The Luminous Mind

“Luminous, bhikkhus, is this mind, but it is defiled by visiting defilements.” (AN 1:49)

“Luminous, bhikkhus, is this mind, and it is freed from visiting defilements.” (AN 1:50)

These two related suttas and their terse and almost cryptic description of the mind have fascinated, intrigued, and confounded many teachers and students of Buddha-Dhamma for a long time. The Commentary identified this luminous mind with the bhavaṅga-citta, the life-continuum consciousness. But, probably because of the suttas' laconic, cryptic, riddle-like, and almost poetic description of the mind, many have simply refused to accept the Commentary’s assertion that this luminous mind is something as simple, unimaginative, and uninspiring as the unassuming bhavaṅga-citta. After all, bhavaṅga-citta is often associated with the state of mind when one is asleep. So how can it be described as luminous? And so many have worked to come up with what they think or feel would be a more satisfying and inspiring explanation as to what this luminous mind is.

To begin with, some take the expression āgantukehi upakkilesehi (which we rendered “visiting defilements”) literally to mean that these defilements are adventitious to the mind, something coming from the outside, an alien, a stranger that are not intrinsic to the nature of the mind and are therefore not an integral part of the mind. They are something which the mind can do without, and which can be put away by means of the practice of Dhamma, leaving the mind in an unadulterated luminous form. While we agree that the practice of the Dhamma can help to restrain the defilements and purify the mind from them, but to say that these defilements, when they arise in the mind, are not intrinsic to the nature of the mind and do not form an integral part of the mind, ignores the fact that the mind or consciousness (citta) always arise with their associated mental-factors (cetasikas) as an integral and inseparable part of every moment of conscious experience. And the defilements are some of these mental-factors that may arise in conjunction with consciousness.

For any particular moment of conscious experience, the consciousness present and mental-factors that arise in association with it are determined by the particular conditions surrounding that moment of experience. So if the conditions present (both external conditions, e.g. the object, the people present, the environment, etc., and internal conditions, e.g. perception of the object, presence or absence of mindfulness, one’s general mood, etc.) are conducive to bringing about wholesome response to the object arising in that moment, then wholesome consciousness associated with beautiful (sobhaṇa) mental-factors arise. On the other hand if they are conducive to arousing unwholesome response, then unwholesome consciousness associated with unwholesome mental-factors – the defilements – arise. Regardless of the response, the consciousness and mental-factors, beautiful or unwholesome, that arise as a result of those conditions, are all integral to that experience in that moment. For they each plays a part in contributing to the overall experience of the object in that moment. It also cannot be said that for dhammas (natural phenomena or realities, including consciousness and their associated mental-factors) involved in one moment of experience of an object, dhammas that are brought about by the same set of conditions, some are integral to that experience while others are not-integral. If one is integral the others must also necessarily be integral. If one is not integral then the others must also necessarily be not integral. Otherwise it would be like saying that for children born of the same parent, some of these children are integral to the family while others are not. Therefore both consciousness and its associated mental-factors, being brought about by the same set of conditions in one moment of experience, must necessarily be integral to the experience in that moment.

In truth defilements do not come into the mind from outside. Nor are they a stranger or alien to the mind – they are something very familiar to the mind of a puthujjana (an ordinary worldling). Rather the defilements are latent (anusaya) in the stream of mental continuity (i.e. the stream of consciousness with their associated mental-factors, arising and passing away together in moment after moment of sense-experience in a continuous flow), existing as a tendency or potential which, when suitable conditions are present, will seize upon that opportunity and cause the defilements to appear concretely in the mind.

