Natural Luminosity

[Wayfarer]

Tony Duff has published more than one book.

I am trying to understand this philosophically. It seems clear to me that 'things' are not actually luminous. If they were actually luminous then you could measure their luminosity using a photometer. So it seems 'luminosity', whether of mind or things, is a metaphorical expression. I think 'luminosity' must be a metaphor for 'knowing' - mind is intrinsically knowing, and that 'knowing' is fundamental to its nature; but that 'knowing' is not an attribute of 'something', it is simply an intrinsic attribute of mind.

While [mind] is empty and while there is nothing there in a sense, nevertheless there is a natural clarity or luminosity, which is traditionally referred to as buddha nature, the spontaneously present qualities, and so on. Here luminosity does not refer to physical light or some kind of physical radiance. In this context, luminosity simply refers to the cognitive capacity or awareness, which is the defining characteristic of a mind. A mind is not any thing, and yet it cognizes; that is what is meant by the unity of luminosity and emptiness. This is something that we experience directly and that we do not have to talk ourselves into through logical analysis.

http://nalandatranslation.org/offerings ... sity-osel/

[krodha]

I think 'luminosity' must be a metaphor for 'knowing' - mind is intrinsically knowing, and that 'knowing' is fundamental to its nature; but that 'knowing' is not an attribute of 'something', it is simply an intrinsic attribute of mind.

The "knowing" cognizance of mind is called "clarity" [gsal ba]. Clarity is susceptible to conditioning. The nature of mind as non-dual clarity and emptiness is the unconditioned luminosity [od gsal] of mind.

For the luminosity of mind to be directly known one has to recognize the emptiness of clarity, meaning the non-arising of the "knowing" or cognizance of mind.

[Malcolm]

I am trying to understand this philosophically. It seems clear to me that 'things are not actually luminous'. If they were actually luminous then you could measure their luminosity using a photometer. So it seems 'luminosity', whether of mind or things, is a metaphorical expression. I think 'luminosity' must be a metaphor for 'knowing' - mind is intrinsically knowing, and that 'knowing' is fundamental to its nature; but that 'knowing' is not an attribute of 'something', it is simply an intrinsic attribute of mind.

Light = purity in the pre-modern mind.

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. I did not exclude citations that were somehow inconvenient to this definition. On the contrary, I sought for them and could not find them because they do not exist.

Thus, to say that matter is naturally luminous is merely to say that it is ultimately pure. I am not sure why people are intent in ignoring the fact that the term "natural luminosity" is uniformly applied to all phenomena, all phenomena are naturally luminous, not only the mind.

To be sure, the term 'od gsal by itself can and is often used merely to refer to lights shining from the Buddha's uṛṇa and so on, the quality of the light of a gem and so on. But in this context, we are not discussing the generic term "light", we are discussing a very specific term, [rang bzhin gyis od gsal ba], which is a technical term that has a very persistent usage across a broad swath of sūtras and tantras.

Clarity [gsal ba] is the power of the mind to makes things evident. It is defined as the characteristic [lakṣana] of the mind, for example, in both Sakya Lamdre and Kagyu Mahāmudra.

Luminosity [in this context] and clarity, 'od gsal ba and gsal ba, are therefore, really not the same thing at all.

I very carefully looked for examples in the translations of Indian texts where gsal ba could be taken as an abbreviation of 'od gsal ba and was unable to find any at all. I have spent many hours engaged in this project. I also compared usages in available Sanskrit texts as well. Perhaps someone more skilled in Tibetan, in looking up citations, in reading them and in translating them, will be successful where I have failed.

Further, as I showed already, luminosity and clarity are treated separately and distinctly in one of the main sources for understanding the so called union of clarity and emptiness, which I presented in the tantra above.

I did not present this post with an intention to have a lengthy debate about the issue. I selected a few representative quotes out of hundreds (to avoid stultifying repetition) in order to edify all of you. If you choose to be edified, that is fantastic. If you prefer to cling to your own ideas, that is just fine with me too.

At this point, having restated my point of view three or four times, I will leave it here unless someone has something of further value to add. Otherwise, I fear we are just going in circles.

