neti, neti

[Guest guest]

shankar p.

dear advaitins,

discussions are really highly enlightening. I for one have been

almost almost amused and perplexed at this theory of "neti, neti".

Somehow it always sounded at least for me as a very negative

approach. Supposing you are asked to explain the number eight, can I

get the answer by saying that eight is not seven, eight is neither

six, neither is it five, and eight is not any higher number like

hundred, two hundred. Of course eight is not also any other lower

number. But am I not analysing and arriving at eight by eliminating

all other possibilities? But the point is that I know for certain

that eight is not any other number, eventhough it could be possible

that it could be defined in terms of other numbers like for example

say eight is four times two or half of sixteen so on and so forth (in

case I know eight). The problem with this elimination process is

that you have absolutely no stopping point. During my college days I

happened to read an article by Nehru in which he tried to define what

civilisation is. Nehru states that it would be easier for him to

define what civilisation is not rather than to give a precise reply

to the question - what civilisation is. but coming from

Shankara 'neti, neti' should and must have a logic. So in my

confusion i came to conclusion that with my present set of mental

references i could only contemplate further and further on

this 'neti, neti'.

This conclusion of mine is corrobotated by Dr.S.Radhakrishnan. While

discussing this 'neti, neti' concept he observes:

We often hear the complaint that the Brahman of the upaniShads is

described to us mostly as a bundle of negations. Are we not driven to

take the same course ourselves when a blind man asks for a description

of light ? Have we not to say in such a case that light has neither

sound, nor taste, nor form, nor weight, nor resistance, nor can it be

known through any process of analysis ? Of course it can be seen; but

what is the use of saying this to one who has no eyes ? He may take

that

statement on trust without understanding in the least what it means,

or

may altogether disbelieve it, even suspecting in us some abnormality.

 

Does the truth of the fact that a blind man has missed the perfect

development of what should be normal about his eyesight depend for its

proof upon the fact that a larger number of men are not blind ? The

very

first creature which suddenly groped into the possession of its

eyesight

had the right to assert that light was a reality. In the human world

there may be very few who have their spiritual eyes open, but, in

spite

of the numerical preponderance of those who cannot see, their want of

vision must not be cited as an evidence of the negation of light.

 

In the upaniShads we find the note of certainty about the spiritual

meaning of existence. In the very paradoxical nature of the assertion

that we can never know Brahman, but can realize Him, there lies the

strength of conviction that comes from personal experience. They aver

that through our joy we know the reality that is infinite, for the

test

by which reality is apprehended is joy. Therefore in the upaniShads

satyam and Anandam are one. Does not this idea harmonize with our

everyday experience ?

 

The self of mine that limits my truth within myself confines me to a

narrow idea of my own personality. When through some great experience

I

transcend this boundary I find joy. The negative fact of the vanishing

of the fences of self has nothing in itself that is delightful. But my

joy proves that the disappearance of self brings me into touch with a

great positive truth whose nature is infinitude. My love makes me

understand that I gain a great truth when I realize myself in others,

and therefore I am glad. This has been thus expressed in the

IsopaniShad:-

 

yas tu sarvANi bhUtAni Atmany evAnupasyati

sarvabhUteShu cAtmAnaM tato na vijugupsate

 

He who sees all creatures in himself, and himself in all creatures,

no

longer remains concealed.

 

How very illuminating! But probably this 'neti, neti' method could

be only be practised by advanced beins. Is it not so?

with regards,

shankar p. chennai

om! shankaraya namaha

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Shri Pushothamanshankar-Ji, you know so very much, it baffles me why

this simple "neti, neti" baffled you!

 

I am quoting your quote below:

 

"This has been thus expressed in the IsopaniShad:-

 

yas tu sarvANi bhUtAni Atmany evAnupasyati

sarvabhUteShu cAtmAnaM tato na vijugupsate

 

He who sees all creatures in himself, and himself in all creatures,

no longer remains concealed."

 

This "He" in the above verse had been seeing all creatures outside

and separate from himself. You will agree that, advaitically, that

was an error or a wrong way of seeing. Neti is made up of na + iti,

i.e. it is not an absolute negation ("not this") as usually

translated. It can only mean "not like this" or "not in this

manner". When that "He", therefore, corrects his focus of vision or

his manner of seeing, "He" sees the whole of creation as himself,

i.e. advaitically in the right manner. The puzzle ends

there. "Neti" has served the purpose.

 

In your example of "eight", therefore, there is no need to

negate "eight". Embrace the concept of "eight" as you yourself, see

yourself in all numbers, in all plurality and in the beauty of

mathematics.

 

The problem arises only when we look for the Truth as separate from

what is in front of us. When we realize that the Truth is right in

front of us and it is nothing other than us, the quest automatically

ends.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin, "purushothamanshankar"

<purushothamanshankar> wrote:

> shankar p.

> dear advaitins,

> discussions are really highly enlightening. I for one have been

> almost almost amused and perplexed at this theory of "neti, neti".

