Guest guest Posted April 2, 2010 Report Share Posted April 2, 2010 It is interesting to me that so many non-dual non-teachers who profess to honor Ramana Maharshi actually trash his teachings. Ramana did not follow the traditional Advaitan line of negation. He taught self-inquiry to attain, to awaken. He did not teach neti, neti. And he also used the phrase, " The very form of God is Love. " Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2010 Report Share Posted April 2, 2010 ---- Original message ---- >Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 10:18:51 -0000 > " Papajeff " <jeff >Subject: Not neti, neti >To: > > > > It is interesting to me that > so many non-dual non-teachers > who profess to honor Ramana > Maharshi actually trash his > teachings. > > Ramana did not follow the > traditional Advaitan line > of negation. > > He taught self-inquiry to > attain, to awaken. He did > not teach neti, neti. > > And he also used the phrase, > " The very form of God is Love. " > > Jeff > yes. but " neti neti neti " is one of the practical techniques of self enquiry as well... yosy hahahaha BOOM! jai jai ramanaji! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2010 Report Share Posted April 2, 2010 Dear Jeff, How right you are. recently on my Face Book Page, a pandit tried to convince me that Neti Neti was the best approach to Self Enquiry. I tried my best to disuade him without success. As I hate disputation I retired as gracefully as I could. I suspect he had been reading too much Buddhism. No wonder Shankara did not want them in India. Love, Alan , " Papajeff " <jeff wrote: > > It is interesting to me that > so many non-dual non-teachers > who profess to honor Ramana > Maharshi actually trash his > teachings. > > Ramana did not follow the > traditional Advaitan line > of negation. > > He taught self-inquiry to > attain, to awaken. He did > not teach neti, neti. > > And he also used the phrase, > " The very form of God is Love. " > > Jeff > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2010 Report Share Posted April 2, 2010 On 02/04/2010 13:27, tigersjaws wrote: Dear Jeff, How right you are. recently on my Face Book Page, a pandit tried to convince me that Neti Neti was the best approach to Self Enquiry. I tried my best to disuade him without success. As I hate disputation I retired as gracefully as I could. I suspect he had been reading too much Buddhism. No wonder Shankara did not want them in India. Love, Alan no point arguing... there are as many paths as there are human beings. in our school, the life itself, every approach is the best - providing it works. sri ramana's silent presence IS his teaching. jai ramana! , "Papajeff" <jeff wrote: > > It is interesting to me that > so many non-dual non-teachers > who profess to honor Ramana > Maharshi actually trash his > teachings. > > Ramana did not follow the > traditional Advaitan line > of negation. > > He taught self-inquiry to > attain, to awaken. He did > not teach neti, neti. > > And he also used the phrase, > "The very form of God is Love." > > Jeff > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2010 Report Share Posted April 2, 2010 Dear Yossi Alan Jeff thank you for your postings i do agree fullheartedly with your messages be embraced in Gratitude and Joy yours in Bhagavan woooooommmmm michael - yosyflug Friday, April 02, 2010 12:25 PM Re: Not neti, neti ---- Original message ----> Fri, 02 Apr 2010 10:18:51 -0000> "Papajeff" <jeff (AT) mindgoal (DOT) com> > Not neti, neti > >> >> It is interesting to me that> so many non-dual non-teachers> who profess to honor Ramana> Maharshi actually trash his> teachings.>> Ramana did not follow the> traditional Advaitan line> of negation.>> He taught self-inquiry to> attain, to awaken. He did> not teach neti, neti.>> And he also used the phrase,> "The very form of God is Love.">> Jeff> yes. but "neti neti neti" is one of the practical techniques of self enquiry as well...yosyhahahaha BOOM! jai jai ramanaji! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2010 Report Share Posted April 3, 2010 its easy to see neti-neti in Ramana's life/teaching/being. He negated a few things, I am not the body, I am not this, that and arrived at what is. Neti-Neti to affirmation. I love the simple logic. Thanks Vrunda , " Papajeff " <jeff wrote: > > It is interesting to me that > so many non-dual non-teachers > who profess to honor Ramana > Maharshi actually trash his > teachings. > > Ramana did not follow the > traditional Advaitan line > of negation. > > He taught self-inquiry to > attain, to awaken. He did > not teach neti, neti. > > And he also used the phrase, > " The very form of God is Love. " > > Jeff > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Neti neti still implies subject object. Therefore it is not immersion into the Source as self enquiry is. aum shanti shanti larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dilip Trasi Posted November 22, 2010 Report Share Posted November 22, 2010 I agree with yosy and others who support both methods. You can refer to the mythological story of Rishi Brighu and his son which supports this viewpoint. Neti (not this) and Kohum (who am I) are obverse and reverse of the same coin, which is 'atmavichar' (self-enquiry). Every intellectual reply to kohum has to be negated with "anvaya" (analysis) and understanding, symbolically termed as neti. Who am I and neti are not to be repeated by rote, but with due deliberation, in order for them to produce the desired effect. Following any one of them is also effective since the other follows by resound-- action, reaction and resound. Some are of the opinion that repeating "who am I" without seeking an answer is the right method. The final result is the disappearance of the enquirer or the negator, leading to the experience of "WHO" one really is. Not everyone is lucky to get the experience the first time or everytime. I hope this clears the confusion and does not lead to more of it. Dilip Trasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SriGauranga Posted April 28, 2012 Report Share Posted April 28, 2012 Hare Krishna. Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada! Yes Mayavadis say "not this, not this" means "not jiva, not jada" (Brahman is neither the individual soul, nor matter - therefore, since only Brahman exists, jiva and jada must be unreal). But they've derived "neti-neti" from Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 4.4.22, which states: "For the desire for sons is the desire for wealth and the desire for wealth the desire for worlds; both these are, indeed, desires only. This Self is not this, not this." This verse is stating that the Self (atman) is not to be had by desiring wealth or worlds. The direct meaning is sufficient; the "jada-jiva" interpretation is without foundation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.