[Tom]

Clarity [gsal ba] is the power of the mind to makes things evident. It is defined as the characteristic [lakṣana] of the mind, for example, in both Sakya Lamdre and Kagyu Mahāmudra.

Luminosity [in this context] and clarity, 'od gsal ba and gsal ba, are therefore, really not the same thing at all.

However, in mahāmudrā texts you will find 'od gsal being explained as a type of "knowing." For example the 3rd Karmapa in the The Aspirational Prayer of Mahāmudrā says,

ཞེན་པ་མེད་པའི་བདེ་ཆེན་རྒྱུན་ཆད་མེད། །
Great bliss without attachment is continuous.
མཚན་འཛིན་མེད་པའི་འོད་གསལ་སྒྲིབ་གཡོགས་བྲལ། །
Luminosity without grasping at attributes is free from obscuration.
བློ་ལས་འདས་པའི་མི་རྟོག་ལྷུན་གྱིས་གྲུབ། །
Non-conceptuality that is beyond the intellect is spontaneous.
རྩོལ་མེད་ཉམས་མྱོང་རྒྱུན་ཆད་མེད་པར་ཤོག།
May these effortless experiences occur without interruption.

The 8th Situpa clarifies in this verse that luminosity ('od gsal) here is self-luminous (rang rig 'od gsal) and is of the nature of clarity (gsal).

[Wayfarer]

Thanks, Malcolm, very helpful. I am not trying to be difficult, and I accept the basic premise 100%. Just interested in exploring the philosophical ramifications.

[Malcolm]

Clarity [gsal ba] is the power of the mind to makes things evident. It is defined as the characteristic [lakṣana] of the mind, for example, in both Sakya Lamdre and Kagyu Mahāmudra.

Luminosity [in this context] and clarity, 'od gsal ba and gsal ba, are therefore, really not the same thing at all.

However, in mahāmudrā texts you will find 'od gsal being explained as a type of "knowing." For example the 3rd Karmapa in the The Aspirational Prayer of Mahāmudrā says,

ཞེན་པ་མེད་པའི་བདེ་ཆེན་རྒྱུན་ཆད་མེད། །
Great bliss without attachment is continuous.
མཚན་འཛིན་མེད་པའི་འོད་གསལ་སྒྲིབ་གཡོགས་བྲལ། །
Luminosity without grasping at attributes is free from obscuration.
བློ་ལས་འདས་པའི་མི་རྟོག་ལྷུན་གྱིས་གྲུབ། །
Non-conceptuality that is beyond the intellect is spontaneous.
རྩོལ་མེད་ཉམས་མྱོང་རྒྱུན་ཆད་མེད་པར་ཤོག།
May these effortless experiences occur without interruption.

The 8th Situpa clarifies in this verse that luminosity ('od gsal) here is self-luminous (rang rig 'od gsal) and is of the nature of clarity (gsal).

You mean it is the luminosity of reflexive knowing, which is free from obscuration. Thus, since in this case 'od gsal is being used as an adjective for the absence of obscuration of the reflexive knower that does not apprehend characteristics, it is perfectly fine if that reflexive knower also has the characteristic of clarity; the two are not mutually exclusive when it comes to a mind. But the former ['od gsal] is not the latter [gsal ba], nor the latter the former. In fact, this verse is perfectly consistent with the points I have made above.

You could have just as easily translated the line, "Featureless luminosity is unobscured." The question then arises, the featureless luminosity of what? The answer, of a reflexive knower.

Also, frankly translating lhun gyis grub [anābhoga] as spontaneous should be deprecated [as in code].

[Malcolm]

Thanks, Malcolm, very helpful. I am not trying to be difficult, and I accept the basic premise 100%. Just interested in exploring the philosophical ramifications.

Sure, you would need to examine the Abhisamayālaṃkara literature, it is treated most at length there.

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/

[LastLegend]

I am quite difficult and hereby stating my opinion. I think there is unnecessary wordiness which I think inherited from the Indian thought. Too many definitions, thus too many projections about what's out there creating more confusion. That does not succinctly point to our current conditions. It's almost irrevelant.

[LastLegend]

My understanding. This so called luminosity if referring to the physical brightness, then it's referring to the the appearance of truly awakened mind called Buddha. If referring to mind means a clear mind/wisdom which is the opposite of ignorance and delusion. Forgive me for stating my thought I meant no harm.

