« Not so ordinary mind | Main | The second approach »

November 21, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Reading this crappola (The Lost meaning of Avijja), for that is exactly what this amassed content of disarrayed thoughts are, one cannot help but instantly deduce two things; 1/ The mind having composed this, suffers from a complex mental sickness, probably bipolar disorder combined with advanced schizophrenia 2/The mind having composed this is devoid, as such, of genuine spiritualwisdom (gnosis) and thus should be considered merely a confused exegetic fundamentalist (probably since early teens) instead of taken seriously based on sound scriptural merit and argument therefrom.

Although the initial analysis of the ancient sanskrit term avijja seems promising it inevitably stumbles and falls flat on its chest based on the authors inaccurate definition/presentation of the absolute, his minds overly fixation with phenomenalism thus exposing thought patterns based solely on temporal vision/deductions (avidya) and not as a genuine bodhisattva or buddha would do, exposing thought patterns based on non-temporal vision/deduction ( (vidya), which I suspect is much based on his minds mental illness (spiritual dissonance/inbalance).

There is much more in this lengthy and tiresome article of confused thoughts/words one could critisiz.e but then I would myself become equally tiresome (laughs). As an end note I wholeheartedly agree with thevortical thoughts of the blogauthor. Keep up the good work and keep your porch free from talk.religion.buddhism trolls.


The Lost meaning of Avijja / Avidya (agnosis)

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].

Zennist author states: "It exists in a state of ignorance or avidya. "

Son, you still havent 'learnt' yet that avijja is "ignorance" only existentially.

the citta's avijja as a metaphysical principle is far different than consciousness' avijja.

"Ya aint too smert"

You suffer Hubris like a stray dog suffers fleas

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo