"Pabbhassaram idam cittam bhikkhave agantukehi upakilesehi upakilittham" This mind, bhikkhus, is radiant (pabbhassara) but it is defiled by visiting (agantukehi) defilements. The unlearned ordinary person (asutava putthujana) does not understand this as it has come to be (yathā bhutam nappajānati), therefore for him there is no development of the mind (citta-bhāvana).This mind, bhikkhus, is radiant, and it is freed from visiting defilements. The learned noble disciple understands this as it has come to be, therefore for him there is development of the mind.
Anguttara Nikaya , I, vi:1-2.
The first line of this passage is the one most frequently refered to by those who wish to prove that the Buddha taught that there is an intrinsically pure mind essence, but if you look at the whole Sutta, and even the whole chapter that it comes from, it obviously refutes it. To give you a little historical background, the earliest translators of the Pāli canon into English were mostly Theosophists not Buddhists, they had their own agenda which they tried to impose on the Buddhist scriptures through their very licentious translations. Most of those interested in Buddhism in those days also, were ‘Orientalists’ who were not committed to understanding anything in depth, they were mostly just reacting against their own culture, so they just took bits from here and there as they fancied as ‘evidence’ of how corrupt Western civilisation was compared to the ‘Beatific Savage’.... One of the trends of European Romanticism was to like to think that all religions, or at least Buddhism and Hinduism, essentially teach the same thing, and have the same goal. Even though all knowledgeable Buddhists, but perhaps few Hindus, would object, according to this theory that is simply because they are attached to their different ‘cultural expressions’. This is called ‘cultural relatavism’.
So, first please note that there are two kinds of ‘mind’ here, one that is subject to visiting defilements and one that is not. Just this much refutes the theory that the Buddha taught an intrinsically pure essence of mind. Next we should look at it in more detail and in context:
i) the word ‘pabbhassara’, translated here as ‘radiant’, is used to describe the concentrated mind in states of deep meditation, jhānas, eg:
“So too, bhikkhus, there are these five defilements (upakilittham) of the mind (citta), defiled (upakilesehi) by which the mind is neither malleable, nor wieldy, nor radiant (pabbhassara) but brittle and not rightly concentrated for the destruction of the taints. What five? Sensual desire, Ill-will, drowsiness & dullness, restlessness and remorse, doubt is a defilement of the mind, defiled by which the mind is neither malleable nor wieldy nor radiant, but brittle and not rightly concentrated for the destruction of the taints.” (S.V.92, A.III.16, Pali version)
The mind is not always ‘pabbhassara’, but it can become ‘pabbhassara’. This is what a learned noble disciple understands, i.e: yathā bhutaṃ pajānati - literally ‘he understands [it] as [/it has] come to be’. It is usually translated ‘as it actually is’, and this is part of the meaning, which could be more clearly renderend with ‘as it has come to be’, but ‘actually is’ subtly implies an essential, hidden level of existence beneath the apparent arising and passing away of experience, which is exactly what the Buddha rejected;
ii) Returning to the first point about there being two radiant states of mind, it is also important to look at the various contextual uses of the word ‘citta’, here translated as ‘mind’. Quite often, ‘citta’ means ‘concentrated mind’, or even ‘concentration’, as in ‘adhisīlasikkhā, adhicittasikkhā, adhipaññāsikkhā’ (the training in higher virtue, the training in higher ‘citta’, the training in higher wisdom) – this set is very common but the second term is often called ‘samādhi’ (concentration) instead. And ‘concentrated mind’ fits the context very well. – There are two kinds of concentrated mind: in the first stage of ‘citta-bhāvana’ (mental development, or, meditation) the hindrances are suppressed but not yet eradicated, so if or when one is careless they come back, like unwelcome visitors. The unlearned ordinary person does not understand this so he is not careful enough to guard his ‘citta-nimitta’ (aka: samādhi nimitta, or ‘sign’ of concentration), because of pamāda (lit: mental drunkenness, or, carelessness, engrossedness) his defilements (here the five hindrances, pañca-nīvaraṇā) come back and destroy his concentration, his mind loses its radiance and his mental development does not reach fulfilment (vusita) in the noble attainments (ariya-samāpatti).
However, the learned noble disciple does understand how precarious his mental freedom is when the defilements are suppresed but not yet eradicated and he understands how the state has come to be. So he is not careless, he guards his mind and eventually is able to finally eradicate the defilements which threaten his radiant mind. Then his mind is freed from the unwelcome visitors and he understands the situation and how it has come to be. It is because he has paññā (wisdom; paññā is derived from pajānati) that he is able to cut off the defilements forever, ordinary people can only suppress them.
So to cut a long story short: Hegel’s concept of a ‘Pure mind’ according to Buddhism is actually a ‘purified mind’ in both cases.
by Bhikku Santidhammo
