Neti neti

[Aupmanyav]

So is this basically about distinguishing between the personal ("me"), and the impersonal, eg "Brahma"?

For monist Hindus like me, difference between 'me' and 'Brahman' (that undefined entity, Brahma is the God of creation in puranic, later time theology) does not exist. All things are forms of that form-independent, eternal, uninvolved entity; the personal is only an illusion.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Brahman is inconceivable and indescribable. It has no qualities to hang a description on, yet Hinduism has been actively writing about and trying to describe it for millennia -- all the while emphasizing its ineffability.

"Not this, not this" is just statement reminding one that whatever explanation or description one's just heard is entirely inadequate, if not outright wrong.
It's not an action, it's not a practice, it's not a doctrine.

It's apparently whatever you want it to be.

And no, I don't me 'you' in the general sense. I mean you specifically.

If this is how you conceptualize neti neti to help you realize your existence and understand Brahman (or not), good on you. It's what works for you.

However, it's not necessarily what works for everyone.

In the words of the venerable @crossfire, your mileage may vary.

 

[wizanda]

Could you give an example of the logical fallacies involved?

Logical fallacies are not just a series of logical arguments, this is something argumentative people have made up over time, to declare they have a qualification in arguing.

My understanding is that there are rules of logical reasoning that apply to any situation, where we can turn things into equations, and every aspect of any case can be logically argued, the opposite of a logical argument will be a logical fallacy - there are infinite probabilities to logical fallacies.

Neti Neti is close to an advanced form of deductive reasoning:

$A? +/- $B? = $X?

Because where as deductive would make a sum from things that exist to make a conclusion, in Neti Neti every aspect should be questioned to build a sum, where nothing else can be removed, as it has all been questioned.

'When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.'

In my opinion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

When did "neti, neti" become a practice? It's an expression of ineffability.

Nothing is ineffable in Hindu philosophy. You are welcome to discuss everything to your heart's content. "Neti, neti" is acceptance of the fact that we do not understand the properties of 'Brahman' completely.
How do we know that it is indescribable? We have described Relativity and Quantum Mechanics also.
When we come to know more about Brahman, we will describe it. What I mean is that there is no (religious) bar to it.

Ineffable: incapable of being expressed or described in words; inexpressible
not to be spoken because of its sacredness; unutterable

Brahman is inconceivable and indescribable. It has no qualities to hang a description on, yet Hinduism has been actively writing about and trying to describe it for millennia -- all the while emphasizing its ineffability.

Don't we say that Brahman is eternal, form-independent, changeless, uninvolved? We do hang on these qualities of Brahman. 'Neti, neti" is to say that we do not know beyond a certain limit. Beyond that, there are uncertainties.

 

[Martin]

Thanks everyone, I think I have a better understanding now. It's interesting to see that there are different perspectives and ideas.
My own background is in mindfulness, and I realise I have been doing (discovering?) something similar to "Neti neti". Well, sort of!

 

[Windwalker]

I'll add a couple thoughts to this from my understanding. Neti Neti is essentially the same thing as Apohaptic theology, which is a Western path to mystical awakening via negation of what one might imagine God to be. In a Wiki article it is described thusly,

Apophatic theology, also known as negative theology,[1] is a form of theological thinking and religious practice which attempts to approach God, the Divine, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God.[web 1] It forms a pair together with cataphatic theology, which approaches God or the Divine by affirmations or positive statements about what God is.

The apophatic tradition is often, though not always, allied with the approach of mysticism, which aims at the vision of God, the perception of the divine reality beyond the realm of ordinary perception.
​

This also the approach of Mahayana Buddhism following the teachings of Nagarjuna. Madhyamaka is,

According to Mahayana Buddhism, any concepts we have about the basic nature of reality are incomplete, inaccurate, and in fact block our direct experience of things as they really are. The Middle Way (Madhyamaka) philosophy pioneered by the Indian Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna (2nd–3rd century CE) uses reason to negate our mistaken concepts about reality. Take a pair of opposites, such as real and unreal. Madhyamaka logic looks at four possibilities—that things are either real, unreal, both, or neither—and refutes them in turn. So in this case, the four negations are:

1. Not real.
2. Not unreal.
3. Not both real and unreal.
4. Not neither real nor unreal.
​

Another way we can look at reality is as one (or “oneness” in spiritual terms), as many separate things, or as any combination thereof. So the four negations are:

1. Not one.
2. Not many.
3. Not both one and many.
4. Not neither one nor many.
​

You can practice Madhyamaka by studying its logical arguments why any assertions about the nature of reality are self-defeating. You can also use it as a kind of koan practice. Accept, for the sake of argument, that things are not real, unreal, both, or neither. Contemplate where that leaves you. In either case, the Middle Way philosophy cuts through conceptualization and points you directly to the true nature of reality.

[from here What Are the Four Negations?​

 

[crossfire]

I'll add a couple thoughts to this from my understanding. Neti Neti is essentially the same thing as Apohaptic theology, which is a Western path to mystical awakening via negation of what one might imagine God to be. In a Wiki article it is described thusly,

Apophatic theology, also known as negative theology,[1] is a form of theological thinking and religious practice which attempts to approach God, the Divine, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God.[web 1] It forms a pair together with cataphatic theology, which approaches God or the Divine by affirmations or positive statements about what God is.

The apophatic tradition is often, though not always, allied with the approach of mysticism, which aims at the vision of God, the perception of the divine reality beyond the realm of ordinary perception.
​

This also the approach of Mahayana Buddhism following the teachings of Nagarjuna. Madhyamaka is,

According to Mahayana Buddhism, any concepts we have about the basic nature of reality are incomplete, inaccurate, and in fact block our direct experience of things as they really are. The Middle Way (Madhyamaka) philosophy pioneered by the Indian Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna (2nd–3rd century CE) uses reason to negate our mistaken concepts about reality. Take a pair of opposites, such as real and unreal. Madhyamaka logic looks at four possibilities—that things are either real, unreal, both, or neither—and refutes them in turn. So in this case, the four negations are:

1. Not real.
2. Not unreal.
3. Not both real and unreal.
4. Not neither real nor unreal.
​

Another way we can look at reality is as one (or “oneness” in spiritual terms), as many separate things, or as any combination thereof. So the four negations are:

1. Not one.
2. Not many.
3. Not both one and many.
4. Not neither one nor many.
​

You can practice Madhyamaka by studying its logical arguments why any assertions about the nature of reality are self-defeating. You can also use it as a kind of koan practice. Accept, for the sake of argument, that things are not real, unreal, both, or neither. Contemplate where that leaves you. In either case, the Middle Way philosophy cuts through conceptualization and points you directly to the true nature of reality.

[from here What Are the Four Negations?​

PSA: ***Be forewarned that reading Nagarjuna may give you the urge to start drinking heavily.*** (I used to read Nagarjuna whilst in the throes of PMS)
Nagarjuna's Mula madhyamaka karika

 

[Fool]

Could anyone briefly describe a method for the "Neti, neti" practice?
Thanks.

its an action that has no form. it's basically non-attachment to form while still moving.

it's like dancing free style and not to a formal style. the dance is eternal the form is not.

 

[sun rise]

I like Meher Baba's explanation - it's about the practice of detachment:

This attitude consists in the application of the principle of “Neti, Neti,” “Not-this, Not-this.” It implies constant effort to maintain watchful detachment in relation to the alluring opposites of limited experience. It is not possible to deny only the disagreeable stimuli and remain inwardly attached to the agreeable stimuli. If the mind is to remain unmoved by the onslaughts of the opposites, it cannot continue to be attached to the expressions of affection and be influenced by them. The equipoise consists in meeting both alternatives with complete detachment.

 

[Twilight Hue]

IMO:

The "Neti .. neti" method means "not this, not that" or "neither this nor that"
This method is described for some people who want to know Brahman, God
So you look at your wife thinking "is she God?" soon the answer comes from deep within "Neti ... neti"
There is quite a lot of "non-God" stuff around us here on earth, so this method can keep your mind busy 24/7/52
And that exactly is the key, keeping your mind busy and focused, until the mind dissolves, and stops asking these questions

Thank God. I thought it was that horrid Eurovision song.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What I mean is that there is no (religious) bar to it.

Like in Judaism that you are not to call the name of God, and write YHWH only.

 

[atanu]

Brahman is inconceivable and indescribable. It has no qualities to hang a description on, yet Hinduism has been actively writing about and trying to describe it for millennia -- all the while emphasizing its ineffability.

"Not this, not this" is just statement reminding one that whatever explanation or description one's just heard is entirely inadequate, if not outright wrong.
It's not an action, it's not a practice, it's not a doctrine.

I think you are only partially correct. Brahman-Atman is incomprehensible yet it is the Self -- the very innard of everyone. It is not that which can be pointed out as 'this' but it is that which points out 'this' or 'that'.

 

[atanu]

Could anyone briefly describe a method for the "Neti, neti" practice?
Thanks.

There will be many interpretations. For example interpretation of dvaitin (dualist -- Madhavacharya school) and advaitin (non dualist -- Shankaracharya school) are diametrically opposite.

So, if we decide to learn of the advaitic version, let us see what Shankaracharya himself had to say.

Excerpt From: “Mandukya Upanishad & Karika with Shankara Bhashya - Swami Nikhilananda”.

…….But knowing this Atman to be incomprehensible, the Sruti has again sought to establish the very same Atman through other means and finally refuted what have been described (as the means for the attainment of Atman). That is to say, the Sruti, in such passage as, “It is not this, not this,” demonstrates the incomprehensibility of Atman or in other words, refutes the idea that Atman can be realised or understood.Those who do not understand that the means (suggested for the realisation of Atman) have only one purpose, viz., the realisation of the end (i.e., the non-dual Atman), make a mistake by thinking that what are suggested as the means have the same reality as the end. In order to remove this error, the Sruti negates the reality of the means by pointing out the incomprehensibility of Atman, as its reason. Subsequently, the student knows that the means serve their purpose by pointing only to the end and the end itself is always one and changeless.To such a student the knowledge of the unborn[…]”​

Excerpt From: “Atma Bodha (1987), Swami Chinmayananda”.

“Nisidhya Nikhilopadhin Neti-Neti-Iti Vakyatah Vidyat-Aikyam Maha-Vakyaih Jivatma Paramatmanoh”

After negating all conditionings, employing the scriptural statement ‘not this-not this’, know the oneness (taught by the great Mahavakyas) of the individual soul and the Supreme soul.

“30. By a process of negation of the conditionings (Upadhis) through the help of the scriptural statement ‘it is not this, It is not this’, the oneness of the individual soul and the Supreme Soul as indicated by the great Mahavakyas, has to be realised.

The Vedic aphorisms (Maha-Vakyas) are (1) “That thou art” (2) “This Atman is Brahman" (3) “Consciousness is Brahman" (4) “I am Brahman. All these point but to the Non-dual identity between the individual soul (Jiva) and the Supreme Soul (Atma), since the Reality behind them both is the One Brahman, the Absolute.

In this Stanza the way to Self-realisation by a process of negation of the limiting factors of the individual, —i.e., the gross, the subtle and the causal body envelopments, and also of the not-Self ( Anatma) objects as perceived by us in the outer world through these bodies—is indicated. This way leads the seeker on, and he ends in the ultimate realisation that the individual soul is in its own real nature nothing but the Supreme Soul (Para mat man) Itself.

The pure Consciousness in me is the Absolute Reality, and this alone, which is in you and in “Not this” (‘neti’ ‘neti’) when one has realised that one is no more any one of the non-Self vestures (Anatma kosas) within or without, the perception and realisation of the One Eternal Truth that persists in every one of the objects becomes in him a living experience, as “the only Permanent in the impermanent.”…….​

...

Neti Neti is thus a pointer and also a means to attain the knowledge of Brahman-Atman as taught in the mahavakyas.
...

 

[Valjean]

Nothing is ineffable in Hindu philosophy. You are welcome to discuss everything to your heart's content.

[OK, this is where I'm coming from. (Bear with me, I'm mostly explaining this to the non-Hindus here)]

Of course -- and Hindu literature has pretty much been a discussion of the incomprehensible forever. I believe there are things that can't be put into words.

Our language is a tool to describe and communicate in a waking-state (3rd-state) reality.
Hindu 'theology' -- at least Vedantic philosophy -- is about alternate realities; different worlds perceived from expanded levels of consciousness. Even within 3rd state, language is inadequate to describe colour to a blind man, how much more inadequate would it be to describe a qualitatively different reality?

These 'higher' levels aren't describable from a waking-state perspective, they're not even comprehensible. They must be experienced to be grokked.

"Neti, neti" is acceptance of the fact that we do not understand the properties of 'Brahman' completely.

OK, but you can see the problem here; "qualities" of Brahman? This could only apply to Saguna Brahman; Brahman-with-qualities. Brahman with qualities must needs be a being,; an entity; perhaps a god.

Generally, Brahman is not conceived of as an entity. It's generally described as Nir-guna -- without qualities. Attributes are ascribed to it only to make it discussable -- which Hinduism, for some reason, has always tried to do, even while asserting that, in actual fact, it's incomprehensible.

How do we know that it is indescribable? We have described Relativity and Quantum Mechanics also.

We've worked out the mathematics of relativity and quantum mechanics, but it's still hard to describe, much less grasp intuitively, even though it's a phenomenon permeating our 3rd state reality.

When we come to know more about Brahman, we will describe it. What I mean is that there is no (religious) bar to it.

But isn't English or Hindi inadequate to describe existing in, and being conscious of, past, present and future simultaneously? How do you describe the "colors" of X-rays or VLF? How do you describe experiencing multiple lives simultaneously? How do you describe existing everywhere in the universe simultaneously?
These are qualities usually ascribed to an omniscient god, but, as you know, the goal of Hinduism is to surpass god; to transcend him.
If, ordinarily, we can't even grok the mind of god, how much more difficult would it be to describe Brahman?

Ineffable: incapable of being expressed or described in words; inexpressible
not to be spoken because of its sacredness; unutterableDon't we say that Brahman is eternal, form-independent, changeless, uninvolved? We do hang on these qualities of Brahman. 'Neti, neti" is to say that we do not know beyond a certain limit. Beyond that, there are uncertainties.

Of course. Brahman can only be "described" by what it isn't -- neti, neti.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. the very innard of everyone. It is not that which can be pointed out as 'this' but it is that which points out 'this' or 'that'.

Opinion and (respectfully) valid difference.
Advaitists would say: "All this is that" (Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma), "That is the Whole, This is the Whole .." (Purnamadah, Purnamidam ..).

 

[Aupmanyav]

1. But isn't English or Hindi inadequate to describe existing in, and being conscious of, past, present and future simultaneously?
2. OK, but you can see the problem here; "qualities" of Brahman? This could only apply to Saguna Brahman; Brahman-with-qualities. Brahman with qualities must needs be a being,; an entity; perhaps a god.

1. I find Hindi and English adequate to discuss matters related to Brahman.
2. To mention again, do we not say that Nirguna is eternal, changeless, form-independent and uninvolved. Nirguna too has its inherent properties, its nature.

The only thing is that I do not make Brahman mystical.

 

[Valjean]

1. I find Hindi and English adequate to discuss matters related to Brahman.
2. To mention again, do we not say that Nirguna is eternal, changeless, form-independent and uninvolved. Nirguna too has its inherent properties, its nature.

We do: no change, no form, no involvement -- all 'descriptions' of what it's not. (Neti).

The only thing is that I do not make Brahman mystical.

Interesting.
I think this might revolve round how you define mystical.

 

[stvdv]

I think you are only partially correct. Brahman-Atman is incomprehensible yet it is the Self -- the very innard of everyone. It is not that which can be pointed out as 'this' but it is that which points out 'this' or 'that'.

"this" or "that" as seen from Brahma-Atman, though, is maya, illusion, not real, ever changing (so, not existing as a truth [which does not change])
It is the "human under the veil of delusion" who sees "this" or "that" as being real, because he can't see the underlying unity (Brahman)

 

[PearlSeeker]

Could anyone briefly describe a method for the "Neti, neti" practice?
Thanks.

Sri Ramakrishna is known for describing things in a simple and parabolic way:

The jnani, or the follower of the path of knowledge, analyzes the universe of the senses, saying, “Brahman is not this, not that” [neti neti] , and gives up worldliness. Thus he attains the knowledge of Brahman. He is like the man who, climbing a stairway, leaves each step behind, one after another, and so reaches the roof. But the vijnani, who gains an intimate knowledge of Brahman, has his consciousness further extended. He knows that roof and steps are all of the same substance. First, he realizes, “All is not, God is.” Next, he realizes, “All is God.” Few can stay long on the roof. Those who reach samadhi and attain Brahman soon return to the normal plane of consciousness, and then they realize that he has become everything. They then see God in the heart of all.​

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, sort of. There is no creation itself, no roof, no stairs. All that too is 'maya'. This is higher 'advaita'. It takes time to reach that stage. Once you accept creation, all the hell is let loose, the Pandora's box is opened.

I think this might revolve round how you define mystical.

Like you said 'ineffable' (cannot be known). Perhaps we have a difference of opinion, which is OK in Hinduism. IIMHO, with time, we will be better able to describe Brahman or 'what exists', once the problem of eternal / Ex - nihilo is solved.