[Guest guest]

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

wrote:

>

> "This has been thus expressed in the IsopaniShad:-

>

> yas tu sarvANi bhUtAni Atmany evAnupasyati

> sarvabhUteShu cAtmAnaM tato na vijugupsate

>

> He who sees all creatures in himself, and himself

> in all creatures,

> no longer remains concealed."

>

> This "He" in the above verse had been seeing all

> creatures outside

> and separate from himself. You will agree that,

> advaitically, that

> was an error or a wrong way of seeing. Neti is made

> up of na + iti,

> i.e. it is not an absolute negation ("not this") as

> usually

> translated. It can only mean "not like this" or

> "not in this

> manner".

 

Namaste,

 

Shankara writes..Upadesha Sahasri 1.17

'When the body and all superimposed elements have been

eleiminated by thinking 'Not thus, Not thus', the Self

is left over at the end.. Therefore one eliminates

nescience in ordrer to become awake to the Self that

is devoid of all distinctions.'

 

I am not totally happy with that translation of Alston

but the Sanskrit is:

neti netIti dehAdIn apohyAtmA vaShesitaH

aviSheshAtma-bodhAthaM tenAvidyA nivartitA

 

Further to Madathil's analysis of 'Na iti Na iti' may

I add my own extension.

In the moment of the falling away of distinctions and

superimpositions there is a fullness as in 'purna'

which is the fullness of the Self in/transcending all

beings. The discriminating power of the 'na'

disappears and we are left with 'iti iti' as an

exclamation or affirmation of completeness.

It seems to me that at this point the two ways,

apophatic (way of negation) and the kataphatic ( way

of affirmation), are experienced and transcended in a

flash, as it were.

Just a thought,

Ken knight

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

I think the meaning of "reasoned out" for apohya (in place

of "eliminated") would serve to clarify the import of the verse

quoted by Kenji.

 

E.g.: When I am "experiencing" my body, what I am supposed to reason

out is that I cannot be like the body (limited, gross, changing

etc.). This applies to mind, intellect, ego and the rest of the

paraphernalia.

 

Going back to Shri Purushottamshankar-Ji's following statement, I

would like to state that Vedanta has always averred that Sat is Chit

and Chit is Ananda....(sateva chit, chiteva ananda ....). Thus, the

thee are synonymous of the same Reality.

 

"In the upaniShads we find the note of certainty about the spiritual

meaning of existence. In the very paradoxical nature of the assertion

that we can never know Brahman, but can realize Him, there lies the

strength of conviction that comes from personal experience. They aver

that through our joy we know the reality that is infinite, for the

test by which reality is apprehended is joy. Therefore in the

upaniShads satyam and Anandam are one. Does not this idea harmonize

with our everyday experience ?"

 

To clarify this point further:

 

I know that I exist. I don't need to prove it. I am self-evident.

That is Sat (existence).

 

The experienced world IS because I AM. That is Chit (Knowledge).

 

Everything is within me. There is nothing outside me. Nothing can

be added or subtracted from me. I cannot be multiplied or divided.

That is Ananda (Fullness and happiness due to freedom from wants and

limitations).

 

Thus, all three (sat, chit and Ananda) are my names. All of them

refer to me.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

___

 

 

advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

> Shankara writes..Upadesha Sahasri 1.17

> 'When the body and all superimposed elements have been

> eleiminated by thinking 'Not thus, Not thus', the Self

> is left over at the end.. Therefore one eliminates

> nescience in ordrer to become awake to the Self that

> is devoid of all distinctions.'

>

> I am not totally happy with that translation of Alston

> but the Sanskrit is:

> neti netIti dehAdIn apohyAtmA vaShesitaH

> aviSheshAtma-bodhAthaM tenAvidyA nivartitA

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

While I appreciate and agree with Nairji on his interpretation

of 'neti,neti' as 'not like this, not like this', I write below

on another aspect of this, namely? Why two negations, instead of

just one. The explanation is given in Pancadashi, but I do not

have the reference now. One 'neti' is to negate the universe and

recognise it - mark this; 'it' and not 'in it' - as the

presence of The Absolute, and the other 'neti' is to negate all

the outer coverings of our own little self and recognise it as

the presence of The Self. I have elaborated on all this in an

article on 'The Absolute as it is' on the webpages starting from

 

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/34.html

 

the actual references and explanation of 'neti, neti' occurring

on pages 3 and 7 of the same. I would like the article itself

to be critically seen by scholars on this list, if they choose.

Thanks.

 

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

 

 

Why two negations, instead of

> just one. The explanation is given in Pancadashi, but I do not

> have the reference now. One 'neti' is to negate the universe and

> recognise it - mark this; 'it' and not 'in it' - as the

> presence of The Absolute, and the other 'neti' is to negate all

> the outer coverings of our own little self and recognise it as

> the presence of The Self.

 

 

Namaste,

 

Shankara-Bhashya on Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2:3:6 ; and

 

" " Brahmasutra 3:2:22

 

explain the double negative, as referring to the gross and subtle.

