Is the Mind Luminous?

[@gibranmalik]

Oh doug you have given too much 🙏 thank you

[@DougsDharma]

You are very welcome Gibran! 🙏

[@davidknight7933]

Thanks Doug for the Pali exposition. Incorruptible non cognising luminous mind clouded by our mental states also described in early pre Buddhist Tibetan Bon tradition. Obtaining clear insight from a perfect mirror, luminous mind, not obscured by defilements (clouds). I find this metaphor very encouraging. In the end analysis when we get to the final destination of our journey across the sea we leave behind the raft that helped us.

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks for your thoughts David! 🙏

[@westsidesmitty1]

Re watched and then ''reborn'' to my YT ''Favorites'' cache. Ah, the ''perfume'' of the mind blowing!

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks Smitty!

[@sunyanet]

1

[@charlesdacosta2446]

Doug, i would love to hear where you are today on this subject. Would you every consider doing a zoom discussion?

[@DougsDharma]

I think I'm pretty much in the same place! 😄 As for a Zoom discussion, I prefer to keep the audience as large as possible, which means these KZbin videos mainly (though I do some behind-the-scenes ones for my Patreon crew). I may do a live chat at some point, we'll see.

[@sadikinjeryon9082]

I agree that Bhavanga and Alayavijnana are very similiar (or same) explanation for The Deepest Mind (unconscious passive mind), which Karmic Seed got sticked on to. Just like Gold Ore, full of dirt and others metal/minerals, sticked on it. By purifying it, the dirt washed out. And the luminous precious Gold will be seen in its beauty and glory. When the gold has dirt, it cause Rebirth. When it is free from dirts, it is the Lumnious, Precious Buddha Nature. The work (Buddha Path or any Meditative Path) is to make we able to see / experience this purity of the Gold within. So we can exclaim, "Ah, this is it. So it is true... this Gold is so precious, and luminous. Its purity, brings inner joy, calm, peace and blissfulness" Pure Form = Buddha Nature, Luminous Mind Impure Form = Bhavanga, Alayavijnana

[@sonamtshering194]

I got reminded of the silent illumination technique of the Caodong School of Chan Buddhism from this video

[@DougsDharma]

Yes there are some similarities, and maybe even historical links.

[@PavaniGanga]

Watching your videos one after another. Like potato chips, can't eat just one. Was really grinning over this one. Reminds me of how some Vedantists have accused other Vedantists as crypto-Buddhists. Whereas in this case, probably some Buddhists have accused other Buddhists as crypto-Vedantists.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, I think so!

[@absolutenice9100]

The part of getting rid of hindrances felt nice .

[@DougsDharma]

Glad you found it useful AN.

[@absolutenice9100]

@@DougsDharma Thank you .

[@davegorman2837]

Thanks Doug. As far as I understand it, I think I agree with you. Whilst I do find the later schools intellectually fascinating, I find them of limited use for practice and ( for me at least) they tend to obscure rather than clarify. A common philosophical problem perhaps- start with some dubious interpretations or premises, or unverifiable ones, then let clever minds come up with dense subtle reasoning. The Thomistic school in catholic theology did a lot of that in my view. So, I found what you were saying at the end very helpful- the ‘problem’ comes from a faulty start, and it seems more credible to me the work of meditation and practice really does create a different structure to the mind, rather than just revealing what was always there in some essentialist sense I’m still trying to resolve in my own mind the continuity vs not-self point though- have you done more videos on that? Many thanks 🙏

[@DougsDharma]

Oh yes Dave, I've done several videos on that topic. Take a look at my playlist on self and non-self for more: kzbin.info/aero/PL0akoU_OszRjA9n0-U24ZCpfEQVFxeGz2 And thanks for the comment!

[@davegorman2837]

@@DougsDharma Brilliant thanks - I will!

[@khaladaglarion]

There're some important things, I believe the Buddha didn't mention or comment about, due the simple fact it wouldn't help towards Liberation. In other words, the Buddha would rather teach the end of suffering, based on the Four Noble Truth instead of diving into unnecessary aspects of reality. As soon you get Liberated, then your mind is clear enough to understand things that shouldn't be bothered with before Liberation. Studying Buddhism through an academic point of view might indeed help us out to define what Buddhism is, or its essence. In other words, we might identify the true teachings of the Buddha, based on the ancient sutras and so on. This would help us to identify the different interpretations of the teachings from the teachings shared by the Buddha himself. But even though, it's really hard to put things in a simple way, especially after millennia, also based on other's interpretation. Ideally we would need someone who was able to dive into those mental states, or into deep layers of existence, or planes of existence, to share their experiences. Studying Buddhism having Hinduism as a background would influence the interpretation of Buddha's teachings. That's not the issue, and would be easier to understand some important notions, but at the same time, wouldn't purely express what the Buddha told. The same happens with the scientific or academic approach, since we have the data, but not the direct experience. Might be a mind, and that mind might be luminous, but this won't deny the fact that this mind is empty. In other words, might be other layers of mind, but those layers are made of things we don't clearly see or understand, nevertheless, it's still empty, since it's made of aggregates, or having as base subtle aggregates. When you remove everything, reaching neither perception, nor non-perception, there's a sense of "self" still. This is what we might call the Bhavanga mind, the background behind not only our own mental process/identity, but also the background of reality. That's why the Buddha told this level of perception, or lack of perception, or neither perception nor non-perception was the pinnacle of existence. This background reality, or this deep layer of the mind might be related to the Atman and Brahman, accordingly to Hinduism, but this would imply that there's something called Atman, and something called Brahman, while those are just interpretations, or a perspective. It's like trying to define the Absolute through relative ways, it's impossible without leaving relativity itself. That's why the Buddha taught about Shunyata, because it's beyond concept, thus beyond relativity. Understanding Shunyata would allow us to step out of relativity, even from the level of neither perception, nor non-perception, into the understanding that everything, even the mind or the luminous characteristic of the mind and/or its background are all empty. Doesn't mean we can't experience this luminosity, which is the base of the Jhanas, we only need to remove all the impurities of the mind. So, without impurities, the mind shines due its own conditioning, or the subtle aggregates that give us the feeling of a mind, a "self", a Bhavanga mind. You are watching the "essence" of the mind, which is based on subtle aspects we usually don't notice. So having this which doesn't depend on interpretation, or becoming this through direct experience, is similar to the concept of the Atman diving into Brahman. But if you say that in such way, then you would believe there's an independent self that fuses with Brahman, or the essence of reality, when actually there is no such a thing. We might see this through the relative perspective, but when watching things from the Absolute, there's only emptiness. Again, it's hard to explain, because not only we, but others would need to be well-versed into topics that transcend Buddhism, also, we would need to explain it through an indirect way, a relative way, to other people that might understand their own way. Then we would need to explain the emptiness itself, so it's simpler to just point out Shunyata, and they see it all directly. In the end, Hinduism, for example, and even other religions point of to the same direction, but through a perspective others might understand based on their capabilities and also culture. This way opens up interpretation and the many issues we see through ignorance.

[@TeoKaiGuan]

Dear Doug, thank you very much for the detailed explanation of the luminous mind and Bhavanga. Do you think we are able to access this Bhavanga mind and observe it while in deeper states of meditation? Personally I've only been able to observe the 5 Skhandas / Namarupa during meditation and see them arise and fade. I'm asking this because despite being very much kinder, calmer and more connected after years of practise, I still experience intense anger when some triggers arise in day to day life (albeit not that often). Hence I was hoping if I could observe this state of the Bhavanga mind with the intention of seeing these triggers / unwholesomeness arise before they become full blown anger. Could you perhaps explain or help?

[@DougsDharma]

Well, my concern is that the whole idea of the bhavanga mind may be a philosophical construct formed to solve a philosophical problem rather than something actually observed in meditation. There are a lot of techniques and practices involved in dealing with anger, and none of them to my knowledge involves the bhavanga. (Indeed, the Buddha himself never discussed it. This is an idea from well after his lifetime).

