Glo/neti

[Guest guest]

>Glo: 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.

 

Dan: There is no purpose to negation. And once one wants to be sure one

doesn't stop too soon, one can go forever. If there is no one to be

identified with anything, there is no such thing as a limited attachment.

 

Glo: 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.

 

D: There is no process, no end point. Yes, the void = the all.

 

G: To call this a

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

>process.

 

D: The flaw isn't in the neti process, it's in thinking

any process is needed - that there is a need to do away with something,

or get somewhere.

Nothing is intended by neti as a process, or by any process (considered

from the perspective of "is"). What is meant by "not this"? It's

never to get "involved" with any of it in the first place,

no? If I don't pick up the weight, there is no heaviness.

>G: 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.

 

D: Yes - if existence and nonexistence are mutually arising, where are we?

What is there to have a relationship with? How can one negate or

affirm, how can one be nihilistic or Absolutistic? And yet we negate

and affirm - we speak...

>G: Thanks for understanding my concerns here.

 

D: Thanks for expressing them.