Some again take these suttas literally and believe that the Buddha is here describing the mind as intrinsically pure, though capable of being defiled by external defilements which are not intrinsic to its nature. It is like a piece of white cloth which when dirtied by external dirt, can be wash and made pure white again. Just as the piece of cloth is originally white, they take it that the mind is intrinsically and originally pure. Just as external dirt dirties that piece of white cloth so they imagine that external defilements come into the mind and defile it. Just as by washing the cloth with a strong detergent, the dirt can be removed and the cloth can be returned to its original pure white state, they proposed that the purpose of the practice of Dhamma is to remove these external defilements and to return the mind back to its original pure state. This view, however, is a fall back to the view of the non-integralness of the defilements to the conscious experience, taking the defilements to be something external or adventitious to the mind, something that does not constitute the intrinsic nature of the mind. But in fact, if there is anything that we can point out as constituting the intrinsic nature of the mind it would be the defilements. For the Buddha had said this: “Make haste in doing good; Restraint the mind from evil. For if one is slow in doing good, the mind delights in evil.” (Dhammapada 116) The mind that is not carefully restraint from evil, that is not properly directed towards the good, being left to its own devices, it will naturally seek delight in evil. This is its nature. It is perhaps for this reason that in the Buddha’s teaching, while there are defilements that are described as latent-tendency of the mind (anusaya), there are no pure state of mind that are similarly described as a latent potential in the mind.

Also, the purpose of the Buddha’s teaching is not to return to some original pure state of consciousness. For any state of consciousness is still conditioned – by definition consciousness is the knowing of the object and therefore conditioned at least by its object – and what is conditioned, regardless of how pure or lofty it is – even if it be the highest immaterial jhānas – still falls within the realm of conditioned suffering (saṅkhāra-dukkha). The purpose of the Buddha’s teaching is to bring the entire process of conditioned suffering to cessation. And this process of conditioned suffering consists of the continuous stream of conditioned mental and physical aggregates – which includes consciousness, pure or defiled – arising and passing away in every moment of our existence, driven by the force of avijjā, taṇhā, and upādāna (ignorance, craving, and clinging). It is the process of dependent-origination that goes on from life to life generating more and more experience of suffering as it goes along. Thus the goal of the Buddha’s teaching is utter cessation of this process of suffering and not the achievement of some original pure state of mind which is still stucked within the realm of conditioned suffering. And through this utter cessation of this process of suffering, both pure and defiled states of mind are transcended.

This view that the mind is like a piece of white cloth also implies that the mind is always pure. Just as the cloth is always white and when it is dirtied they say that its whiteness does not disappear but is obscured by dirt, similarly, according to this view, the mind is always pure but its purity is being obscured by external defilements. But in actual fact the stream of mental continuity is not always pure. It is sometimes pure and sometimes defiled, depending on the particular conditions surrounding each moment of conscious experience. Depending on the conditions present, one moment the mind can be pure and the next moment defiled. And that earlier mind that is pure is a dhamma distinct and separate from that later mind that is defiled. They are not one and the same mind that is one moment pure and the next moment obscured by defilements. To say that they are one and the same mind is to imply the existence of a permanent consciousness, an implication that is contradicted by the clear pronouncement of the Buddha that all the five aggregates, including the mind, are impermanent. Rather they are two separate minds arising in different moments under different set of conditions. This is an observable fact for one who practices cittānupassanā or contemplation of the mind: that there is no permanent consciousness or mind that is always pure.

The word āgantuka used in these suttas to qualify upakkilesa (defilement) is usually used in the sense of something coming in or arriving from the outside, some thing that is alien, a stranger, etc. And this is what has prompted the understanding that the defilements are literally external and non-intrinsic to the mind. But despite this we have choosen to render the phrase āgantukehi upakkilesehi occuring in these suttas in its literal sense as “visiting defilements” in the same way that the phrase āgantuka bhikkhu is often rendered “visiting monk.” We chose to do this despite the danger that it can be taken literally to mean that the defilements are visiting the mind from the outside. This is because we understand that these suttas are meant to be a figurative-expositions (pariyāya-desanā), i.e. employing figure of speech to express the dhammas. The Buddha is here giving us a figurative presentation – as oppose to a literal one – of the nature of the mind. This is something that the Buddha does often: sometimes he speaks figuratively (pariyāya-desanā) and sometimes literally (nippariyāya-desanā) about a subject of Dhamma in compliance with the mental disposition of his listeners. And so any translation of āgantukehi upakkilesehi must preserve the figurative expression it is intended to be.

