From: rddarger@gmail.com   
      
   On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 7:17:22 PM UTC-6, Elvis Tesla wrote:   
   > 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    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)