06-26-2012, 12:00 AM
in
http://www.kathodos.com/start.html
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].
http://www.kathodos.com/start.html
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].