The meaning of "luminosity"

tl;dr: here are texts from multiple different traditions explaining that the terms "luminous" and "luminosity" refer to purity, and not to literal radiance of light.

From an article by Mahasi Sayadaw, here:

Where consciousness is signless, boundless, all-luminous,

That’s where earth, water, fire, and air find no footing,

There both long and short, small and great, fair and foul—

There “name-and-form” [mental and physical phenomena] are wholly destroyed.

With the cessation of consciousness, this is all destroyed.

—Digha Nikaya, 11.85

The statement that nibbana is “all-luminous” in this passage means that it is completely cleansed of all defilements. Similar metaphors are used in such expressions as “the light of wisdom” (panna-aloka), “the luster of wisdom” (panna-obhasa), and “the torch of wisdom” (pannapajjota). It is in this same sense that the Buddha said, “Bhikkhus, the mind is luminous.” The sense here is that nibbana is always luminous. The mind and wisdom that possess an innate luminosity can be soiled by defiling phenomena. Nibbana, however, which is the cessation of defilements or conditioned phenomena, can never be connected with defiling phenomena. Therefore there is no way that any of these phenomena can soil or defile nibbana, just as the sky can never be painted. As a result, it is said that “nibbana is all-luminous.” To be straightforward, the meaning of the commentary and subcommentary is only that nibbana is absolutely not connected to the defilements or is completely cleansed of them.

So one should not misinterpret this statement to mean that nibbana is literally shining like the sun, moon, or stars, and that one sees this luminosity by means of path knowledge and fruition knowledge. This kind of interpretation would negate the previous statement that nibbana is signless, would be inconsistent with its unique “signless” manifestation (animittapaccupanhana), and would contradict Venerable Nagasena’s answer to King Milinda’s question about the nature of nibbana. In fact, this kind of literal interpretation would be in opposition to all the Pali texts and commentaries that say there is no materiality in nibbana. In any event, the cessation of potential defilements and aggregates is not something that is luminous and bright. If it were, the Pali texts and commentaries could easily have said that “nibbana is luminous and bright.” Otherwise they would not explain it with difficult names such as “destruction of lust” (ragakkhayo), “the peaceful ending of all conditioned phenomena” (sabbasankharasamatho), “nonarising” (anuppado), and so on, which are taken to be opposites of conditioned phenomena. One should reflect deeply about this!

From Moonbeams of Mahamudra (tr. Lhalungpa) by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal:

The Gyetongpa (Aṣṭasāhaśrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra) teaches:

The nature of mind consists of luminous clarity.

The Laṅkāvatāra states:

Mind’s nature consists of luminous clarity,

Which is the intrinsic nature of the Tathāgata.

There are many such passages that describe the nature of mind as being luminous clarity. The term “luminous clarity” means that it is pure, unstained by any discriminating thoughts such as arising, dwelling, or ceasing. Like space, or even inseparable from the nature of space, it [the nature of mind] remains immutable at all times, undefiled [by any mental blemishes], and detached from the particles of the aggregates. The Upāliparipṛcchā explains:

This mind in its nature is pure and luminous.

It is nonsubstantive, undefiled, and detached from any subatomic particles.

The Gyülama (Uttara-tantra) says:

This luminous clarity, being the nature of the mind,

Is immutable, like space.

The Yeshey Nangwa Gyan (Jñānālokālaṃkāra-sūtra) elaborates:

[Buddha:] O Mañjuśrī, enlightenment by its innate nature consists of luminous clarity, because the mind’s intrinsic nature is luminously clear. Why is it so designated? The mind’s intrinsic nature is detached from any inner defilement and is equal to or possesses the nature of space, while encompassing space through its identical characteristics. For all these reasons it is designated as being luminous clarity.

The Namnang Ngönjang (Vairochanābhisaṃbodhi ) remarks:

The nature of the mind is pure, yet it cannot be conceived dualistically as being external, internal, or in-between.

And again it says:

Whatever is the nature of space is the nature of mind. Whatever is the nature of mind is the mind of enlightenment. For this reason the mind, the expanse of space, and the mind of enlightenment are nondual and inseparable.

The Guhyasamāja explains:

Since all things in their nature are luminously clear,

They are pure from the beginning, like space.

This being so, some unwise meditators, when they experience any kind of inner clarity, consider it to be the mind’s luminous clarity and even assume it to be radiant like sunlight. This is a very serious error, because, as proven by earlier quotations, the term “luminous clarity” has been used simply to mean that the mind is of intrinsic purity, which is unstained by discriminating thoughts or emotional afflictions. If the nature of the mind consists of anything radiant and colorful, the mind would have to be a light and have a color. Then the [Buddhist] doctrine that holds the nature of the mind to be pure, i.e., detached from any self-essence, would be wrong.

Third text: see here (too long to post the whole thing)

submitted by /u/Temicco
[link] [comments]

from Buddhism https://ift.tt/2xZRBEu