Due to the natural luminosity of the mind, awakening is naturally luminous. If it is asked why it is called “naturally luminous,” whatever is natural is without the afflictions, equivalent with space, the nature of space, and equal in extent with space, and even with space. That nature is very luminous. Since immature common people do not comprehend natural luminosity, they are afflicted by the afflictions…
  The element of afflictions are fully known as the characteristics of the temporary afflictions. The element of purification is fully known as the characteristic of natural luminosity…
  The natural luminosity of the mind should be known in just that way. Due to that, the Dharma of the existence of result is shown in one moment of mind.

Again, the natural--> pure thing from earlier. Also, why is awakening what is luminous here? The fifth line is interesting in that it seems to suggest that natural luminosity is just the full expression of whatever the "element of purification" is. This is the only quote so far which, therefore, might suggest an equivalency between natural luminosity and purity.

The Ārya-gaganagañjaparipṛcchā-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:

• Whoever skillfully realizes all phenomena as pure,
  that is the natural luminosity of the mind…
  Because the mind is naturally luminous,
  therefore it is never afflicted.

This is now the second quote which states that natural luminosity of the mind is just the term for the proper perception of the purity of phenomena.

I've left out the tantras. Most of them established either conditionality or conjunction, but not biconditionality/equivalence. IOW, it's clear that

luminosity is uniformly considered to be a metaphor for the purity of both mind and phenomena

but it is not clear except for those two quotes that natural luminosity is just the proper understanding of reality's intrinsic purity. Surely luminosity can play other roles? What do you think?

Edit: to clarify, I've left out all quotes (sutra or otherwise) that just express entailment or conjunction but not biconditionality. I've only included quotes whose interpretation was unclear to me, or which supported biconditionality.

[Malcolm]

such that if someone comes across a decontextualized line like "the mind is luminous", it may not necessarily be a reference to (only) purity...Surely luminosity can play other roles? What do you think?

Not in sūtra. But thanks for taking the time to look at these statements. This is what is stated in sūtra. I just translate as it is in the text.

[Temicco]

such that if someone comes across a decontextualized line like "the mind is luminous", it may not necessarily be a reference to (only) purity...Surely luminosity can play other roles? What do you think?

Not in sūtra. But thanks for taking the time to look at these statements. This is what is stated in sūtra. I just translate as it is in the text.

Just in sutra, or in sutrayana? And setting aside the mind for a moment, the luminosity of prajna and vidya, for instance, isn't just about purity, no?