Neti, Neti

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
BMcGilly07
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:33 pm

Neti, Neti

Post by BMcGilly07 »

The Hindu sages would exclude thingness and prevent attachment to it from their mind through the process of 'neti, neti' (not this, not this), henceforth "the process". By rejecting every thought that came to mind they sought to realize Enlightenment. If not repeated verbally or mentally, at the very least to keep this idea in the minds background grants a number of benefits. This is no mantra to be repeated endlessly in devotion to God, nor is it to be the object of single-pointed meditation or exhaustive concentration.

It is meant to be brought to attention each time a thought begins to arise or dominate the mind, at first actual verbal or mental repetition does serve a beneficial purpose, namely that of forging mindfulness, that perspective which steps back and reviews the contents and workings of consciousness. By not fixating on any particular thought, but consciously rejecting attachment to what happens to pop into mind, one gains the added benefit of seeding the mind with the beginnings of single-minded concentration which can eventually be applied effortlessly after the process becomes an automatic reflex. Once this process is so ingrained, it evolves from a thoughtful approach to become a perspective, or "state of mind," whatever that really is. It seeps into the very stage of mind where, while hosting the play of life, it is freed from being carried away by - or attached to - thoughts originated unconsciously, or those stimulated by the senses and their resultant abstract wanderings, memory, and subtle mental habits. By being freed from the ceaseless goings-on on stage, through applying reason one understands the relationship between identity as a being and perspective.

The reason the hosts of this board define enlightenment as arriving at a perfect intellectual understanding of the Infinite, is not for its truthfulness and accuracy alone, but because in the dual, relative world where concepts are understood through contrast and corresponding with other limited and arbitrary dualistic thoughts, that is the only goal which can be conveyed and understood with limited room for error in understanding the definition itself. The only tool which can reign dualism into the realm of certain understanding and which can craft concepts to yield perfect understanding is Reason. Reason's only end should be in it's conclusion- and not the absurd proposition there exists an end to its utility in the relative world, its utility is endless. It is the only key given to man to unlock the gate to the Kingdom of Heaven and even fits every and any lock in the relative world, too.

Half the battle is won when one comes to understand the limits of understanding and conceiving, and likewise accepting without exception, the Unknowable and Inconceivable as being the absolute closest we can get to intellectually conceiving of the Absolute Truth with our relative consciousness. The process initiates a paradigm shift when properly applied, which allows one to achieve total certainty through reason amidst the otherwise inescapable chaos of this arbitrary world with its sea of interdependent and unpredictable things. Where once the only known escape from suffering was through attachment, where once we were a slave to whim and sought release from our sorrowful sufferings; it was as if to sooth and forget our wretchedness we sought the unconsciousness that follows the lashing, with such a feeble grasp of reality's workings that we knew not why the whip cracked, not knowing it was at our request. Happiness is no less rooted in misery than unconsciousness is in the lashing, and just so our misery is rooted in happiness and our longing for it.

There is no relevant truth to be found in understanding relationships between things in the classical billiard-ball fashion unless we're shooting pool,and even then it is only descriptive in the aesthetic sense, and as base as bricks or as educating in mathematics as the function and meaning of the equal sign, i.e. "=".

Coming to the end of words, reason has been fully applied and retired in seeking further understanding of Absolute Truth, just as a general lays his trusty and ever-useful, highly polished saber in its satin-lined leather box. It is needed no more in this pursuit, having served valiantly and severed resolutely any obstacle to his victory, and was not above serving as the machete, hacking the branches and vines which obstructed and entangled his understanding from time to time during his long solitary travels through the indistinguishable jungle of confusion.

This great aid that is reason lays utter waste to the twin peaks separating man from himself, beyond himself. As another has said before me concerning reaching enlightenment and ever-deepening it, the salt doll walked into the surf determined to measure the depth of the ocean. Those of a sentimental bent will point out how sad it is he effectively "died," ceased existing as a distinct personality, but the truth is quite the opposite in terms of feelings. Being made of salt, he was nowhere at home treading the earth, there is no greater allocation of the very substance and meaning of his being and identity than exists in the ocean. Finding this unending source of his life-stuff, thusly seen with clear eyes, who wouldn't rather trade this life of petty ego and its attendant highs and lows, anchored both in suffering and sorrow, for identity with the infinite, eternal, source and home of Being and all that is Good beyond the contrast which gives birth to good and evil, and all that is That which cannot be this as it admits of neither center nor circumference, being wholly beyond the distinction of this and not this.

Before the paradigm shift, during the beginning reign of reason it was not this, not this; halfway through it was neither this nor that; at reason's conclusion we knew what this is; at enlightenment we knew that is.

note: removed unnecessary wording
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Neti, Neti

Post by jupiviv »

Ramakrishna used to say - "Everything is illusion. God alone is real."
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Neti, Neti

Post by Carl G »

Hah, the opposite of what many atheists would claim.
Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: Neti, Neti

Post by Animus »

brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Neti, Neti

Post by brokenhead »

Does "Neti,neti" arise spontaneously in the mind? At least at first, it must not. It seems to me that in order for it to be effective, issuing the neti, neti when a thought begins to arise requires at the very least the thought itself, the neti-neti response, and the issuer of that response. Is not the very act of issuing net-neti therefore a dualistic act? It is choosing a particular way to respond to a thought. Choice always involves at least two things, a thing and its alternative(s), in addition to the chooser, does it not?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Neti, Neti

Post by David Quinn »

Carl G wrote:
jupiviv wrote:Ramakrishna used to say - "Everything is illusion. God alone is real."
Hah, the opposite of what many atheists would claim.
And yet it is far more atheistic in nature than any claim made by atheists.