[LastLegend]

Again stating my opinion. Luminosity(if means brightness of appearance/all physical objects) could be a display. The truly awakened mind is neither brightness or darkness because awakened mind is not appearance. If said appearance is naturally luminous as in uniform/uni-appearance (oneness), then why can't the appearance of darkness also be uniform/uni-appearance (oneness) as well? Why luminous/brightness only and not darkness? Oneness means no time-past,present,or future. I remember wisdom of Tathagata is inconceivable, how can it be brightness or darkness? I hope to not lead people to have wrong views. Just my thoughts, I might be wrong. Take it lightly if it confuses people.

If, as in a dream, you see a light brighter than the sun, your remaining attachments will suddenly come to an end and the nature of reality will be revealed. Such an occurrence serves as the basis for enlightenment. But this is something only you know. You can’t explain it to others. Or if, while you’re walking, standing, sitting, or lying in a quiet grove, you see a light, regardless of whether it’s bright or dim, don’t tell others and don’t focus on it. It’s the light of your own nature.

Or if, while you’re walking, standing, sitting, or lying in the stillness and darkness of night, everything appears as though in daylight, don’t be startled. It’s your own mind about to reveal itself.

Or if, while you’re dreaming at night, you see the moon and stars in all their clarity, it means the workings of your mind are about to end. But don’t tell others. And if your dreams aren’t clear, as if you were walking in the dark, it’s because your mind is masked by cares. This too is something of" you know. if you so your nature,, you don’t need to read sutras or invoke buddhas. Erudition and Knowledge are not only useless but also cloud your awareness. Doctrines are only for pointing to the mind. Once you see your mind, why pay attention to doctrines?

[A Ah Sha Sa Ma Ha]

In the Bible it says no mortal can see God and live. Is this why this Luminosity can only be experienced fully by advanced meditator's ?

[LastLegend]

Opinion again. If mind conceives no appearance, then where can appearance arise? Appearance does not arise does not mean mind is separate from appearance. It just means Tathagatha, the inconceivable which only Buddhas know, and once we are Buddhas we know. There was a god who tried to read Buddha but failed, simply because that god was not Buddha. Buddha is beyond conception and has to be realized.

[Wayfarer]

quite a good short article on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_mind.

The references are useful also.

[Gyurme Kundrol]

Thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge and wisdom Malcolm. I believe I've benefited a lot from reading your contributions.

[fckw]

Luminosity and clarity are not the same thing.

These statements by Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche are also in error?

The word clarity can itself be a cause of error, because sometimes people misunderstand its meaning and think that we are talking about brightness, some kind of luminosity like moonlight, sunlight, or electric light. Clarity means that the mind knows, that it is not in a state of oblivion. There is knowledge and knowing. We know that there is a state of peace, but it is unidentifiable. Although we cannot locate it, we can see that there is also a state of clarity, a knowing.

With regard to this awareness of the present moment, our mind is utterly insubstantial and yet has this characteristic of luminosity (Tib. salwa). "Luminosity" here simply means the cognitive capacity, the fact that our mind can know, experience, feel, and so on.

Ah, thanks. That was a point I was not completely sure about for a long time.

Sometimes in meditation there may arise "inner light experiences", e.g. inner brightness, like an illuminating lamp (e.g. from the top of your head). I was never quite sure whether the term "clear light" was actually referring to any of these or not. Apparently this is not the case. No matter whether clarity or luminosity is used as a term (which this thread is about) in neither case do they refer to these "inner light experiences".

[Tom]

Clarity [gsal ba] is the power of the mind to makes things evident. It is defined as the characteristic [lakṣana] of the mind, for example, in both Sakya Lamdre and Kagyu Mahāmudra.

Luminosity [in this context] and clarity, 'od gsal ba and gsal ba, are therefore, really not the same thing at all.

