30c6be45   
   From: elvis.tesla396@gmail.com   
      
   On Monday, November 10, 2008 at 6:52:59 PM UTC-5, ancient...@earthlink.net   
   wrote:   
   > The Lost meaning of Avijja / Avidya (agnosis)   
   > The 'secret' principle behind Emanationism   
   > (Monism, Platonism, original Buddhism, and Advaita Vedanta)   
   > Copyright 2006 Author: Webmaster attan.com   
   > What is avijja (agnosis) specifically? To refer to said term as   
   > merely ‘ignorance’ is a misnomer. This very short exposition of the   
   > lost and metaphysical meaning of avijja is meant to expose the   
   > philosophical and secret ontological significance that the term avijja   
   > refers to in the cosmological model of original Buddhism, Platonism,   
   > and encompassing both (these Monistic systems), that of Emanationism,   
   > the only true model of totality.   
   > Avijja is literally meant Emanationism, the extrinsic attribute   
   > of the Absolute which is the indefinite dyad (aoristos dyas) for all   
   > creation, if the Absolute were devoid of an attribute, creation would   
   > be impossible, for even the most simplex of things have at least one   
   > attribute, the illumination of light and fluidity of water, for   
   > example (both attributes of a simplex principle). From the perspective   
   > of the Absolute, the very ‘stuff’ of will (citta/Brahman), there is no   
   > attribute, it is will utterly and only; as such the nature of the   
   > Absolute and its ‘act’ must be wholly indistinguishable, otherwise the   
   > presupposition of two subjects, the Absolute and X, would be posited   
   > and the very premise of Monism (Monism in meaning = 1 only) and of   
   > Emanationism would be utterly negated.   
   > Avijja is a compound term composed of the privative A (not,   
   > opposite to, other than, lack of) and VIJJA (Light, Soul, Atman,   
   > Brahman). The very nature of the Absolute (vijja), which is   
   > objectively directed (a) away from its very Subject (vijja/Brahman),   
   > which is also that very same nature of the Atman (“Atman is [of the   
   > nature of] Brahman”-Up, and Buddhism: ‘Brahmabhutena attano’).   
   > The confusion over avijja lies in the fact that it is both   
   > subjectively and objectively directed simultaneously. Avijja itself   
   > being the “light from itself (directed)” is meant that avijja has the   
   > Subjective (Self and Absolute) as its object, namely the concealment   
   > or privation (a) of the Subject (Atman) from itself. Avijja is   
   > objectification by its very definition, i.e. Emanationism. The object   
   > of avijja is the Absolute (the light, or vijja, from itself, a),   
   > meaning that the Subject, the Absolute, is self-objectifying, i.e. the   
   > very nature of will (citta,chit,Brahman) itself, being ‘to will’, not   
   > to itself, but to other. Avijja is itself objectification (by the   
   > Subject to other), but the very lack of (a) wisdom (vijja) in the will   
   > of a being is as pertains its nature, the Subject to which avijja is   
   > the very object of.   
   > Brahman is Atman, and Atman is of the nature of Brahman and in no   
   > doubt the very premise of both the Upanishads and of original   
   > Buddhism, the only differentiation between the two is Atman is devoid   
   > of the objectively directed attribute of Brahman, such that the Atman   
   > is self-reflexive and self-assimilative, i.e. completely dis-   
   > objectified =self-actualization,... the actualization (Atman) of what   
   > was before merely potential due to the objectively (avijja) directed   
   > nature of the Absolute. Atman is the actualization (by wisdom, self-   
   > assimilation) of Brahman which is sheer potential and unmediated   
   > (avijja).   
   > Just as one cannot differentiate light from its attribute (to   
   > illumine), neither can the nature of the Absolute be thought different   
   > or a separate entity from its attributive or extrinsic principle, that   
   > of self-objectification, that will wills (citta cetasa). Agnosis is   
   > Emanationism itself, the objectively directed “light” from itself to   
   > other. Avijja is not a thing itself, but a privation, the uncaused   
   > cause for all becoming (bhava).   
   > Unlike Creationism which posits a sentient all-aware Superbeing   
   > (God) as the principle (1st cause) behind the complexity we see in   
   > nature, Emanationism differs to the logic necessity of merely the   
   > extrinsic side of the nature of the Absolute as such that it is, by   
   > its very attribute, the “unmoved Mover” behind all things composite,   
   > phenomenal and noetic. Complexity in nature and the cosmos at large is   
   > in dispute by none, neither by Creationist, Nihilist, or Monist   
   > (Emanationist), only the nexus for said complexity is disputed. As   
   > pertains the Absolute, its nature and activity are inseparably one   
   > thing only, this is the long lost ‘secret’ behind avijja.   
   > There is no first cause behind the phenomenal cosmos nor for the   
   > spiritual, the noetic will(s) which encircle and underlies the visible   
   > world. With attribute as ‘cause’, all things are manifest as the   
   > artifice (maya) of the visible world we covet in ignorance (avijja).   
   > First cause necessitates an irreconcilable duality, which cannot be   
   > enjoined in Emanationism, that A: something other than the Absolute is   
   > cause for all things become, or that B: the Absolute is complex being   
   > (God) that chose and created the cosmos. The reconciliation of the   
   > ignorant proposition of a “first cause for all things become” is   
   > merely that of the attributive and extrinsic nature of the Absolute   
   > itself, avijja, or the will to other, the ‘lighting outwards of the   
   > nature of light itself’, or as is meant here, the Absolute, which is   
   > of the nature of will (citta).   
   > “Bhavanirodha nibbanam” (subjugation of becoming is meant   
   > Nirvana) is absolutely identical in meaning to “Yoga chita vritti   
   > nirodha” (Yoga [samadhi/assimilation] is the subjugation of the will’s   
   > [citta] turnings/ manifestations/ perturbations); as such becoming   
   > (bhava) and vritti (perturbations) are meant the inchoate nature of   
   > the will to objectively direct itself in perpetuity is the   
   > beginningless and the primordial principle of the Absolute to other.   
   > Overcoming the attributive privation of the Subject to have itself as   
   > an object (an impossibility) must be surmounted for liberation to   
   > occur such that the Subject has itself as object indirectly thru the   
   > via negativa methodology wherein the will ‘knows’ itself as ‘none of   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)