Gloria/Greg/Harsha's Abiding

[Guest guest]

Gloria;

> May I ask then, at the end of the neti, neti's nothing..is not the purpose

> of all this negation simply to keep us from stopping too soon, to keep us

> from identifying with some partial, limited attachment. What is at the end

> point of this process or point zero, as you call it, when there is

seemingly

> "nothing" left..is the void, the emptiness from which simultaneously "the

> all" arises. "True emptiness is not empty"...as they say. To call this a

> flaw is therefore a misunderstanding of what is intended by neti, neti as

a

> process.

> Perhaps this is what you refer to with existence and nonexistence? If

these

> pairs are also being one of those mutally dependent, simultaneous

arisings,

> these two are the "stickiest pair" in my opinion. I simply question your

use

> of the word flaw. Neti, neti is so beautiful and is actually not the

> nihilistic notion it may be taken as by some.

> Thanks for understanding my concerns here.

 

Oh goodness Gloria, by no means did I intend to dismiss the neti-neti

approach, and perhaps my word 'flaw' wasnt very well chosen (remember I am a

bit 'slappy' sometimes?). If not for the neti-neti approach, I would not be

able to speak to you the way I can speak to you now. And to tell you the

truth, it was only "after" arriving at point zero, that I could see,

understand and integrate the missing other half: the this also/and this also

part.

You are absolutely right in defending the neti-neti approach, dear Gloria, I

owe it my life (sort of.....-you know what I mean-), my intention was not to

diminish its value in any way.

 

Love always,

 

Mira