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
> this’ and becoming is halted and Self-objectification ceases
> (nirodha).
> Avijja and anatta (Skt. Anatman) are interchangeable terms, the
> principle of the Absolute to objectification (a-vijja) is meant
> anatta, for what is other than the Atman, the Light/Vijja than all the
> 22 named phenomena which are not (a/an) the Soul (vijja/atman)? The
> finer distinction however between anatta and avijja is that anatta is
> the purely phenomenal manifestation of the ontological attribute of
> the Absolute, avijja.
> How can what does not exist in anyway be the cause for all things
> and namely for suffering itself? Surely as a man lost in a barren
> dessert suffers thirst by the non-existence of waters in said barren
> lands; so too does the Samsarin (person lost in samsara) suffer at the
> ‘hands’ of his will which is objectively (avijja) directed to the
> world of phenomena and sense pleasures, all of which are anatman and
> which is meant by the very term avijja, for avijja is the privation of
> illumination/revelation/ditthi in the being as relates to his very
> nature and true Self, of which the Atman is vijja. That his will (the
> very Self) is objectively (anatta) directed, instead of Subjectively
> assimilated (vijja, Atman), “therein does he suffer” -Gotama.
> Liberation via wisdom (vijjavimutta, i.e. pannavimutta) is the
> actualization of the light of the will upon itself (vijja) instead of,
> as primordially and without beginning from the Absolute, objectively
> (avijja) directed.
> Avidya (avijja Pali) has befuddled (and continues to do so)
> Vedantists now for thousands of years as witnessed to in lively
> debates we still have record of. Namely it was impossible for them to
> come to odds with the nature of avidya, such that “how can what is
> mere privation (lack of gnosis, avidya) be the cause for all things?
> Was Avidya real or unreal? Was it both or neither? What is the locus
> of avijja? Is it the Absolute, or the Atman, or the mere (phenomenal)
> self, or neither, or both?” None of these questions are tenable, for
> avijja is not a thing in itself, but the principle of the Absolute,
> the primordial principle antecedent to being, or the empirical
> principle of avijja as manifest in the composite being. What would the
> locus of a shadow, the privation of light, be? Certainly we can point
> to X shadow, but that cannot be the locus of avijja, for something
> precedes the shadow, so would it be that which casts the shadow? No,
> for that shape which casts the shadow is preceded by the light which
> is blocked by that shape. The shadow belongs neither to the form nor
> the light, but is the objective construct of both. Avijja is
> subjectively directed and objectively manifest.
> Since avijja is merely the extrinsic and Subjective attribute of
> the will (willing to other [object] = avijja), there is no locus for
> avijja, for if one were to say: “avijja is the attributive principle
> of the Absolute, therefore avijja’s locus is the Absolute/Brahman”,
> this is a nonsensical statement since the locus for illumination
> (avijja) as pertains light, is also unanswerable since neither the
> object of illumination, nor the light itself is the locus of
> illumination. Avijja is act, nature and necessity of the Absolute, all
> three, for its as impossible to separate illumination from light as to
> separate willing from will, or avijja from vijja, for avijja implies
> vijja, just as anatta implies the attan! Would so the fool speak of
> avijja or anatta without attempting to (in negative dialectics) point
> to the vijja, the attan (Atman. Skt.)?
> Avijja has no meaning outside the conjunct of will and matter,
> the empirical consciousness (vinnana). The very nature of the Light
> (vijja) is its outwardly principle to illumine (avijja), principle nor
> privation have a locus. The Absolute, or Brahman is most certainly
> vijja, simplex in every way, so to proclaim that the locus of avijja
> is “in the Absolute” would be both untrue but also illogical. Light
> (vijja) and illumination (avijja) are inseparably one thing only; this
> is the indefinite dyad (aoristos dyas) of the ancient Greek
> Platonists. Specifically ancient Pali is revealing, for the very word
> for consciousness, vinnana, is literally meant agnosis (avijja): vi
> (opposite to, contrary of, other than) + ñana (gnosis, vijja,
> Knowledge, Light, Atman, Brahman), i.e. Vi+nana (vinnana). For the
> “unknowing” (vinnana), the consciousness of being is the resultant
> manifestation directly attributive to the Absolute and its very
> extrinsic nature.
