Maha Prajnaparamita Sastra
by Gelongma Karma Migme Ch枚dr枚n | 2001 | 941,039 words
This page describes 鈥渘ature of the mind (citta, manas)鈥� as written by Nagarjuna in his Maha-prajnaparamita-sastra (lit. 鈥渢he treatise on the great virtue of wisdom鈥�) in the 2nd century. This book, written in five volumes, represents an encyclopedia on Buddhism as well as a commentary on the Pancavimsatisahasrika Prajnaparamita.
Appendix 7 - The nature of the mind (citta, manas)
Note: This appendix is extracted from a note from the Mah膩praj帽膩p膩ramit膩艣膩stra Chapter XXXI:
鈥淜nowing that the nature of the mind (citta) is unborn is to enter into 鈥榯he dharmas that do not arise鈥�. Why? Because this mind is without birth (耻迟辫腻诲补), without intrinsic nature (蝉惫补产丑腻惫补) and without characteristics (濒补办峁峁嘺). The wise person can know it. And although the wise person considers the characteristics of birth and cessation (nirodha) of this mind, he will find no true birth, no true cessation. Not finding any defilement or purification in it, he discovers this luminosity of the mind, a luminosity by virtue of which the mind is not defiled by the adventitious passions鈥�.
Concerning the nature of the mind (citta), the general tendency of the Canon is clear. Mind (citta, manas) and consciousness (惫颈箩帽腻苍补) are synonymous. 痴颈箩帽腻苍补 constitutes the fifth skandha and, like all the aggregates, it is transitory, suffering and impersonal.
However, we find, in the Canon, some passages that seem to attribute to the mind a more stable, almost transcendental, value. Actually, in Anguttara, I, p. 10 and in 础迟迟丑补蝉腻濒颈苍墨, p. 140, we read:
笔补产丑补蝉蝉补谤补峁� 颈诲补峁� bhikkhave 肠颈迟迟补峁� ta帽 ca 膩gantukehi upakkileseshi upakkili峁弓a峁冣�� ta帽 ca kho 膩gantukehi upakkilesehi 惫颈辫辫补尘耻迟迟补峁�:
鈥淭his mind is luminous, but sometimes it is defiled by adventitious passions; sometimes it is free of these adventitious passions.鈥�
Basing themselves on this passage, certain sects of the Lesser Vehicle say that the mind is originally and naturally luminous (肠颈迟迟补峁� prabhasvaram) but that it may be soiled (办濒颈峁ａ弓补) by the passions (办濒别艣补) or liberated (vipramukta) from the passions. The latter are not the original nature of the mind and are described as adventitious (腻驳补苍迟耻办补).
Among the sects advocating this maximalist interpretation, one may cite the 惭补丑腻蝉腻峁僩丑颈办补 (cf. A. Bareau, Les Sectes bouddhiques, p. 67鈥�68, no. 44), the Vibhajyav膩din (ibid., p. 175, no. 23; Vibh膩峁Ｄ�, T 1545, k. 27, p. 140b25鈥�26), the practitioners of the 艢膩riputr膩bhidharma (ibid., p. 194, no. 6; 艢膩riputr膩bhidharma, T 1548, k. 27, p. 697b18) and the Andhaka (碍补迟丑腻惫补迟迟丑耻, p. 238鈥�241).
But the major schools of the Lesser Vehicle resolutely rejected this interpretation. No, the mind is not naturally and originally pure; on the contrary, it is originally defiled by passion and action, and the efforts of the candidate for sainthood consist precisely of eliminating defiled minds (cf. 础迟迟丑补蝉腻濒颈苍墨, p. 140, l. 24鈥�29; Vibh膩峁Ｄ�, T 1545, k. 27, p. 149b鈥揷; 碍辞艣补, VI, p. 299; Ny膩y膩nusara艣膩stra, T 1562, k. 72, p. 731c).
For the Greater Vehicle in general and the 笔谤补箩帽腻辫腻谤补尘颈迟腻 in particular, the alleged luminous mind of which the Anguttara spoke is in reality a non-mind (cittam acittam), the pure and simple non-existence of the mind (肠颈迟迟腻产丑腻惫补尘腻迟谤补): that which does not exist cannot be defiled nor purified (cf. A峁ａ弓as膩hasrik膩, p. 5鈥�6;笔补帽肠补惫颈峁兣沘迟颈, p. 121, l. 12鈥�122, l. 11; 艢atas膩hasrik膩, p. 495, l. 3鈥�21; 腻濒辞办补, p. 38, l. 24鈥�26; 40, l. 6; 厂耻惫颈办谤腻苍迟补惫颈办谤腻尘颈苍, p. 85, l. 15鈥�86, l. 6).
This is the position which the 罢谤补颈迟茅 is defending here, reserving itself to return to the subject later (k. 41, p. 363a20 seq).
For further details, see introduction to 痴颈尘补濒补办墨谤迟颈, p. 51鈥�60.