• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Neti neti

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
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").
Oh no. I see a lot of Christians and former Christians criticizing Bible. More than 2,600 years ago, Buddha advised that one must avoid 'piṭaka-sampadāna' in Kalama Sutta, depending just on scriptures (perhaps the Pali word means 'the wealth of scriptures', 'Pitaka' is scripture and 'Sampada' is wealth). He, my guru, was the wise one. :)

You see, it is easy for us to understand these words because we have that heritage, whether in Sanskrit or in Pali. Even now, 'Pitari' means a jewel box in Hindi. Even Urdu has it.

And I am not really criticizing Vedas in any way. Far from it, I consider them precious. They are the only living records of Indo-European people, found nowhere else in the world. Veda simply means knowledge, a writer of a hymn was known as the 'drishta' or the 'seer', i.e., as he saw it. It was his opinion. The label 'shruti' (heard) was given to Vedas later to distinguish it from newer literature whose writers were present among the people.
 
Last edited:

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
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.
In the West they use the word "Consciousness" with a totally different meaning. Hence the confusion with "object" (untrue). I explained in my previous post to you (happened in same time as you wrote this).

I hope my example (with the film) gives you enough to "feel" the difference. Otherwise you could study Ramana Maharishi, He is the Master of "Who Am I" and He wrote a tiny (28 questions in a few pages) booklet explaining everything.

Anyway, if you can have the Real Self Enlightened Master answer your questions, might it not be better than asking me?
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Oh no. I see a lot of Christians and former Christians criticizing Bible.
Former Christians I have seen criticizing their "former Scripture". But Christians not so much (thanks for the correction), I did see one Catholic on RF this week though:D and of course @PopeADope :)

More than 2,600 years ago, Buddha advised that one must avoid 'piṭaka-sampadāna' in Kalama Sutta, depending just on scriptures (perhaps the Pali word means 'the wealth of scriptures', 'Pitaka' is scripture and 'Sampada' is wealth).
One of the first things I read on Buddhism was "In the end you have to 'kill' your guru"

He, my guru, was the wise one. :)
That's my favorite quote too:)

My Guru said "It's good to be born in a Church, not good to die in a Church".
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
You see, it is easy for us to understand these words because we have that heritage, whether in Sanskrit or in Pali. Even now, 'Pitari' means a jewel box in Hindi. Even Urdu has it.

Yes, I agree. India has many Jewels to offer. The West slowly admits it nowadays.

I am so grateful that I could stay with my Master for 10 years. I (un)learned more than I could ever have learned otherwise.

In the end He shocked many saying:
"God does not exist (God as the picture you have in your mind)". A Master eye opener (for those willing to open up),
 

Martin

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
"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"

Sorry but I'm still unclear as to the distinctions you're trying to make here. The problem with gurus is that they all have their own jargon and language, which is not always clearly explained! Then they introduce words beginning with capital letters, and assume that lends them greater significance.

Anyway. Does CIA include sense-consciousness, or is it a different type of awareness entirely?

And are you saying we need to "withdraw" from sense-consciousness in order to experience CIA? Or something else?

And how does all this relate to Neti-neti exactly? Neti-neti is applied to sense-consciousness, but CIA is exempt? Or CIA is revealed by "doing" Neti-neti? Or what?

By "sense-consciousness" I just mean the awareness of sense-objects like sights, sounds, tastes, etc. It seems like a straightforward definition to me, and not complicated or controversial. .
 
Last edited:

Martin

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
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.

Could you explain what pra-jnana is here? Is it related to the Pali word "panna" (wisdom)?

I'd agree that vi-jnana (vinnana) is based on a duality, but isn't this also the case for Neti-neti? The awareness of "not this, not that" implies that "this" and "that" are objects of consciousness/awareness.
 
Last edited:

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
Neti Neti = "not this, not that" = Applies to all concepts, else it isn't Neti Neti, if we haven't taken everything away.
What that you see, is not Brahman? Is there anything that is not Brahman? That is the basis of non-duality.
According to many texts the Source plans on removing the negative coding anomalies in a big quantum fire at the end of time, and then keeping the enlightened saints; some texts say reality is a refining process we are within.

If it can keep some removing others: we are all not that, some are less than that, and regardless of us thinking we can make everything that, some of that isn't sequenced the same.

In the dimensions I've gone to 13, as within this matrix reality we exist within, they are the constraints; yet some of us have the potential to not be within this reality, to be beyond self, and attachment to being, and then to become beyond any constructs - to be the essence of a whole reality by our dreams.

Yet maths has to exists to be consistent, there is no point saying there are no dimensional quantum levels (non-duality) as we exist within them, and the Maya is the dense fabric of our reality...

We can say we are Maya; yet we can not say we are beings manifesting whole realities by our dreams yet...


Not sure if you know the concepts within the films: Logan's Run, Divergent, 13th Floor, Matrix, Inception, Dark City, etc?

Where we are within 13 dimensions, the 14th is outside where nothing exists, unless we manifest it from consciousness; we've never experienced outside the Matrix, as we're Children of Israel (To reign within El).

Brahman (EL - CPU) is our structuring, yet the root problems of us are down to us not being Brahman as it is pure 100% maths; we're like criminals in an insane asylum for divine beings with issues...

This is why Psalms 82:6-7 says we're all divine beings, yet we shall die like men; it is like we are all in here on a prison sentence, where none of the guards are educating the patients properly, as they get paid more by making the patients into debt slaves, the longer we have to stay.

Here is down near Hell, we can clearly see this from things like the biggest gangsters run the show, not the saints, and it never has been perfect down here; if we examine history corruption always occurs, the bigger something is the more it corrupts, and scum rises to the top.

Thus if we see what is Brahman is pure maths of the structuring; what is logistically corrupting is the self preservation within the Maya, and why Kali is removing blood seeds, as they don't see their own equations, even when it is explained to them.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Trying to resolve your confusion.
By "sense-consciousness" I just mean the awareness of sense-objects like sights, sounds, tastes, etc. It seems like a straightforward definition to me, and not complicated or controversial. .
Yeah, that is uncomplicated awareness of our day-to-day world. But, is the 'atomic world' with electrons whirling around the nucleus in a way that one can either find their position or the momentum (and not both), or the 'world of energy, of the 'four fundamental forces and gravity' which follows Quantum Mechanics, of the world which came about from chaos, randomness, probabilities and uncertainty, or where the black holes devour suns as if they were crunching popcorn and beaming energy to a plane perpendicular to it, like that? No it is different. To be aware of that there is a world which is different from the day-to-day world, is to be 'Conscious'. This world (in 'Advaita' known as 'Vyavaharika', pragmatic reality) is but an illusion, and different from the world in 'Absolute reality' (Paramarthika).

Could you explain what pra-jnana is here? Is it related to the Pali word "panna" (wisdom)?
I'd agree that vi-jnana (vinnana) is based on a duality, but isn't this also the case for Neti-neti? The awareness of "not this, not that" implies that "this" and "that" are objects of consciousness/awareness.
Here is the meaning of 'Prajna' from a nice Sankrit dictionary: Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit
Here is what the other nice dictionary says (Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon - Monier-Williams):
Unfortunately, this dictionary does not allow to copy search pages, so you have to insert the word yourself. That is why I have copy-pasted it.
* a bit difficult to understand for a person unfamiliar with Hindu scriptures, because the dictionary gives the reference of use from them (for example, RV stands for RigVeda and MBh stands for MahaBharata).

prajJA
P. %{-jAnAti} , to know , understand (esp. a way or mode of action) , discern , distinguish , know about , be acquainted with (acc.) RV. &c. &c. ; to find out , discover , perceive , learn MBh. Ka1v. &c.: , Caus. %{-jJA8payati} , to show or point out (the way) S3Br. ; to summon , invite Lalit. 2.
prajJA f. wisdom , intelligence , knowledge , discrimination , judgment S3Br. &c. &c. ; device , design S3Br. S3a1n3khS3r. ; a clever or sensible woman W. ; Wisdom personified as the goddess of arts and eloquence , Sarasvati1 L. ; a partic. S3akti or energy Hcat. ; (with Buddh.) true or transcendental wisdom (which is three fold Dharmas. 110) MWB. 126 ; 128 ; the energy of A1di-buddha (through the union with whom the latter produced all things) MWB. 204.

Prajna (I generally translate it as 'intelligence') allows one to know partly about the 'Absolute reality'. Partly, because we have not understood it completely till now. Just close your eyes to the day-to-day world and go to the world of atoms, fundamental forces, of randomness and uncertainty; then you would perhaps see the real world as a pulsating glob of energy. That is the world of Brahman. Is there any division in that world? Are there distinct parts or it is one whole?
 
Last edited:

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
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?
You can be aware of gaps in consciousness.
Buddhism's use of neti-neti goes beyond "not this" to "not thus," as it is a process-based philosophy rather than a substance-based philosophy. "Not Thus" leads to "Tathagatha," the one thus gone.
From the sutta linked in post #18:


"Now what do you think of this, O monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, what is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
<...>
"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever consciousness, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that consciousness must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

"O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge that he is emancipated. He knows: 'birth is exhausted, lived is the holy life, what had to be done is done, there is nothing more of this becoming.'"​
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
One of the first things I read on Buddhism was "In the end you have to 'kill' your guru".
I won't be that cruel, but yes, I have differed from my gurus. The main reason is that I have more information from science than they had in their time.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Then they introduce words beginning with capital letters, and assume that lends them greater significance.
No, it's not to make them more significant. In the case of consciousness vs. Consciousness I thought I was clear, but if not then better drop it all.

Anyway. Does CIA include sense-consciousness, or is it a different type of awareness entirely?
I thought you got the concept of Consiousness, as used in Advaita, hence I introduced this CIA, but I see there is lots of confusion, so better drop CIA

And are you saying we need to "withdraw" from sense-consciousness in order to experience CIA? Or something else?
If you really want to understand Consciousness how it is defined/used in Advaita, you really need to read about it a lot. It took me quite a long time, to understand and feel the difference. The definition used in the West is completely different, hence the confusion.

And how does all this relate to Neti-neti exactly? Neti-neti is applied to sense-consciousness, but CIA is exempt? Or CIA is revealed by "doing" Neti-neti? Or what?
In short:
Neti-neti is applied to whatever you experience with your senses
CIA = Constant Integrated Awareness is a term a Master used, which I liked. This means you only see Consciousness. You see unity in diversity.
Yes, by doing Neti-net, more and more you become aware of this "unity in diversity" or CIA

Maybe this comparison helps. If you use a strong microscope you see only protons, electrons etc. You don't see the form anymore. The reality is a bunch of protons, electrons etc. From these there are all kinds of different forms, but all have the same protons, electrons as their basis. The same you can apply to Consciousness (in the example of the screen).

By "sense-consciousness" I just mean the awareness of sense-objects like sights, sounds, tastes, etc. It seems like a straightforward definition to me, and not complicated or controversial. .
Yes that is the straight forward definition used in the West. And if you can also accept the straight forward definition of Consciousness used in the East then your problem about the difference is solved

Do you now understand that there is a difference between Western "consciousness" and Eastern "Consciousness"?
Western consciousness has to do with the senses
Eastern Consciousness has nothing to do with the senses
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Could you explain what pra-jnana is here? Is it related to the Pali word "panna" (wisdom)?

If jnana is knowledge, then consider vi-jnana as kinetic (expressed and known to mind-intellect) and pra-jnana as potential (unknown to mind-intellect). It is equivalent to pali word panna, but I always prefer the root Sanskrit word because the meaning is so much more clear. 'pra' means 'pre'. 'vi' means dual or divided.

I'd agree that vi-jnana (vinnana) is based on a duality, but isn't this also the case for Neti-neti? The awareness of "not this, not that" implies that "this" and "that" are objects of consciousness/awareness.

Yes. Both 'Neti-Neti' and 'Who Am I?', which is a form of neti neti enquiry, are based on ego activity. These are meant to keep in mind the truth of anatta and abide in prajnana. The samadhi that may or may not happen is however not ego based. We can only do the enquiry or do meditation or do mantra japa but whether these ego activities will result in samadhi and subsequent destruction of illusion of a separate ego self is not in ego self's power.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
'Pra' (it is not the 'ā' sound) and 'Vi' are used in Sanskrit to emphasize subtle difference (Special) from what is common.
 
Last edited:

Martin

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
No, it's not to make them more significant. In the case of consciousness vs. Consciousness I thought I was clear, but if not then better drop it all.


I thought you got the concept of Consiousness, as used in Advaita, hence I introduced this CIA, but I see there is lots of confusion, so better drop CIA


If you really want to understand Consciousness how it is defined/used in Advaita, you really need to read about it a lot. It took me quite a long time, to understand and feel the difference. The definition used in the West is completely different, hence the confusion.


In short:
Neti-neti is applied to whatever you experience with your senses
CIA = Constant Integrated Awareness is a term a Master used, which I liked. This means you only see Consciousness. You see unity in diversity.
Yes, by doing Neti-net, more and more you become aware of this "unity in diversity" or CIA

Maybe this comparison helps. If you use a strong microscope you see only protons, electrons etc. You don't see the form anymore. The reality is a bunch of protons, electrons etc. From these there are all kinds of different forms, but all have the same protons, electrons as their basis. The same you can apply to Consciousness (in the example of the screen).


Yes that is the straight forward definition used in the West. And if you can also accept the straight forward definition of Consciousness used in the East then your problem about the difference is solved

Do you now understand that there is a difference between Western "consciousness" and Eastern "Consciousness"?
Western consciousness has to do with the senses
Eastern Consciousness has nothing to do with the senses

So what IS the "straightforward" definition of consciousness in the East?
Or are we really talking about different ways of knowing? "Consciousness" is a can of worms!
 
Last edited:

Martin

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
You can be aware of gaps in consciousness.
Buddhism's use of neti-neti goes beyond "not this" to "not thus," as it is a process-based philosophy rather than a substance-based philosophy. "Not Thus" leads to "Tathagatha," the one thus gone.
From the sutta linked in post #18:


"Now what do you think of this, O monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, what is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
<...>
"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever consciousness, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that consciousness must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

"O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge that he is emancipated. He knows: 'birth is exhausted, lived is the holy life, what had to be done is done, there is nothing more of this becoming.'"​

I'm not sure what you mean by "gaps in consciousness" here. I think what we actually notice is the object of consciousness continually changing, related to where our attention is placed at any one time.
And I don't think a process model solves the paradox that I identified, ie "How can consciousness be conscious of itself?" or "How can consciousness look at itself to know whether it is impermanent or continuous?".
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
So what IS the "straightforward" definition of consciousness in the East?
Or are we really talking about different ways of knowing? "Consciousness" is a can of worms!
I told you to study something of Ramana Maharshi, the Master of Advaitha, to understand this concept.

Why you don't do that?

I get the feeling you are not really interested. If someone gives me such a clear hint, I take it serious and at least I would take the trouble to google a little; especially when I am eager to know.

And your reply gives me the feeling you don't take me serious
 
Last edited:

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Neti neti (not this, not this) is the Vedic analysis of negation that aids one in realizing one's true nature. Commonly used in meditation, one focuses on an aspect within one's awareness and realizes that is not who they are in their purest form.

That is interesting as Negation and Affirmation to me are bound together, I wonder then if Affirmation is the I Am, or the purest form.

Regards Tony
 
Top