[@sarathw5740]

Who said that you are a secular Buddhist?-) The best analysis of luminous mind I ever came across. By the way, I reject the Mahayana idea. I agree with your explanation of the luminous mind with the Jhana attainments. In Jhana you may have eliminated attachment and aversion but you still have the ignorance. Ignorance mind is Upekkha as per Abhidhamma hence luminous. The luminous mind becomes corrupted at the Javan process if it is unwholesome. If it is wholesome, it is still beautiful as per Abhidhamma. Generally, the luminous mind is the mind with seven universals as per Abhidhamma.

[@DougsDharma]

Interesting, thanks Sarath. I haven't looked at the idea of the luminous mind in the abhidhamma, but it sounds similar.

[@xiaomaozen]

As I see it, the core of all the confusion can be called "unjustified reification of experiences (phenomenologically speaking) and processes". Even in Zen most teachers/masters reify "emptiness" or "Buddha nature" and understand it as a kind of "Brahman", instead of regarding "it" *not* as an entity, but as the *absence* of any kind of inherent or persistent entity. I tell you a secret: Bhavanga mind, Buddha nature, past and future lives and all these wretched metaphysical posits can be found in Carl Sagan's garage - next to the dragon. 🐲 Great video! 🙏🏻

[@DougsDharma]

😄Well I think the issue has more to do with clinging than with philosophy per se but I get where you're going.

[@Tridib_Tinkel]

A monk who talked about his mistake getting attached to the constantly bright state in public which is unusual or against vinaya, (Ajahn Mahabua), he said even the blissful luminosity at anagami level is rooted in delusion,. He was testing it if its already in Arhantship by focusing on that constantly bright mind for hours at very subtle level we cant even imagine

[@wikiemol2]

My interpretation of this is that the belief that three interpretations you mentioned aren't exactly contradictory. i.e. The seeming contradiction between these three things 1. the interpretation that it is impermanent and arises when you experience these kinds of janas, 2. the interpretation that it is "pure" or "buddha-nature" that is always there 3. the interpretation that it is a 'container of karmic influence' arises out of a sort of clinging. In that, the luminous mind is being thought of as some "thing" or "form" which either exists outside of ourselves or "is" us. But when it is not thought of in that way, I don't think the contradiction is there. Another way to put it is that the contradiction you have described doesn't exactly go away if you don't think of the luminous mind as something the buddha said. Because, I think your point is that all aspects of the mind are impermanent, but what about impermanence itself? Can I look at impermanence itself as this luminous mind? (This is kind of my own personal interpretation) But the contradiction does not go away. If impermanence is permanent, then obviously not all things are impermanent. If it's not permanent, then eventually impermanence will end and thus there will be something permanent which also means not all things are impermanent. I think the seeming contradiction you mentioned in this video is the same kind of thing. In other words, the "luminous mind" is not the source of the contradiction, and it runs deeper than this.

[@DougsDharma]

Well yes, in later Buddhism we get more of the idea of impermanence meaning "emptiness", that is emptiness of a self or of anything permanent and unchanging. Then we can indeed think of "luminosity" as expressing this emptiness. I just don't think it had that implication in the early suttas.

[@wikiemol2]

​ @Doug's Dharma Thank you for replying. I don't know what this meant in the early suttas, but I am more so responding to what you said at the end of the video: that it may be a problem. In other words, I would personally encourage others to face the confusion instead of dismissing it. The reason I point this out is that the concept of "buddha nature" and "the luminous mind" had tangible benefit for me, and I think it could for others. Its hard to give the full story of how in a KZbin comment (it includes not just buddhism but also life events), but the fundamental reason for me is that it helped me escape a sort of really deep and specific form of nihilism that I found I had fallen into, as a result of my extremely logical tendencies (I am a mathematician and a programmer by trade so it is somewhat hard to break these tendencies) Also, let me just say I appreciate all of your videos! You do a great job of explaining things in a clear and understandable manner.

[@wikiemol2]

@@DougsDharma Rather than just leave it at that, here are some points on how it led me out of nihilism. 1. Impermanence is an aspect of the mind. In other words, over billions of years, the underlying *mechanics* of impermanence has resulted in my mind, which is capable of my every experience and thought (think the process of evolution). This would not have happened without those many beings who lived and died before me. In this sense, I don't see the "luminous mind" as our unconscious mind, but more so like the mechanics, or perhaps more accurately the kinetics, of our universe, which carries information throughout millennia. 2. "compassion" being "good" is inherently not really derivable from logic. It can be shown that altruism is a good strategy for some situations, but this does not explain why I should behave altruistically. Even if its for my own benefit, why should I benefit myself? This is the sort of nihilism I found myself sinking into, and had me getting more and more depressed. But under the above view, the question changed. Why should evolution allow us to have feelings like love and compassion? Somehow, impermanence itself seems to have the same "goals" as the buddha, at least to some extent. It seems to "value" love and value compassion. 3. The specific metaphor of a "mind behind a curtain" or a "luminous mind obscured by defilements" reminds us of the above. That impermanence is an aspect of the mind, and that it values love and compassion. In other words, that there need not be a reason to not get sucked into nihilism, because trying to be nihilistic is futile in the long term, and perhaps even in the short term depending on the individual. Since this process of change has spent billions of years attempting to create creatures which don't get so depressed that the majority commits suicide, or so evil that the species destroys itself. And that can be looked at as a "mind" within us that is inherently good. Of course, it is a bit more nuanced than that, specifically biological evolution is not broad enough to cover this, but it is to some degree the above reasoning that lead me to a strange but blissful experience.

[@archiekennedy4741]

In my own opinion: We should consider defilements themselves as luminous and containing capacity for their own liberation. Luminosity may be seen as an aspect of awareness, of knowing, and of thinking. The simple ‘knowing’ of the newborn or any sentient creature relies on luminosity. Defilements should not be viewed as disposable or regrettable - they are our portal to liberation.

[@DougsDharma]

They are certainly spurs to practice, that's for sure! 😄

[@aviancrane]

I've wondered a long time if there are frames between frames that we weren't perceiving.

[@terrancetaylor891]

Perhaps you can do some videos on the concepts of the Great Vehicle & lesser vehicle

[@DougsDharma]

In my history of Buddhism videos I have talked about various of its forms: kzbin.info/aero/PL0akoU_OszRjn4gXp46Q8cMPB0t9FAH0C The term “lesser vehicle” however is derogatory and so really shouldn’t be used of any actual Buddhist school. That might be worth doing a video on! 🙂

[@Gnosim]

I think of the luminous mind/buddha nature/alaya vijnana as I would of the co-dependent origination (the emptiness model). The language used is such a way to allow for all things to come to be, as a vessel for possibility, such that everyone has the possibility of becoming a Buddha if the mind is clear of defilement, while at the same time, negating the reified true self/Atman due to it being tied with shedding of the defilement. The usage of positive language(rebirth) applied to a positive language (possibility) of a negative conception(emptiness) is likely adding confusion to the wording/concept of it which may mislead some into thinking there's a reified buddha nature/luminious mind hiding that travels across death/etc.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, it can get a little confusing.

[@oldstudent2587]

By 'perfumed' do you mean vāsanā (both 'perfumed' and 'vestiges of mental imprints' and in another context, even 'birth pains')? I've spent hears now wrestling with what could possibly cause visions of a past that I've never seen, and have thought of that as some kind of "collective subconscious" because I have no other way to explain them. But they seem to be in another state, which isn't waking and isn't dreaming (since they are there I can't think of it as turiya, because that's supposed to be 'luminous'). bhavaṅga and ālayavijñāna were not concepts I'd heard of, so thanks! But that state actually is "already been there" in experience, even if I don't know whether it has anything to do with luminous (it is 'non-dual' but not unpopulated with symbols if that makes any sense).

[@Rhobyn]

These ideas (Bhava in particular) sound to me to be very similar to the idea of Ether in natural philosophy. A somewhat shoehorned placeholder to (perhaps unintentionally) find a backdoor for eternalism.

[@Superstumpgrinder64]

The understanding I have of non-self in the EBTs isn't that the Buddha is arguing there is nothing with continuity or nothing about a being that is permanent, only that this continuous or permanent element isn't the same as a self.

[@DougsDharma]

Well that's definitely part of it, but also the Buddha argues that there is nothing permanent in our experience. "All conditioned things are impermanent" in the line from the Dhammapada, as well as "All things are non-self."

There seems to be some overlap between the Luminous Mind and the Lotus Growing in Mud metaphors.