> As pertains Buddhism specifically, avijja is the first position
> in the chain of contingent manifestation (paticcasamuppada), however
> one need ask: “agnosis (avijja) OF what and BY what”? Ignorance itself
> is not a thing, but an attribution of something, be it in one of two
> modalities, primordial agnosis (avijja), or empirical agnosis.
> Samyutta 2.4 specifically (as well as countless other passages) equate
> avijja with agnosis (anana): [Katama ca, bhikkhave, avijja? yam
> kho, bhikkhave, dukkhe aññanam”].
> Two entirely different levels of agnosis are at play in the model
> of being, one being the primordial agnosis which is beginningless, and
> the agnosis which is willed by a being from second to second, as
> pertains his will (citta), be it by wisdom or lack thereof ; ignorance
> is manifest which either perpetuates becoming (bhava) and actions
> (karma), or wisdom in its place which subjugates (nirodha) them;
> specifically [SN 5.127] speaks of the empirical side of agnosis in the
> being who so wills them at the discretion of his (level of) ignorance.
> “As above, so below” this is true of the Absolute that primordial
> agnosis is the higher principle behind empirical agnosis as manifest
> in being. The self-privative avijja of the nature of the Absolute that
> it is subjectively directed inwards, and the empirical ‘shadow’ of the
> being who marvels in the logos of Emanation as cast by the Absolute,
> but is unknowing (avijja) as to the Subjective “light” of which he is
> by nature which is also identical to the Absolute itself, being will
> (citta).
> Entirely in line with Platonism, Buddhism proclaims: [AN 5.113]
> “Followers, the beginning of ignorance can never be discerned
> (beginningless) such that it cannot be said “Here is the First where
> ignorance is not, here is the contingency which generated it.” Such
> that it should be discerned, followers, “ignorance is a
> condition” (Purima, bhikkhave, koti na pañña’yati avijja’ya– ‘ito
> pubbe avijja’ na’hosi, atha paccha’ samabhavi’’ti. Evañcetam,
> bhikkhave, vuccati, atha ca pana pañña’yati– ‘idappaccaya’
> avijja’’ti.).
> In Buddhist sutta, avijja is forerunner, as it should be, being
> first in paticcasamuppada: [AN 2.12] “Above karma, becoming, and
> views, ‘agnosis encircles (all of them)’ as the (source for)
> samsara.” (“Ka’mayogena samyutta’, bhavayogena cu’bhayam; ditthiyogena
> samyutta’, avijja’ya purakkhata’”). Also: [SN-Att. 1.236] Nanajotim
> (the light of gnosis) = atman; meaning that the wisdom (vijja) made
> manifest in the disciple is the very premise for liberation as such
> that agnosis (avijja) has been cut off = end of Self-objectification
> (avijja, also = atta-an, i.e. anatta).
> In fact, in Buddhist doctrine the only noun “freed” of avijja is
> the citta, which logically presupposes the fact that as pertains our
> earlier question: “agnosis (avijja) OF what and BY what”? , must be
> meant avijja of the will’s nature (atman) by the will (citta): [AN
> 1.196] "With mind (citta) emancipated from ignorance (avijja)…this
> designates the Soul is having become-Brahman.", [AN 1.195] “Citta is
> freed of the sensuous taint, citta is freed of the taint of becoming
> (bhavaasavaapi), citta is freed of the taint of nescience/ignorance
> (avijja), Liberation! Gnosis is this, therein (utter) liberation.” [MN
> 1.279] “When his steadfast mind was perfectly purified, perfectly
> illumined, stainless, utterly perfect, pliable, sturdy, fixed, and
> everlastingly determinate then he directs his mind towards the gnosis
> of the destruction of defilements. Knowing thus and seeing thus his
> mind is emancipated from sensual desires, his mind is emancipated from
> becoming, his mind is emancipated from ignorance.” “This said: ‘the
> liberated mind/will (citta) which does not cling’ means Nibbana”[MN2-
> Att. 4.68]. "Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means one is supremely-
> fixed within the mind/will (citta)”[Silakkhandhavagga-Att. 1.168]..
> “'The purification of one’s own mind/will', this means the light
> (joti) within one’s mind/will (citta) is the very Soul (attano)” [DN2-
> Att. 2.479].
Sounds like Ken Wheeler.

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
> > 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
> > this’ and becoming is halted and Self-objectification ceases
> > (nirodha).
> > Avijja and anatta (Skt. Anatman) are interchangeable terms, the
> > principle of the Absolute to objectification (a-vijja) is meant
> > anatta, for what is other than the Atman, the Light/Vijja than all the
> > 22 named phenomena which are not (a/an) the Soul (vijja/atman)? The
> > finer distinction however between anatta and avijja is that anatta is
> > the purely phenomenal manifestation of the ontological attribute of
> > the Absolute, avijja.
> > How can what does not exist in anyway be the cause for all things
> > and namely for suffering itself? Surely as a man lost in a barren
> > dessert suffers thirst by the non-existence of waters in said barren
> > lands; so too does the Samsarin (person lost in samsara) suffer at the
> > ‘hands’ of his will which is objectively (avijja) directed to the
> > world of phenomena and sense pleasures, all of which are anatman and
> > which is meant by the very term avijja, for avijja is the privation of
> > illumination/revelation/ditthi in the being as relates to his very
> > nature and true Self, of which the Atman is vijja. That his will (the
> > very Self) is objectively (anatta) directed, instead of Subjectively
> > assimilated (vijja, Atman), “therein does he suffer” -Gotama.
> > Liberation via wisdom (vijjavimutta, i.e. pannavimutta) is the
> > actualization of the light of the will upon itself (vijja) instead of,
> > as primordially and without beginning from the Absolute, objectively
> > (avijja) directed.
> > Avidya (avijja Pali) has befuddled (and continues to do so)
> > Vedantists now for thousands of years as witnessed to in lively
> > debates we still have record of. Namely it was impossible for them to
> > come to odds with the nature of avidya, such that “how can what is
> > mere privation (lack of gnosis, avidya) be the cause for all things?
> > Was Avidya real or unreal? Was it both or neither? What is the locus
> > of avijja? Is it the Absolute, or the Atman, or the mere (phenomenal)
> > self, or neither, or both?” None of these questions are tenable, for
> > avijja is not a thing in itself, but the principle of the Absolute,
> > the primordial principle antecedent to being, or the empirical
> > principle of avijja as manifest in the composite being. What would the
> > locus of a shadow, the privation of light, be? Certainly we can point
> > to X shadow, but that cannot be the locus of avijja, for something
> > precedes the shadow, so would it be that which casts the shadow? No,
> > for that shape which casts the shadow is preceded by the light which
> > is blocked by that shape. The shadow belongs neither to the form nor
> > the light, but is the objective construct of both. Avijja is
> > subjectively directed and objectively manifest.
> > Since avijja is merely the extrinsic and Subjective attribute of
> > the will (willing to other [object] = avijja), there is no locus for
> > avijja, for if one were to say: “avijja is the attributive principle
> > of the Absolute, therefore avijja’s locus is the Absolute/Brahman”,
> > this is a nonsensical statement since the locus for illumination
> > (avijja) as pertains light, is also unanswerable since neither the
> > object of illumination, nor the light itself is the locus of
> > illumination. Avijja is act, nature and necessity of the Absolute, all
> > three, for its as impossible to separate illumination from light as to
> > separate willing from will, or avijja from vijja, for avijja implies
> > vijja, just as anatta implies the attan! Would so the fool speak of
> > avijja or anatta without attempting to (in negative dialectics) point
> > to the vijja, the attan (Atman. Skt.)?
> > Avijja has no meaning outside the conjunct of will and matter,
> > the empirical consciousness (vinnana). The very nature of the Light
> > (vijja) is its outwardly principle to illumine (avijja), principle nor
> > privation have a locus. The Absolute, or Brahman is most certainly
> > vijja, simplex in every way, so to proclaim that the locus of avijja
> > is “in the Absolute” would be both untrue but also illogical. Light
> > (vijja) and illumination (avijja) are inseparably one thing only; this
> > is the indefinite dyad (aoristos dyas) of the ancient Greek
> > Platonists. Specifically ancient Pali is revealing, for the very word
> > for consciousness, vinnana, is literally meant agnosis (avijja): vi
> > (opposite to, contrary of, other than) + ñana (gnosis, vijja,
> > Knowledge, Light, Atman, Brahman), i.e. Vi+nana (vinnana). For the
> > “unknowing” (vinnana), the consciousness of being is the resultant
> > manifestation directly attributive to the Absolute and its very
> > extrinsic nature.
> > As pertains Buddhism specifically, avijja is the first position
> > in the chain of contingent manifestation (paticcasamuppada), however
> > one need ask: “agnosis (avijja) OF what and BY what”? Ignorance itself
> > is not a thing, but an attribution of something, be it in one of two
> > modalities, primordial agnosis (avijja), or empirical agnosis.
> > Samyutta 2.4 specifically (as well as countless other passages) equate
> > avijja with agnosis (anana): [Katama ca, bhikkhave, avijja? yam
> > kho, bhikkhave, dukkhe aññanam”].
> > Two entirely different levels of agnosis are at play in the model
> > of being, one being the primordial agnosis which is beginningless, and
> > the agnosis which is willed by a being from second to second, as
> > pertains his will (citta), be it by wisdom or lack thereof ; ignorance
> > is manifest which either perpetuates becoming (bhava) and actions
> > (karma), or wisdom in its place which subjugates (nirodha) them;
> > specifically [SN 5.127] speaks of the empirical side of agnosis in the
> > being who so wills them at the discretion of his (level of) ignorance.
> > “As above, so below” this is true of the Absolute that primordial
> > agnosis is the higher principle behind empirical agnosis as manifest
> > in being. The self-privative avijja of the nature of the Absolute that
> > it is subjectively directed inwards, and the empirical ‘shadow’ of the
> > being who marvels in the logos of Emanation as cast by the Absolute,
> > but is unknowing (avijja) as to the Subjective “light” of which he is
> > by nature which is also identical to the Absolute itself, being will
> > (citta).
> > Entirely in line with Platonism, Buddhism proclaims: [AN 5.113]
> > “Followers, the beginning of ignorance can never be discerned
> > (beginningless) such that it cannot be said “Here is the First where
> > ignorance is not, here is the contingency which generated it.” Such
> > that it should be discerned, followers, “ignorance is a
> > condition” (Purima, bhikkhave, koti na pañña’yati avijja’ya– ‘ito
> > pubbe avijja’ na’hosi, atha paccha’ samabhavi’’ti. Evañcetam,
> > bhikkhave, vuccati, atha ca pana pañña’yati– ‘idappaccaya’
> > avijja’’ti.).
> > In Buddhist sutta, avijja is forerunner, as it should be, being
> > first in paticcasamuppada: [AN 2.12] “Above karma, becoming, and
> > views, ‘agnosis encircles (all of them)’ as the (source for)
> > samsara.” (“Ka’mayogena samyutta’, bhavayogena cu’bhayam; ditthiyogena
> > samyutta’, avijja’ya purakkhata’”). Also: [SN-Att. 1.236] Nanajotim
> > (the light of gnosis) = atman; meaning that the wisdom (vijja) made
> > manifest in the disciple is the very premise for liberation as such
> > that agnosis (avijja) has been cut off = end of Self-objectification
> > (avijja, also = atta-an, i.e. anatta).
> > In fact, in Buddhist doctrine the only noun “freed” of avijja is
> > the citta, which logically presupposes the fact that as pertains our
> > earlier question: “agnosis (avijja) OF what and BY what”? , must be
> > meant avijja of the will’s nature (atman) by the will (citta): [AN
> > 1.196] "With mind (citta) emancipated from ignorance (avijja)…this
> > designates the Soul is having become-Brahman.", [AN 1.195] “Citta is
> > freed of the sensuous taint, citta is freed of the taint of becoming
> > (bhavaasavaapi), citta is freed of the taint of nescience/ignorance
> > (avijja), Liberation! Gnosis is this, therein (utter) liberation.” [MN
> > 1.279] “When his steadfast mind was perfectly purified, perfectly
> > illumined, stainless, utterly perfect, pliable, sturdy, fixed, and
> > everlastingly determinate then he directs his mind towards the gnosis
> > of the destruction of defilements. Knowing thus and seeing thus his
> > mind is emancipated from sensual desires, his mind is emancipated from
> > becoming, his mind is emancipated from ignorance.” “This said: ‘the
> > liberated mind/will (citta) which does not cling’ means Nibbana”[MN2-
> > Att. 4.68]. "Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means one is supremely-
> > fixed within the mind/will (citta)”[Silakkhandhavagga-Att. 1.168].
> > “'The purification of one’s own mind/will', this means the light
> > (joti) within one’s mind/will (citta) is the very Soul (attano)” [DN2-
> > Att. 2.479].
> Sounds like Ken Wheeler.
You are spot on.