The ironies come thick and fast whenever these deeper matters surface.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Neti, Neti

Post by David Quinn »

brokenhead wrote:Does "Neti,neti" arise spontaneously in the mind? At least at first, it must not. It seems to me that in order for it to be effective, issuing the neti, neti when a thought begins to arise requires at the very least the thought itself, the neti-neti response, and the issuer of that response. Is not the very act of issuing net-neti therefore a dualistic act? It is choosing a particular way to respond to a thought. Choice always involves at least two things, a thing and its alternative(s), in addition to the chooser, does it not?
It is a dualistic technique designed to break the spell of duality which grips the mind.

In reality, though, the mind naturally engages in this activity when it attains a full intellectual understanding of God. The "neti, neti" exercise, as with any technique, is really only for those who aren't yet sure what God is and whose minds are still dimmed and clouded as a result. Along with other techniques, it can help prepare the mind for that all-important breakthrough in understanding.

-
User avatar
BMcGilly07
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:33 pm

Re: Neti, Neti

Post by BMcGilly07 »

David Quinn wrote:
brokenhead wrote:Does "Neti,neti" arise spontaneously in the mind? At least at first, it must not. It seems to me that in order for it to be effective, issuing the neti, neti when a thought begins to arise requires at the very least the thought itself, the neti-neti response, and the issuer of that response. Is not the very act of issuing net-neti therefore a dualistic act? It is choosing a particular way to respond to a thought. Choice always involves at least two things, a thing and its alternative(s), in addition to the chooser, does it not?
It is a dualistic technique designed to break the spell of duality which grips the mind.

In reality, though, the mind naturally engages in this activity when it attains a full intellectual understanding of God. The "neti, neti" exercise, as with any technique, is really only for those who aren't yet sure what God is and whose minds are still dimmed and clouded as a result. Along with other techniques, it can help prepare the mind for that all-important breakthrough in understanding.

-
That's true. If applied without the basic understanding of what the Infinite is and what is not the Infinite, the process is isn't of much help, it may devolve into a mantra or add branches and vines of further useless speculation about the process and lead to further mental wandering and arbitrary discrimination.

In my experience, once one understands why the process is useful, with mindfulness one can adopt the perspective of rejecting duality and the purpose of the process is applied without need of the process itself. By properly applying concepts using reason, one comes to understanding the zen phrases where there's smoke, there's fire, and by seeing three corners we know what the fourth is like.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Neti, Neti

Post by brokenhead »

David Quinn wrote:It is a dualistic technique designed to break the spell of duality which grips the mind.

In reality, though, the mind naturally engages in this activity when it attains a full intellectual understanding of God. The "neti, neti" exercise, as with any technique, is really only for those who aren't yet sure what God is and whose minds are still dimmed and clouded as a result. Along with other techniques, it can help prepare the mind for that all-important breakthrough in understanding.
I can distinguish between colors. How does the enlightened state differ from that of the blind man who cannot? Why would I want to cease being able to distinguish between colors?

If it is possible for the enlightened person to assume the consciousness of the unenlightened person so as to teach that person, assuming the enlightened one has gone the way of the bodhisattva to assist others, the how can that mind claim to be free of dual thinking?

David, it seems your response above while intellectually consistent can easily be viewed as smoke and mirrors. You will of course say it can only seem like smoke and mirrors to the unenlightened.

The very act of communication relies on duality. In the real absence of duality - not merely the one which can be summoned up intellectually in a hypothetical sense such as you always do here - communication ceases to exist, as there is no other with whom to communicate, and communication presupposes information, and all information requires duality in order to be information.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Neti, Neti

Post by brokenhead »

Not to mention that logic itself requires duality.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Neti, Neti

Post by David Quinn »

It is a question of whether or not one is being taken in by duality. The enlightened person still experiences duality, but he is no longer taken in by it. He is no longer attached to any of its illusions, no longer chases after them, no longer regards any one of them to be ultimate reality, no longer becomes emotional over them.

It is in this ceasing to be absorbed in duality, even while continuing to experience it, that one opens up to the nature of reality. And then, with further experience and familiarity with reality, one can re-enter duality, as it were, without falling back into ignorance.

Breaking the spell of duality, then, simply means breaking its power over the mind. It doesn't mean obliterating it and ascending to a non-dualistic state (whatever that might mean). You are right to think of this as incoherent and impossible.

-
Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: Neti, Neti

Post by Animus »

Bodhisattva... Bodhisattva... come on and take me by the hand... - Steely Dan (Bodhisattva)
Locked