However, in mahāmudrā texts you will find 'od gsal being explained as a type of "knowing." For example the 3rd Karmapa in the The Aspirational Prayer of Mahāmudrā says,

ཞེན་པ་མེད་པའི་བདེ་ཆེན་རྒྱུན་ཆད་མེད། །
Great bliss without attachment is continuous.
མཚན་འཛིན་མེད་པའི་འོད་གསལ་སྒྲིབ་གཡོགས་བྲལ། །
Luminosity without grasping at attributes is free from obscuration.
བློ་ལས་འདས་པའི་མི་རྟོག་ལྷུན་གྱིས་གྲུབ། །
Non-conceptuality that is beyond the intellect is spontaneous.
རྩོལ་མེད་ཉམས་མྱོང་རྒྱུན་ཆད་མེད་པར་ཤོག།
May these effortless experiences occur without interruption.

The 8th Situpa clarifies in this verse that luminosity ('od gsal) here is self-luminous (rang rig 'od gsal) and is of the nature of clarity (gsal).

You mean it is the luminosity of reflexive knowing, which is free from obscuration. Thus, since in this case 'od gsal is being used as an adjective for the absence of obscuration of the reflexive knower that does not apprehend characteristics, it is perfectly fine if that reflexive knower also has the characteristic of clarity; the two are not mutually exclusive when it comes to a mind. But the former ['od gsal] is not the latter [gsal ba], nor the latter the former. In fact, this verse is perfectly consistent with the points I have made above.

You could have just as easily translated the line, "Featureless luminosity is unobscured." The question then arises, the featureless luminosity of what? The answer, of a reflexive knower.

Also, frankly translating lhun gyis grub [anābhoga] as spontaneous should be deprecated [as in code].

No need to torture the text... the meaning is clear. The first three lines are obviously talking about the three meditative experiences of bliss, clarity, and non-conceptuality (བདེ་གསལ་མི་རྟོག་པའི་ཉམས་གསུམ་) and interestingly here the 3rd Karmapa uses luminosity ('od gsal) rather than clarity (gsal) for the second experience. He uses luminosity ('od gsal) and clarity (gsal) as interchangeable in this context.

There is one line here that is relevant: མཚན་འཛིན་མེད་པའི་འོད་གསལ་སྒྲིབ་གཡོགས་བྲལ། and མཚན་འཛིན་མེད་པ is clearly modifying luminosity (་འོད་གསལ) describing it as something that does not grasp at attributes. Of course, grasping /not grasping is a very common way of talking about "knowers." Your suggestion "Featureless luminosity” does not capture this and is incorrect.

[Malcolm]

No need to torture the text... the meaning is clear. The first three lines are obviously talking about the three meditative experiences of bliss, clarity, and non-conceptuality (བདེ་གསལ་མི་རྟོག་པའི་ཉམས་གསུམ་) and interestingly here the 3rd Karmapa uses luminosity ('od gsal) rather than clarity (gsal) for the second experience. He uses luminosity ('od gsal) and clarity (gsal) as interchangeable in this context.

There is one line here that is relevant: མཚན་འཛིན་མེད་པའི་འོད་གསལ་སྒྲིབ་གཡོགས་བྲལ། and མཚན་འཛིན་མེད་པ is clearly modifying luminosity (་འོད་གསལ) describing it as something that does not grasp at attributes. Of course, grasping /not grasping is a very common way of talking about "knowers." Your suggestion "Featureless luminosity” does not capture this and is incorrect.

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

There are no attributes to grasp in luminosity. 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.

The fact that Tai Situ introduces the fact that it is the 'od gsal of rang rig proves that in this case. You elided rig in rang rig in your translation, in response I elided 'dzin pa. Perhaps what it should read is "the unobscured luminosity of a featureless apprehension." Read this way, it places luminosity as an adjective of rang rig, which is clearly how the Situ 8 sees it, rang rig 'od gsal, where 'od gsal is an adjective describing rang rig.