[@DougsDharma]

That's an interesting comparison Harbajan. There are differences though, at least with how the lotus is portrayed in AN 10.81: the lotus has no water clinging to it once it is outside the pond. When it is under the water, it is wet. And at least in that context the lotus is a metaphor for the Tathāgata, not for all beings nor all minds. suttacentral.net/an10.81/en/sujato

[@Alain1533]

Dear Doug, Forgive me for insisting, but I think this question is very important and, unless I'm mistaken, you haven't addressed it directly in your videos yet. Do you personally think that there could be a consciousness that transcends the five aggregates, in other words, an unconditioned consciousness (as far as I know, lokuttaracitta and bhavanga are conditioned consciousnesses)? If you think this is not the case, how do you explain the fact that some great Theravada masters profess an unconditioned consciousness (sometimes called "Original Mind", often identified with luminous consciousness). Is this an influence of Mahayāna (yogacāra)? Thank you for your response. With mettā, Alain from France.

[@DougsDharma]

This is one of the biggest internal Buddhist controversies. Many Buddhists will talk of a universal consciousness but say that that consciousness is simply another word for emptiness ... which is another way of understanding non-self. Seen that way, "universal consciousness" simply becomes a metaphor for non-self, and there is no inconsistency. I personally find this a confusing use of language however, which is why I avoid it. And I don't find such language in the early texts. But I am in no position to speak for great meditation masters of any tradition.

[@Alain1533]

Thanks for your "wise and kind" response ;-)@@DougsDharma

[@Alain1533]

Thanks for your "wise and kind" response ! @@DougsDharma

[@RashadHarlowe]

Could it be interpreted, at least to the Mahayana, that the Buddha-mind is always there, and through meditation and practice, these curtain like veils are removed, revealing our Buddha-nature?

[@DougsDharma]

Yes I’d say that’s often how it’s interpreted in the Mahāyāna, and even in some modern Theravāda.

[@RashadHarlowe]

Doug's Secular Dharma thank you 🙏🏽

[@lucyflanagan3628]

I think what Buddha's saying is that one is basically good when he says mind is luminous. That is not to say the mind doesn't change its thinking.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, that could be an aspect to it as well.

[@tanned06]

The mind which is free from defilements or hindrances is luminous and bright. This is not a philosophical question, but to those who have attained deep levels of concentration (samādhi) will witness it themselves. Those who question it surely have never had that kind of direct experience. And it is a "conditioned" skillful mental state conducive to developing insight. To conceptualize this mind as an ontological, always-existing 'original mind' and makes attaining luminous mind the final goal of Buddhism will miss the essential.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes in the early texts luminosity is often used to express deep samādhi.

[@mindlessmindwatch7807]

This was helpfull, thanks.

[@DougsDharma]

My pleasure!

[@tanned06]

The mind which is free from defilements or hindrances is luminous and bright. This is not a philosophical question, but to those who have attained deep levels of concentration (samādhi) will witness it themselves. And momentariness of phenomena is also more of experiential than philosophical. Those who question it surely have never had that kind of experience. And a luminous mind is a "conditioned" skillful mental state conducive to developing insight. To conceptualize this mind as an ontological, always-existing 'original mind' and make attaining this luminous state of mind the final goal of Buddhism will miss the essential and actual target.

[@mael-strom9707]

Interesting discussion Doug. I nearly abandoned Buddhism because I asked myself the same questions about mind essence, then I discovered the great vehicle or the Mahayana Sutras which at first made no sense to me (some scholars even claim they are fake Buddhism). What I perceive from the Mahayana is basically a quantum mechanical descriptions of reality in a non mathematical way (some early western religious researchers were confounded). As scientific method has observed, energy cannot be created nor destroyed ...it is recycled and also, matter appears to require observation for its existence. Hints of the Abhidhamma perhaps?

[@AgeofColossus]

A scholar went as far as to call it Marayana (the vehicle of Mara). I mean, the goal of Buddha’s Dhamma is to end this cycle, never to be reborn again. Mara’s goal is to keep beings in samsara. Coincidentally, Mahayana’s goal is also to keep beings from nibbana by the bodhisattva vows, eternal consciousness etc. Oh bummer.

