Questions on Neti-neti

[Martin]

Hello all, I've been exploring practical approaches to Neti-neti, and have some questions. I would appreciate some advice.

1. Does "Not this" effectively mean not Atman/Brahman?
2. I've found that applying Neti-neti to aspects of personal experience can lead to the feeling that I'm rejecting or denying what is happening in the present moment. Is that supposed to happen, or am I doing it wrong?
3. Say that I successfully apply Neti-neti to all aspects of my experience. Then what?

 

[Aupmanyav]

1. 'Not this' means Brahman is not this or that. But some properties of Brahman are accepted by all that - a. It is eternal, b. It is form-independent, c. It is changeless, and d. It is uninvolved.
2. That is not correct. The two realities are at different levels. None can be denied. While engaging in worldly things, one has to work at that level - Vyavaharika. But while wholly engaged in that, one must not forget the existence of higher level of truth - Parmarthika. The two realities should not be mixed up or confused with one another.
3. You will have a better understanding of the world, but as has been said, you would still need to sweep the floor and fetch water.

 

[Martin]

1. 'Not this' means Brahman is not this or that. But some properties of Brahman are accepted by all that - a. It is eternal, b. It is form-independent, c. It is changeless, and d. It is uninvolved.
2. That is not correct. The two realities are at different levels. None can be denied. While engaging in worldly things, one has to work at that level - Vyavaharika. But while wholly engaged in that, one must not forget the existence of higher level of truth - Parmarthika. The two realities should not be mixed up or confused with one another.
3. You will have a better understanding of the world, but as has been said, you would still need to sweep the floor and fetch water.

Thanks. So basically Brahman cannot be (directly) known, hence it is not this or that?
But what about sat-cit-ananda?

Can Atman be directly known or experienced?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Thanks. So basically Brahman cannot be (directly) known, hence it is not this or that?
But what about sat-cit-ananda?

All that I see/interact with, without any exception, is Brahman. I do not know all secrets of Brahman, for example, can it or how does it go in non-existence mode.
It sure is 'sat' (the existing truth), chit (awareness). I do not know about 'ananda' (bliss). IMHO, for a knower of Brahman, there is no bliss, no sorrow, just equanimity, no attachment.

 

[ajay0]

Hello all, I've been exploring practical approaches to Neti-neti, and have some questions. I would appreciate some advice.

1. Does "Not this" effectively mean not Atman/Brahman?
2. I've found that applying Neti-neti to aspects of personal experience can lead to the feeling that I'm rejecting or denying what is happening in the present moment. Is that supposed to happen, or am I doing it wrong?
3. Say that I successfully apply Neti-neti to all aspects of my experience. Then what?

There had been discussions on Neti Neti on the past. You can find them by using the 'Search' option.

The focus of Neti-Neti is to reject all that which is of a temporary basis,that is outer objects, and inner objects like thoughts, emotions and sensations which comes and goes.

By diligent rejection of the false, one arrives at the truth or Self which is of a permanent nature. One realizes that one is not the body, thoughts and emotions but the Self or Awareness or true 'I' behind them.

It is important to distinguish between the lower self or the ego charged with emotion of cravings/aversions, and that of the higher Self which is pure consciousness without mental defilements.

 

[SalixIncendium]

1. Does "Not this" effectively mean not Atman/Brahman?

Yes and no. As you are dropping what is not you during this contemplative practice, can you drop your conceptualization of what you consider to be Atman/Brahman? Can you drop what it is that observes this practice of dropping?

2. I've found that applying Neti-neti to aspects of personal experience can lead to the feeling that I'm rejecting or denying what is happening in the present moment. Is that supposed to happen, or am I doing it wrong?

Neti-neti is simply a process of negating what one isn't, not about rejecting it. It's a process of identifying what one is in their purest form and has nothing to do with denying what isn't.

3. Say that I successfully apply Neti-neti to all aspects of my experience. Then what?

Forget about the entire expression or process. All is Brahman.

 

[Martin]

There had been discussions on Neti Neti on the past. You can find them by using the 'Search' option.

The focus of Neti-Neti is to reject all that which is of a temporary basis,that is outer objects, and inner objects like thoughts, emotions and sensations which comes and goes.

By diligent rejection of the false, one arrives at the truth or Self which is of a permanent nature. One realizes that one is not the body, thoughts and emotions but the Self or Awareness or true 'I' behind them.

It is important to distinguish between the lower self or the ego charged with emotion of cravings/aversions, and that of the higher Self which is pure consciousness without mental defilements.

Thanks. So with Advaita, is the transient activity of the "lower self" the same as Maya?

 

[ajay0]

Thanks. So with Advaita, is the transient activity of the "lower self" the same as Maya?

Yeah, you can say so.

The mind is maya. Reality lies beyond the mind. - Ramana Maharshi

As per Ramana, the mind and ego are one and the same, and distinct from the Self or awareness or pure consciousness, which is one's true identity.

The mind is just a bundle of thoughts and emotions , which has a beginning and an end, and is not of a permanent nature.

In awareness or no-mind, one sees reality as it is, without the colored perception brought about by the compulsive thinking and emoting of the conditioned mind. Joy and peace are also the characteristics of the Self or natural state.

 

[Valjean]

You're overcomplicating things. There's no abstruse philosophy involved.
"Neti neti" is just a reminder that any description or explanation of cosmic consciousness is inadequate.

Thanks. So with Advaita, is the transient activity of the "lower self" the same as Maya?

No. Maya isn't activity, and I'm not sure what you mean by "lower self."
Maya is illusion. It's a description of perception; of how our experience of the world is, essentially, a dream or hallucination.

 

[Martin]

Yeah, you can say so.

The mind is maya. Reality lies beyond the mind. - Ramana Maharshi

As per Ramana, the mind and ego are one and the same, and distinct from the Self or awareness or pure consciousness, which is one's true identity.

The mind is just a bundle of thoughts and emotions , which has a beginning and an end, and is not of a permanent nature.

In awareness or no-mind, one sees reality as it is, without the colored perception brought about by the compulsive thinking and emoting of the conditioned mind. Joy and peace are also the characteristics of the Self or natural state.

Yes, I do have a sense of that distinction, it's like a great stillness beneath the movement of mind and senses.

 

[Martin]

You're overcomplicating things. There's no abstruse philosophy involved.
"Neti neti" is just a reminder that any description or explanation of cosmic consciousness is inadequate.

No. Maya isn't activity, and I'm not sure what you mean by "lower self."
Maya is illusion. It's a description of perception; of how our experience of the world is, essentially, a dream or hallucination.

OK. I am still trying to understand the different ways that people talk about these things.
I haven't found the idea of worldly experience being a hallucination particularly useful. It's all Brahman after all! To me it's more like the distinction between changing and unchanging.
But I'm still exploring ways of looking at things, ways of observing.

 

[Valjean]

OK. I am still trying to understand the different ways that people talk about these things.
I haven't found the idea of worldly experience being a hallucination particularly useful. It's all Brahman after all! To me it's more like the distinction between changing and unchanging.
But I'm still exploring ways of looking at things, ways of observing.

But doesn't Brahman imply that the world we inhabit and perceive is illusory?

 

[Martin]

But doesn't Brahman imply that the world we inhabit and perceive is illusory?

I haven't found clear support for that idea in the Upanishads so far. More like what we experience is a manifestation of Brahman.

 

[Valjean]

I haven't found clear support for that idea in the Upanishads so far. More like what we experience is a manifestation of Brahman.

-- But it's the whole of Hindu ontology!!!

We, in waking-state consciousness, are dreaming -- just as much as a dreamer in 2nd state, REM consciousness.

The world we perceive and live in is an illusion. The physical reality described in theoretical physics and mysticism is not consistent with what we perceive in waking state.

This is the underlying premise of Hinduism, and its ultimate goal is to wake up -- to directly perceive the Reality described by physics.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Thanks. So with Advaita, is the transient activity of the "lower self" the same as Maya?

'Lower self'? As I understand Advaita, there is no lower or higher, since all is Brahman only. Lower and higher is not understanding that.
(Note: That is not the only view in Hinduism)

But I'm still exploring ways of looking at things, ways of observing.

You are welcome. This is much appreciated in Hinduism.

I haven't found clear support for that idea in the Upanishads so far. More like what we experience is a manifestation of Brahman.

Or I would say, what we experience is the effect of existence of that entity (Brahman).

Absolutely clear in Upanishads. 'Aham Brahmasmi' (I am Brahman - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad), 'Ayamatma Brahman' (This self is Brahman - Mandukya Upanishad), 'So Aham' (I too am the same - Ishavasya Upanishad), 'Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma' (All things here are Brahman - Mandukya Upanishad), 'Tat twam asi' (That is what you are - Chandogya Upnishad), 'Ekameva Adviteeyam Brahma' (Brahman is one without a second - Chandogya Upanishad).
(Note: That is not the only view in Hinduism, repeating lest someone thinks that this is the only view in Hinduism)

 

[ajay0]

But doesn't Brahman imply that the world we inhabit and perceive is illusory?

This is just one way of looking at it. Other enlightened masters have also emphasized the reality of the material world even though it is a manifestation of the unitary Brahman.

I agree with Meerkat that the world can be perceived also as a manifestation of Brahman or pure consciousness.

 

[Valjean]

This is just one way of looking at it. Other enlightened masters have also emphasized the reality of the material world even though it is a manifestation of the unitary Brahman.

I agree. There is a nested hierarchy of subjective realities, and one Objective Reality. The material world is real, but it is not Real.

Nothing in Hindu theology makes sense without this concept of different realities perceived by different levels of consciousness. This is why one must make it clear what level one's speaking from. An assertion may be true and untrue at the same time, viewed from different levels of reality.

 

[Martin]

-- But it's the whole of Hindu ontology!!!

We, in waking-state consciousness, are dreaming -- just as much as a dreamer in 2nd state, REM consciousness.

The world we perceive and live in is an illusion. The physical reality described in theoretical physics and mysticism is not consistent with what we perceive in waking state.

This is the underlying premise of Hinduism, and its ultimate goal is to wake up -- to directly perceive the Reality described by physics.

I recently started a thread here on the four states of consciousness in the Mandukya Upanishad. I don't see anything in the Upanishad which suggests that waking consciousness is the same as dream consciousness - it's more like the first is directed outwards, and the second inwards. Maybe you could add your thoughts in that thread, having read the Mandukya Upanishad?

As for moksha, there seem to be different formulations, according to which school one subscribes to. That's probably another discussion!

 

[Martin]

I agree. There is a nested hierarchy of subjective realities, and one Objective Reality. The material world is real, but it is not Real.

Nothing in Hindu theology makes sense without this concept of different realities perceived by different levels of consciousness. This is why one must make it clear what level one's speaking from. An assertion may be true and untrue at the same time, viewed from different levels of reality.

From reading the Upanishads, I'd agree that layers and levels are a central theme. But I've seen these interpreted in different ways, and at this stage I prefer to keep an open mind.