M

[A Ah Sha Sa Ma Ha]

In the Bible it says no mortal can see God and live. Is this why this Luminosity can only be experienced fully by advanced meditator's ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

"Some variations of Buddhism express a philosophical belief in an eternal Buddha: a representation of omnipresent enlightenment and a symbol of the true nature of the universe. The primordial aspect that interconnects every part of the universe is the clear light of the eternal Buddha, where everything timelessly arises and dissolves"




"Mahayana Buddhism is not only intellectual, but it is also devotional... in Mahayana, Buddha was taken as God, as Supreme Reality itself that descended on the earth in human form for the good of mankind. The concept of Buddha (as equal to God in theistic systems) was never as a creator but as Divine Love that out of compassion (karuna) embodied itself in human form to uplift suffering humanity. He was worshipped with fervent devotion... He represents the Absolute (paramartha satya), devoid of all plurality (sarva-prapancanta-vinirmukta) and has no beginning, middle and end... Buddha... is eternal, immutable... As such He represents Dharmakaya."
—Professor C. D. Sebastian

"According to the Tathagatagarbha sutras, the Buddha taught the existence of this spiritual essence called the tathagatagarbha or Buddha-nature, which is present in all beings and phenomena. B. Alan Wallace writes of this doctrine:

"The essential nature of the whole of samsara and nirvana is the absolute space (dhatu) of the tathagatagarbha, but this space is not to be confused with a mere absence of matter. Rather, this absolute space is imbued with all the infinite knowledge, compassion, power, and enlightened activities of the Buddha. Moreover, this luminous space is that which causes the phenomenal world to appear, and it is none other than the nature of one's own mind, which by nature is clear light."
—B. Alan Wallace


""Samantabhadra, the primordial Buddha whose nature is identical with the tathagatagarbha within each sentient being, is the ultimate ground of samsara and nirvana; and the entire universe consists of nothing other than displays of this infinite, radiant, empty awareness. Thus, in light of the theoretical progression from the bhavanga to the tathagatagarbha to the primordial wisdom of the absolute space of reality, Buddhism is not so simply non-theistic as it may appear at first glance."
—B. Alan Wallace

"The Rinzai Zen Buddhist master, Soyen Shaku, speaking to Americans at the beginning of the 20th century, discusses how in essence the idea of God is not absent from Buddhism, when understood as ultimate, true Reality"

[Malcolm]

In the Bible it says no mortal can see God and live. Is this why this Luminosity can only be experienced fully by advanced meditator's ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

"Some variations of Buddhism express a philosophical belief in an eternal Buddha: a representation of omnipresent enlightenment and a symbol of the true nature of the universe. The primordial aspect that interconnects every part of the universe is the clear light of the eternal Buddha, where everything timelessly arises and dissolves"




"Mahayana Buddhism is not only intellectual, but it is also devotional... in Mahayana, Buddha was taken as God, as Supreme Reality itself that descended on the earth in human form for the good of mankind. The concept of Buddha (as equal to God in theistic systems) was never as a creator but as Divine Love that out of compassion (karuna) embodied itself in human form to uplift suffering humanity. He was worshipped with fervent devotion... He represents the Absolute (paramartha satya), devoid of all plurality (sarva-prapancanta-vinirmukta) and has no beginning, middle and end... Buddha... is eternal, immutable... As such He represents Dharmakaya."
—Professor C. D. Sebastian

"According to the Tathagatagarbha sutras, the Buddha taught the existence of this spiritual essence called the tathagatagarbha or Buddha-nature, which is present in all beings and phenomena. B. Alan Wallace writes of this doctrine:

"The essential nature of the whole of samsara and nirvana is the absolute space (dhatu) of the tathagatagarbha, but this space is not to be confused with a mere absence of matter. Rather, this absolute space is imbued with all the infinite knowledge, compassion, power, and enlightened activities of the Buddha. Moreover, this luminous space is that which causes the phenomenal world to appear, and it is none other than the nature of one's own mind, which by nature is clear light."
—B. Alan Wallace


""Samantabhadra, the primordial Buddha whose nature is identical with the tathagatagarbha within each sentient being, is the ultimate ground of samsara and nirvana; and the entire universe consists of nothing other than displays of this infinite, radiant, empty awareness. Thus, in light of the theoretical progression from the bhavanga to the tathagatagarbha to the primordial wisdom of the absolute space of reality, Buddhism is not so simply non-theistic as it may appear at first glance."
—B. Alan Wallace

"The Rinzai Zen Buddhist master, Soyen Shaku, speaking to Americans at the beginning of the 20th century, discusses how in essence the idea of God is not absent from Buddhism, when understood as ultimate, true Reality"

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

[A Ah Sha Sa Ma Ha]

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 !