[@mael-strom9707]

@@AgeofColossus There is discussion in some scientific circles that space-time may not be fundamental but that indeed consciousness may be the fundamental nature of all phenomena. The Buddha suggested we don't waste precious time on these matters but concentrate on the here and now as they will not lead us any quicker to Nibbana.

[@dumsaint]

@@AgeofColossus so mahayana should be avoided?

[@AgeofColossus]

@@dumsaint Mahayana includes many new ideas which contradict the early teachings. But it also has many good points, eg heavy emphasis on compassion. Keep grounded in the Pali canon and you won’t go wrong.

[@AgeofColossus]

@@mael-strom9707 You are right, I mean all these are just interesting tidbits that get me through a boring work day. The real task is watching and taming the mind.

[@Wade7715]

How can the nature of mind be inherently pure and there still be plenty of karmic baggage? One way to reconcile this paradox is by seeing ourselves as curious and intelligent beings that have the freedom to choose experiences, and that by choosing/grasping beliefs about these experiences we create action/reaction (karmic seeds). Without a luminous pure mind nature, we would endlessly hurdle through reaction to reaction; but because luminous mind always exists, there is always the refuge of pure stillness, spaciousness and nonreactivity to remember. The Jhana’s can lead us back to the remembrance of our luminous nature, if we choose to release the grasping of what we’d like to be right about and certain of, if we can see there are no right opinions or beliefs. For it’s the views or opinions we grasp onto that are the karmic seeds, and free from those there is just luminous mind. 😊

[@michaelhanford8139]

I see it this way; The flame inside a lantern is inherently luminous but can still be obscured (not expressed, not shining its light out into the world) by dust & grime on the glass in its windows. What do you think?

[@brianreeves]

Would the buddha have said I should believe in rebirth even though I can't remember my "past lives"? He seems to have been an empiricist...

[@DougsDharma]

That is something I discuss a bit in this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gpixZICKa9JnsKs

[@vegahimsa3057]

The Buddha doesn't say 'there is no self'. He simply lists what are not self. In particular, form is not self, valence (pleasure/pain/ambivalence) is not self, sensation is not self, construction is not self, perception/sentience is not self. All construction (all doings, all makings, all intentions, all actions) are unreliable, painful, and not self. Absolutely all phenomena are not self. What is samadhi? What is the point of meditation? Observe, stop doing, let go, no reaction, no doing, no construction, no sankhara, no kamma, no result, no views, no self. Total detachment from the khandhas, letting go of all constructions, leaves only awareness, the purified citta (luminous mind), free from all pain.

[@DougsDharma]

That's right, thanks VA!

[@FRED-gx2qk]

TOP EFFORT AS USUAL

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks Alfred! 🙏

[@Yash42189]

Isnt the luminosity of the mind in its being unblemished by all those things like anger, hatred etc, in other words in its emptiness?

[@DougsDharma]

Yes this is one way it's understood in later Buddhism.

[@Yash42189]

@@DougsDharma is there a particular school that thinks this way, Doug? From my minimal reading of koans i felt like in chan they hold a view similar to this.

[@DougsDharma]

@@Yash42189 It's hard to say for sure but I'd think some form of Yogācāra, which influenced Ch'an/Zen.

[@Yash42189]

@@DougsDharma Thanks a lot Doug, you hava a great channel!

[@user-ki3eo9qu4r]

❤❤❤

[@DougsDharma]

🙏🙏🙏🙏

[@kylechina9697]

In my mind, luminosity is a metaphor for awareness of phenomena. Like when light shines into a dark room you become aware of what is in there. Luminous mind is lit up with awareness of sensory input, i.e. perception

[@DougsDharma]

That's an interesting thought, though I think in Buddhism it's usually used for certain kinds of perception, namely those in certain deep states of samādhi.

[@kylechina9697]

@@DougsDharma Thanks for the response and thanks for the videos! I’ve been binge watching them lately.

[@charlesdacosta2446]

I must admit that I do NOT see a conflict with Anatman. The "luminous mind" does not mean Mind is eternal and unchanging (nor something in it, including the luminosity ). This is despite the fact that "Mind is Luminous" (meaning: of or relating to light; clear, enlightening; to even spacious) . When "your" Mind fades and ceases to exist, so does "your" Luminosity. When your mind is defiled, so is your Luminosity (covered by ...). Luminosity is just one of many states the Mind exist as. And yes, it is a recurring state, meaning that the Mind is cyclic and thus changing, ... Luminous mind, not obscured by defilement (clouds), "is the goal" -- it is Not a permanent state of existence. If it were, then there would be no suffering, no place for defilement or karma to attach. The point of Luminous mind is that there is a basic state your mind can go back to (if defiled or just suffering). A state that you can Train the Mind to dwell in, if you have what it takes to! It does not mean you have an eternal, unchanging, independent entity existing in you, as you. It only points to a state of Mind that you should be able to always return to! If not, you will suffer. The Personality continuity, is but more of a longer lasting covering of the Mind (the "space" that states arise and fade). The karmic continuity, is but more of a partial covering of the Mind (the "space" that states arise and fade). Karmic seeds are present, it is more a question of how you define them. The seeds exist as part of the mind-stream and they help to form a network of possibilities that points to certain actions. The purity of mind is space (emptiness) . The karmic baggage is just a filling (states) within that space -- It is changing, ... Bottom line: None of it contradicts Anatman! Why? --- The basic ground of existence, Luminous Minds, Karmic seeds, Consciousness, the subconsciousness, the personality, ... all are states within the space that mind provides. Even if you could find an essence (for example - emptiness - ... ) , it would not be -- eternal, unchanging, independent of causality, non-cyclic, ...

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, that would tend to identify the luminosity with higher states of meditative attainment like jhāna, which makes sense: it's a state that comes about when the hindrances are overcome.

[@entropia34332]

I guess that if quantum mechanics utterly defies logic and even our concepts of existence and non-existence, but can be proven through mathematics, then also our poor conceptualizations of anatta/kamma/rebirth can be understood, or rather dissolved, with practice, with jhana…

[@DougsDharma]

Well, maybe so CristianJ.

[@studentofspacetime]

I understand the academic dilemma. But isn't this an overly rational attempt at understanding something ineffable? I mean, yes, we do try to construct a coherent formulation of the Dharma, but it should not be approached in a too mathematical way "impermanence implies there cannot be ... ". Can't it be that both are true and false at the same time, simply because you're trying describe this with words and logic? I am also skeptical of relying entirely on some academic's attempt to guess what the Buddha may or may not have meant in some sutta. Even if later monastics may have tagged things onto the texts, this per se does not invalidate their point of view. It seems kind of petty to try to examine the suttas like this and simply conclude that it's a misinterpretation. Then, all kinds of revered masters such as: Marpa, Milarepa, various Zen masters, HH the Dalai Lama, and other contemporaries would all be the wrong path, simply because someone early on misread one analogy.

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks Andrés. This is the difference between looking at an early Buddhist path and looking at a later path, or looking at a syncretic path of some sort. My interest is in early Buddhism in particular, and in how that can be brought forward to today's audience. There are very few scholars who really know and focus on early Buddhism. Anālayo is one of the foremost in that he has a deep knowledge not only of the Pāli material but also the Chinese Āgamas, and is himself a very accomplished meditator/practitioner. There are other scholars of that early material, though not many, and of course all scholars make mistakes at times or misinterpret things. The main importance is to see how any particular suggestion impacts your own practice. If you don't find it useful, then disregard it.

[@iallalli5223]

Lights luminous mind is Doug's Tathagatha mind. Alaeya and babanga is the expression about unconscious fine agregates, which is karmic calling rebirth and death. Doug's real I is sol transcendentalall so there is no time and space left. Which is the nothing remained right Nirvana. At the 2nd Jhana, there is the simile, the pure spring water come out from the lake bottom, bottom of alaeya. As today's simile, when Doug come in Blackhole, there Doug shall freely use Luminous Whitehole's lights such easily. Therfore don't say, that Doug non Self. Why Shakya Buddha say, at Dharmachakkappavattana sutta, at Me the eye opened, at Me the Prajna awakened, at Me direct knowledge enlightened, at Me the lights opened?