 

I have yet to locate the Panchadashi reference.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "purushothamanshankar"

 

Namaste,

 

Neti---Neti. Not this and even not this not

this...........Nothing....ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

This process negation is to show that the Brahman is 'not this' and reach the

truth.

But the truth that is higher is all is God. Maya is also a projection of God

and has to be God. It's simply not there and there depending on the plane of

existence. Am I correct in this ?

Isn't this what the great Yogi Totapuri finds after his conversations with Sri

Ramakrishna ? He sees Sakthi in all when he wants to give up his body in the

lake.

Om Tat Sat

Guru Venkat

Tony O'Clery <aoclery wrote:advaitin,

"purushothamanshankar"

 

Namaste,

 

Neti---Neti. Not this and even not this not

this...........Nothing....ONS...Tony.

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

 

 

[Guest guest]

Guru Venkat <v_vedanti wrote:

 

Namaste,

This process negation is to show that the Brahman is 'not this' and reach the

truth.

--------------

 

Very much so Shri Guru. Let us look at it this way:

 

The expression "Neti Neti"

is clearly not just a repetition of "Neti" only twice, i.e., representing the

act of negation as the negation of just two entities! It is meant to negate

anything and everything one by one that comes in the mind of a contemplating

sadhak-mumukshu in search of "Atma Gyaana"

 

The Mandukya Upanishad clearly confirms this in Sloka 7 as follows:

 

"Na antahpragyam, na bahish pragyam, na ubhayatah pragyam, na pragyaanaghanam,

na pragyam, na apragyam, Adhrishtam, avyavaharyam, agraahyam, alakshanam,

achintyam, avyapadeshyam. Ekaatma pratyayasaaram, prapanchopashamam. Shaantam,

Shivam, Advaitam. Chaturtham manyantae, sa Aatma, sa vigyeayaha."

 

Is this not vrerily,"Neti Netyaatma" ?

 

Hari Om !

 

Swaminarayan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Swaminarayan T <tvswaminarayan wrote:

>

>

>

> The expression "Neti Neti" is clearly not just a

> repetition of "Neti" only twice, i.e., representing

> the act of negation as the negation of just two

> entities! It is meant to negate anything and

> everything one by one that comes in the mind of a

> contemplating sadhak-mumukshu in search of "Atma

> Gyaana"

 

Namaste all,

 

Further to this may I offer an 'event' from this

morning.

I have long wondered how such a practice could ever

stop, as a mental activity it seemed to be endless.

The way that 'I' use the 'Neti, Neti' is as an

instrument to ward off thoughts arising and it is a

heavy process which indicates to me that it is of my

volition.

 

Recently 'I' have been bothered by a heavy state of

consciousness just prior to awaking in the morning.

Very old and well-known desires/dreams have arisen and

when having been given attention, they produce the

inevitable consequences....often a dull headache upon

getting up from the bed.

 

This morning there was a change. There was a sense of

still being asleep but, to be aware of this, something

was awake. Up came the old dream but in a flash 'Neti,

Neti' arose from a quite different level to the usual

centre of effort.

It sounded once only and its effect was immediate.

The dream, and all its seeming power, was gone as if

it had never been and 'I' was awake, free of the

previous encumbrance.

 

Of course, this comment now is retrospective, but from

this I understood that my use of 'Neti, Neti' is

covered by two things: my desire to be free of binding

ideas and by a translated form into English as 'Not

this, Not this' which, given this morning's event, is

an incorrect translation. This translation does carry

the fire of the Sanskrit.

 

As in mantra meditation, when the mantra is freed from

the effort to begin the repetition, 'Neti, Neti' arose

of itself.

 

Now it may be that I have superimposed 'Neti, Neti' on

an event of discrimination that took place in the

subtle world of its own accord but it did seem to me,

on awaking, that 'Neti, Neti' had been the agent.

 

This was all so clear at the time I thought it may be

relevant,

 

Best wishes

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kenji.

 

Your post # 15378 is strikingly coincidental to my thoughts in #

15379 - I mean the import of "neti, neti" clarifying in a semi-

wakeful state. Looks like Jung's (whom I requested Michael to ignore

in the context of advaita) synchronicity is avenging me!

 

Regarding the exact meaning of "neti, neti", I wish Prof.

Krishnamurthy-Ji's post # 15373 had appeared a little earlier when

the issue was being debated in a heated manner. I quote below the

last part of his post:

 

QUOTE

 

Those who know how to reason hold that the senses etc., are right as

far only as they grasp Brahman, whereas the unreasoning men declare

that they are right as far only as they perceive colour. In short,

because Consciousness is the thing before unknown, it is the thing to

be known by all organs of perception, which operating, the thing

ceases to be unknown.

 

UNQUOTE

 

The reasoning expected of a mumukshu is the essence of "neti, neti".

He does not negate anything. He sees differently whereby the known

is known as the hithertofore unknown and the limited is rightly seen

as the limitless. A "not this, not thisneti, neti" is an unending

business, as you rightly pointed out.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair