Neti neti

[atanu]

So why doesn't Neti-neti also apply to "pure blissful consciousness", the "eternal knowing and bliss"? Is it because it's the only thing that doesn't change?

Excellent question.

Neti Neti follows a logical course to discard objects that constitute the environment and also the body-mind that can be pointed to as 'this' or 'that'. But then how does one discard the non dual subject?

Space-time has meaning only in samsara. Eternity does not intrinsically apply to brahman, since space-time is appearance in brahman.

And could you briefly explain what "aprajnanam" is? Thanks.

Jnana is knowledge. It can be vi-jnanam as in dream and waking, characterised by subject-object division. It is the manifest knowing accessible to intellect-mind. Or jnana can be pra-jnanam, which is the pre (pra) knowledge (jnanam) -- the potential for knowledge, the hidden characteristic of our deep sleep, unknown to intellect-mind. The intellect-mind, owing to the non dual nature of pra-jnanam, does not operate. Mind-intellect operates only when the non dual consciousness apparently partitions itself into a seeing-knowing subject and the seen-known objects (as in dream and in waking).

Samadhi, also called 'waking deep sleep', is non dual pra-jnana - brahman.

So, by the word 'aprajnanam', I meant total absence of competence for discernment -- unconscious. If non dual brahman is devoid of jnana (pra-jnana) then the non-dual can never be an actual experience. In that case, did the sages who have taught us non dual realisation lie?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Whether Aup's version is valid or not is a moot point. It is not Advaita Vedanta.

Perhaps not. But Aup’s understanding and what he chooses to call it have no impact on my personal understanding or realization, so I’m don’t see the use in playing the Advaita Vedanta police, other that offer a clarification as I did earlier in the thread.

Quibbling over a name, in my experience, is little more than an unproductive product of ego. It’s the realization the name represents, not the name itself, that’s important.

Besides, this thread is about neti neti, not about what Advaita Vedanta is.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In that case, did the sages who have taught us non dual realisation lie?

No, they did not lie. Only that they had a different view. Have I ever disrespected the sages who propounded different views? I differ even from my gurus, Buddha and Sankara.

I won't go as far as to say that Aup's is less valid. Only different.

That is the true Hindu spirit.

 

[atanu]

Perhaps not. But Aup’s understanding and what he chooses to call it have no impact on my personal understanding or realization, so I’m don’t see the use in playing the Advaita Vedanta police, other that offer a clarification as I did earlier in the thread.

Quibbling over a name, in my experience, is little more than an unproductive product of ego. It’s the realization the name represents, not the name itself, that’s important.

Besides, this thread is about neti neti, not about what Advaita Vedanta is.

Neti Neti is an advaitic tool and in my opinion, a discussion on Neti Neti also entails an understanding of advaita.

Why you see my act of objecting to defining brahman as physical energy as an act of ego and as policing?

Is it wrong to point out that as per the Vedas, Brahman is not physical energy? Is it wrong to point out that if the non dual brahman is physical energy devoid of intrinsic consciousness then the non dual brahman (advaita) is ultimately indiscernible?
...

Anyway. It is also my intention to only point out that cit is intrinsic to brahman, and it is my wish to not enter into an argument,

 

[SalixIncendium]

Neti Neti is an advaitic tool and in my opinion, a discussion on Neti Neti also entails an understanding of advaita.

Why you see my act of objecting to defining brahman as physical energy as an act of ego and as policing?

Is it wrong to point out that as per the Vedas, Brahman is not physical energy? Is it wrong to point out that if the non dual brahman is physical energy devoid of intrinsic consciousness then the non dual brahman (advaita) is ultimately indiscernible?
...

Anyway. It is also my intention to only point out that cit is intrinsic to brahman, and it is my wish to not enter into an argument,

There is nothing at all wrong with pointing it out. But once pointed out, I see nothing productive in belaboring these points.

 

[crossfire]

Whether Aup's version is valid or not is a moot point. It is not Advaita Vedanta.

Many people do not stop to enquire the implication of an unconscious non dual brahman. If the non dual brahman is not intrinsically of the nature of knowledge, then the non dual can never be known as non dual. Which would mean that the advaita teachers (and possibly Buddha too) lied.

In Buddhism, non-dual awareness means free from the dualistic like-dislike bias that distorts ones view of reality. See the Hsin Hsin Ming for more.

 

[crossfire]

Neti Neti is an advaitic tool and in my opinion, a discussion on Neti Neti also entails an understanding of advaita.

Why you see my act of objecting to defining brahman as physical energy as an act of ego and as policing?

Is it wrong to point out that as per the Vedas, Brahman is not physical energy? Is it wrong to point out that if the non dual brahman is physical energy devoid of intrinsic consciousness then the non dual brahman (advaita) is ultimately indiscernible?
...

Anyway. It is also my intention to only point out that cit is intrinsic to brahman, and it is my wish to not enter into an argument,

Post #18 also links to a Buddhist sutta employing neti-neti, but Buddhism is not Advaita.

 

[atanu]

Post #18 also links to a Buddhist sutta employing neti-neti, but Buddhism is not Advaita.

I think it is in post 19.

Yes. Buddhism is not advaita. I consciously remain an advaitin.

 

[atanu]

In Buddhism, non-dual awareness means free from the dualistic like-dislike bias that distorts ones view of reality. See the Hsin Hsin Ming for more.

Yes. In this regard, consider the following also:

Gita 6.7: The yogis who have conquered the mind rise above the dualities of cold and heat, joy and sorrow, honor and dishonor. Such yogis remain peaceful and steadfast in their abidance in param atman.

...

 

[Martin]

Post #18 also links to a Buddhist sutta employing neti-neti, but Buddhism is not Advaita.

So in a Buddhist context, consciousness is not exempt from Neti-neti?

But it appears that Neti-neti relies on awareness of this and that, so how can you be aware of awareness itself?

How can you be conscious of consciousness, in order to apply Neti-neti to it?

 

[stvdv]

Sankara said:
"ahaṃ nirvikalpo nirākāra rūpo, vibhutvā ca sarvatra sarvendriyāṇaṃ;
na cāsaṅgataṃ naiva muktir na meyaḥ, cidānandarūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham."

6.1: I am the Form of what is Changeless and Without a Form of its own,
6.2: I am Present Everywhere as the underlying Substratum of Everything, and behind all Sense Organs,
6.3: Neither do I get Attached to anything, nor get Freed from anything,
6.4: I am the Form of Eternal Bliss, I am the Auspicious, I am Shiva,

(Word-by-word translation by Aup., not satisfied with other translations.

 

[stvdv]

So in a Buddhist context, consciousness is not exempt from Neti-neti?
But it appears that Neti-neti relies on awareness of this and that, so how you you be aware of awareness itself? How can you be conscious of consciousness?

No need to ask how an apple tastes, just eat it

 

[Martin]

No need to ask how an apple tastes, just eat it

I'm not asking that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is it wrong to point out that as per the Vedas, Brahman is not physical energy? Is it wrong to point out that if the non dual brahman is physical energy devoid of intrinsic consciousness then the non dual brahman (advaita) is ultimately indiscernible?

Even what is written in Vedas cannot be taken as God's own truth. The hymns were written by various people, some hymns are shown in the 'anukramanikas' (indexes) as have been written/edited by more than one person. They can only be taken as their views. You have hymns to a single supreme entity (Purusha) and you have hymns dedicated to multiple deities (Vishvedevas).

I do not see any wrong in proposing one force extending all over in the universe (creating the illusions of Vyavaharika). On what basis you add this 'intrinsic consciousness' in the the equation like it is a thinking human mind. You and many others, are sort of hung-up on 'consciousness'. In Big Bang and in Quantum Mechanics, energy does not need to be conscious. It does what is natural to it.

If there is a force, there will be perturbations. It is dynamic and not static. It is very much discernible, we see it with our own eyes right in front of us all our waking times. What that you see, is not Brahman? Is there anything that is not Brahman? That is the basis of non-duality.

No need to ask how an apple tastes, just eat it

That was Buddha.

 

[stvdv]

Even what is written in Vedas cannot be taken as God's own truth. The hymns were written by various people

I agree

* Christians believe "no human is perfect"
Not perfect means they make "mistakes"
Bible is written by humans
This proves Bible probably has "mistakes"
(IF * is true)

Most find it difficult to admit that their Scripture contains "mistakes" (or that they misinterpret) but find it easy to tell that other Scripture contains "mistakes".

First time on RF I see someone else write that his Scripture contains "mistakes" (or how you nicely said "cannot be taken as God's own truth").

Maybe it can be taken as "truth God gave to us" (good teacher always give as much truth as student needs and can handle)

 

[atanu]

So in a Buddhist context, consciousness is not exempt from Neti-neti?

But it appears that Neti-neti relies on awareness of this and that, so how can you be aware of awareness itself?

How can you be conscious of consciousness, in order to apply Neti-neti to it?

Again a great pertinent point.

I am not a Buddhist, but please allow me to point out that Buddhist originals talk of discarding the vi-jnana (the manifest dual consciousness). In English translations, vi-jnana becomes consciousness. But consciousness is jnana and pra-jnana is the hidden root.

Indeed there are Buddhist scripture that teach the practitioners to rely on pra-jnana.

One cannot discard the pra-jnana ever.
...
YMMV.

 

[stvdv]

But it appears that Neti-neti relies on awareness of this and that, so how can you be aware of awareness itself?

How can you be conscious of consciousness, in order to apply Neti-neti to it?

No need to ask how an apple tastes, just eat it

I'm not asking that.

But it appears that Neti-neti relies on awareness of this and that, so how can you be aware of awareness itself?

How can you be conscious of consciousness, in order to apply Neti-neti to it?

If you practise "neti neti" then in the end (after you do the practise for 'some' time), you will be "conscious of Consciousness"

 

[Martin]

If you practise "neti neti" then in the end (after you do the practise for 'some' time), you will be "conscious of Consciousness"

But how exactly? In my experience there is always consciousness OF something. In other words, consciousness always has an object, and no object at all would mean unconsciousness.
I don't know a way to separate consciousness from its object, and to be aware of consciousness in isolation. It would be like trying to see the back of your eyes. Hence my question.
We talk a lot about consciousness, but IMO we're mostly talking about what we're conscious OF, rather than about consciousness itself.

Also, could you explain the significance of the small and big c's in "consciousness of Consciousness"? Does consciousness with a small "c" refer to sense-consciousness? And if so, wouldn't it be the other way round if we're applying Neti-neti?

 

[Aupmanyav]

One cannot discard the pra-jnana ever.

Nobody is asking anyone to discard 'Prajna' (Intelligence). Actually, I am asking you to have a little more of that. That is when one can understand RigVeda or any other thing in the world.

 

[stvdv]

So is Atman/Brahman something that one can be aware OF, or is it awareness itself?
Is it an object of consciousness, or consciousness itself? And if it's consciousness, is it different to "ordinary" sense-consciousness?

"Consciousness" can be seen as the white screen on which the movie of maya, illusion, desires, senses is shown.

As long as we are attached to "our" senses we stay in "unconscious state", not in our "true" state of CIA (Constant Integrated Awareness).

"sense-consciousness" I would only use if I write "Consciousness" capitalized. Because "sense attachment" is a major player obstructing us to "know" "Consciousness". Being into the senses means "unconscious" of "Consciousness".

So using the word "sense-consciousness" might fool you realizing the difference. Maybe better to write "senses-aware"