That these suttas are figurative-expositions is shown by the fact that the defilements are described as āgantuka, something external coming into or visiting the mind. As we have pointed out above this is not the case. The defilements arise in the mind when suitable conditions are present. The potential for their arising are latent in the stream of mental continuity. Therefore the use of āgantuka to qualify upakkilesa in these suttas is most certainly figurative and not literal. That these suttas are figurative expositions (pariyāya-desanā) is further shown by the word pabbhasaraṃ or “luminous.” The mind cannot be literally described as luminous. Luminosity is a description that can be applied literally only to materialities. For luminosity is a property of light and colour which are materialities. The mind being immaterial is literally colourless and therefore cannot be described as literally luminous. So when it is said that the mind is luminous, this is just a figurative description of its purity. In this connection the Commentary explains: “Luminous: White, pure. But does mind have colour? No. But whether it has colour such as blue, etc., or not, whatever is pure is called luminous. And this [bhavaṅga-citta] also is luminous because it is pure, being without any defilements.” But it must be noted, however, that even though the mind can not be described as literally luminous, this is not to say that it cannot be associated with luminosity, such as when the state of mind is so pure – like in deep states of concentration – that the materialities it produces (cittajarūpa) consists of pure luminous colour, or when one is exercising psychic abilities connected with the production of bright light.

Also, the Buddha said “Luminous is the mind” without any qualification, which if taken literally suggests that the mind is always luminous or pure. This again, as we have explained above, is not true. The mind is sometimes pure and sometimes defiled. So this again is another reason why the description of the mind in these suttas should not be taken literally but in a figurative sense. Lastly, the figurativeness of the exposition is also supported by the Sub-Commentary which describe these suttas as pariyāya-kathā or figurative speech.

Because what the Buddha described in these suttas is a figurative description of the nature of the mind, it falls on the Commentary – which function is to clarify the meaning of the suttas – to explain the meaning of the figurative-exposition in a non-figurative way (nippariyāya). This it does by means of the thought process model of Abhidhamma as follows:

“Mind: Bhavaṅga-citta. Visiting: Not conascent (i.e. not arising at the same moment), arising later at the moment of javana. Defilements: It is defiled because it is defiled by lust, etc. How? Just as parents or teachers and preceptors who are virtuous and possess good conduct get blame and disrepute on account of their children or pupils who are immoral, who conduct themselves badly and do not carry out their duties [as when people criticise them:] “They do not warn their own children or pupils, do not train, advice, and admonish them.” Bhavaṅga-citta is like the parents and teachers or preceptors who possess good conduct. The bhavaṅga-citta, which is by nature pure, being defiled by the visiting defilements arisen at the javana moment by means of consciousness accompanied by greed, etc. which nature is lusting, raging, and deluding, is like their falling into disrepute on account of their children, etc. Freed: Arising at the javana moment by means of consciousness that is three-rooted, being accompanied by knowledge, etc., it does not lust, rage, and delude; It is freed from visiting defilements. Here also, just as parents, etc. get praise and good reputation on account of their children, etc. who are virtuous and possess good conduct [as when people praise them:] “They are simply beautiful; they train their children, etc., advice and admonish them”, similarly this bhavaṅgacitta is freed from visiting defilements on account of the wholesome consciousness arisen at the moment of javana.”

In a stream of mental continuity the bhavaṅgas are vipāka-dhammas, i.e. they are dhammas that are result of past kamma. Being kammic-resultants they are not associated at all with any unwholesome mental-factors – which only arise associated with kammically unwholesome consciousness. In this sense they are described literally as pure and figuratively as luminous. At the very first moment when a being is born (or, for humans, conceived in the womb) into a new existence, it is bhavaṅga-citta that arises. At that first moment of birth or conception this bhavaṅga-citta is called paṭisandhi-citta or relinking-consciousness. A being also dies with bhavaṅga-citta, which at the very last moment of death is called cuti-citta or death-consciousness. And throughout the course a single existence bhavaṅga-cittas occur continuously one after another in a flow called bhavaṅga-sota or stream of bhavaṅga. This bhavaṅga-sota flows on continuously and is only interrupted when an object that is strong enough impinges on any of the sense-doors causing the bhavaṅga-sota to be suspended temporarily and in its place active thought process – whether of one of the physical sense-doors or of the mind-door – occurs in order to experience the object. Once the active thought process has run its course the stream of mental continuity lapses back into the bhavaṅga-sota which continues to flow on until the next object strong enough impinges again on one of the sense-doors. This process goes on and on like this, alternating between bhavaṅga-sota and active thought process, throughout the course of a single existence from birth to death.

During the time when active thought process occurs, the bhavaṅga-sota is interrupted in order to experience the object that has impinged on the sense-door. Briefly, in the case of thought process connected with the five physical sense doors, the process consists firstly of a phase when, after adverting to the object, the mind experiences the object as a result of kamma. This phase includes receiving, investigating, and determining of the object. Then, following determination of the object, another phase begins when the mind respond actively to the object determined. This is the phase called javana when kamma is accumulated. The javana phase consists of usually seven kammically active consciousness arising in a continuous series. Depending on the response of the mind – which, as we have seen above, depends on the particular conditions surrounding the experience of the object – these javana-cittas may be either wholesome or unwholesome. If the response is unwholesome then they are associated with unwholesome mental-factors, i.e. the defilements that has arisen from their latent state due to the conditions present. If it is wholesome then they are associated with beautiful mental-factors. The javana phase is followed usually by a phase called registration which concludes the thought process before the bhavaṅga-sota resumes. But in the case of mind door process there are only adverting followed by javanas and registration. This is the non-figurative or literal description of the nature of the mind process.

Now let us see how this literal description fits in with the figurative description. If we take the mind as a whole, then we can take as the mind, the mental continuity consisting of the stream of consciousness that flows on incessantly throughout the course of a single existence, arising and passing away one after another continuously. This may seem to contradict the Commentary’s identification of the mind with bhavaṅga-citta. But not so. For when the Commentary identified the mind with bhavaṅga-citta it was commenting on the mind that is luminous (Pabhassaramidaṃ, bhikkhave, cittaṃ). At that point it was merely pointing out literally (nippariyāya) to the phase in the stream of mental continuity when the mind is pure or without any defilements, i.e. when the bhavaṅga-sota is occurring. As long as the bhavanga-sota flows on, the mind is said to be pure.

Each existence in Saṃsāra is the result of a particular kamma that has been performed in a previous existence. Bhavaṅga-cittas arising in a particular existence are actually the result of that particular past kamma that has produced that existence. And the nature of these bhavaṅga-cittas will depend on the quality of that past kamma. Each being has bhavaṅga-citta of a peculiar nature depending on the quality of the past kamma that has produced their particular existence. And this peculiarity in the nature of bhavaṅga-citta accounts for the basic temperament and personality of a being in a particular existence. So as unassuming as they seem to be, bhavaṅga-cittas actually play a large part in determining one’s basic temperament and personality. They can be viewed as one’s basic or fundamental state of mind or state of existence. They also have the essential function to fill up the stream of mental continuity during those times when no active thought process is occurring. They maintain the flow of the stream of mental continuity during the absence of active thought process. This is necessary. Otherwise the continuity of existence will be interrupted or even terminated. For this reason they are called bhavaṅga which means the [basic] factor of existence. 

So when bhavaṅga-sota is flowing we can say that the mind is in its basic pure state. But when an object strong enough to arrest the bhavaṅga-sota impinges on one of the sense-doors and initiate an active thought process, we can say that the mind has been aroused to come out of its basic pure state. This is speaking figuratively. But in literal terms it is not that the mind arises out of some basic state but rather the bhavaṅga-sota was suspended and the phase of active thought process begins. Now during the phase of active thought process, if the javana-cittas that arise is unwholesome, then we can say figuratively that the pure mind has been visited by defilements and is defiled. However, if the javana-cittas are wholesome, then we can say that it is freed from visiting defilements. And when the active thought process has run its course and the bhavaṅga-sota resumes, we can say figuratively that the mind has lapsed back into its pure original state.

Therefore these two suttas actually point to two possible scenarios that may obtain when active thought process occurs interrupting the bhavaṅga-sota: Either the javana-cittas that arise are unwholesome and the mind as a whole becomes defiled (AN 1:49) or the javana-cittas are wholesome and the mind as a whole remains pure (AN 1:50).

Now let's turn our attention to the next two suttas occuring after AN 1:49 and AN 1:50.

“Luminous, bhikkhus, is this mind, but it is defiled by visiting defilements. The uninstructed worldling does not understand this as it really is; therefore I say that for the uninstructed worldling there is no development of the mind.” (AN 1:51)

“Luminous, bhikkhus, is this mind, and it is freed from visiting defilements. The instructed noble disciple understands this as it really is; therefore I say that for the instructed noble disciple there is development of the mind.” (AN 1:52)

How is it that when one does not know this luminous mind as it really is and how it is defiled by visiting defilements there is no development of mind, and how is it that by knowing it as it really is and how it is freed from visiting defilements there comes to be development of mind? According to the Commentary: Does not understand as it really is: does not understand according to its true-nature “This bhavaṅgacitta is defiled in this way by visiting defilements; and in this way it is freed.” Understands as it really is: Understands according to its true-nature “In this way this bhavaṅga-citta is freed from visiting defilements; and in this way it is defiled.”

Taken together what the explanation of the Commentary is saying is that in order for there to be development of mind one must know clearly and exactly how defilements arise in the mind and how they fail to arise in the mind. One must know clearly the causes involve in each of these two cases. This reminds us of two sections in the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta (MN 10) under Dhammānupassanā. The first is the Section on the Hindrances (Nīvaraṇa-Pabba):

“And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu dwells contemplating dhamma in dhammas in terms of the five hindrances?

“Here, bhikkhus, there being sensual-desire in him, a bhikkhu understands ‘There is sensual-desire in me’; There being no sensual-desire in him, he understands ‘There is no sensual-desire in me’; And he understands how there is the arising of unarisen sensual-desire; And he understands how there is the abandoning of arisen sensual-desire; And he understands how there is non-arising in the future of abandoned sensual-desire.

“There being ill-will in him...There being sloth and torpor in him...There being restlessness and worry in him...There being perplex-doubt in him, he understands ‘There is perplex-doubt in me’; There being no perplex-doubt in him, he understands ‘There is no perplex-doubt in me’; And he understands how there is the arising of unarisen perplex-doubt; And he understands how there is the abandoning of arisen perplex-doubt; And he understands how there is non-arising in the future of abandoned perplex-doubt.”

And the second is the Section on the Sense-bases (Āyatana-Pabba):

“And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu dwells contemplating dhamma in dhammas in terms of the six internal and external sense-bases?

“Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu understands the eye, he understands visible-forms, and he understands the fetter that arises depending on both of these; And he understands how there is the arising of unarisen fetter; And he understands how there is the abandoning of arisen fetter; And he understands how there is non-arising in the future of abandoned fetter.

“He understands the ear, he understands sounds...He understands the nose, he understands smells...He understands the tongue, he understands tastes...He understands the body, he understands tangibles...He understands the mind, he understands dhammas, and he understands the fetter that arises depending on both of these; And he understands how there is the arising of unarisen fetter; And he understands how there is the abandoning of arisen fetter; And he understands how there is non-arising in the future of abandoned fetter.”

In these two sections under Dhammānupassanā the Buddha’s instruction is to know with clear knowledge (i.e. understands) as and when the defilements – whether in the form of the hindrances or the fetters – are present or absent from the mind. But not only that, one is also instructed to know with clear knowledge the causes that cause unarisen defilements to arise in the mind. And once they have arisen in the mind, one is also to know with clear knowledge the causes that cause them to be abandoned. The instruction to understand how there is non-arising in the future of abandoned defilements is explained in the Satipaṭṭhāna Commentary as the defilements that has been removed by the respective supramundane path (lokuttara magga). These defilements, once removed in this way will never again arise in the mind. But it would not be wrong to also apply this instruction to the preliminary path (pubbabhāga magga) of development of insight whereby one is to also know with clear knowledge how the defilements, once they are dispelled from the mind, can be kept away for a long period of time.

When one is able to follow these instructions given by the Buddha, one comes to know clearly and exactly how these defilements gain the opportunity to arise and harass the mind and how they can be prevented from doing so. One will then know how to steer the mind by means of carefully directed attention (yoniso manasikāra) in such a way that the mind is able to remain continuously pure, freed from the defilements. This brings stability to the mind. For if the mind is frequently disturbed by the defilements that gain opportunity to arise because the mind is not being properly steered by means of carefully directed attention (ayonisomanasikāra) the mind is not stable. Lacking this stability the work of meditative contemplation cannot proceed on smoothly being frequently interrupted by these defilements. This being the case concentration has no opportunity to develop. And without concentration there can also be no arising of clear insight into the nature of things as they really are. But when stability is brought about by means of carefully directed attention, the work of meditative contemplation is able to proceed without any interruption. Concentration has the opportunity to be developed and with the establishment of concentration, clear insight into the nature of things as they really are can also arise. In this way development of mind comes about. Concerning this the Commentary said: 

“There is no development of the mind: there is no stability of the mind and no discernment of the mind...There is development of mind: There is stability of the mind and discernment of the mind.”

This is explained further in the Sub-Commentary as follows:

“There is no stability of the mind and no discernment of the mind: That development of the mind by means of the practice through which one may understand, according to its true-nature, the defilement of the mind and the freedom from it, is [called] stability of mind. There is also no development of insight called the discernment of the consciousness together with its associated dhammas and its objective-support, [the discernment of which] occured having laid a steady foundation by means of concentrating well on a single object.”

So the development of mind (citta-bhāvanā) spoken of by the Buddha in these two suttas is understood in the Commentaries as (1) the development of tranquility (samatha-bhāvanā) described as stability of the mind (citta-ṭṭhiti) and also (2) the development of insight (vipassanā-bhāvanā) described as discernment of the mind (citta-pariggaha). The development of tranquility takes place according to the instruction of the Buddha in the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta as quoted above, i.e. by bringing about stability in the mental environment that is conducive to the work of development of insight through meditative contemplation. To achieve this stability one need to know clearly and exactly how the defilements arise to destabilise the mind and how they can be dispelled and kept away from the mind long enough for the mind to stabilise and become clear. Knowing this clearly one will then be able to deliberately steer the mind towards stability with carefully directed attention. This is actually the development of concentration. For it is concentration that actually brings stability to the mind.

Once a steady foundation of concentration has been laid, the mind will be able to discern its object clearly and so the development of insight can take place. This, according to the Sub-Commentary involves the discernment of the consciousness (citta) together with its associated mental-factors and its object. This essentially means the discernment of the entire range of mental and physical phenomena (nāmarūpa-dhamma) that are the constituents of every moment of sense-experience. By discerning clearly how they are continuously arising and passing away in every moment of sense-experience, one develop insight into their true nature: impermanence, suffering, and non-self. Continuing on the course of the development of mind relentlessly, one further develops and deepens the insight that has arisen. When insight is sufficiently developed the supramundane path arises, radically uprooting the defilements from the mind in such a way that they will not be able to arise again in the future. Developing the mind in this way, one will in stages arrived finally at the realisation of arahatta-magga-phala when the development of mind will be complete. 

We can see from this that these two suttas are actually a kind of concise instruction for the practice of Dhammānupassanā Satipaṭṭhāna by means of contemplating the mind together with the defilements, leading up to the development of insight and finally to the attainment of supramundane insight of magga-ñāṇa (path knowledge).

“Thus he dwells contemplating dhamma in dhammas internally; or he dwells contemplating dhamma in dhammas externally; or he dwells contemplating dhamma in dhammas internally and externally; or he dwells contemplating the nature of arising in dhammas; or he dwells contemplating the nature of vanishing in dhammas; or he dwells contemplating the nature of arising and vanishing in dhammas. Or else his mindfulness is established thus: “There are [only] dhammas.” [And it is established in this way] only for knowledge and mindfulness. And he dwells independent, and does not cling to anything in the world.”