neti yeti/Moller/Dan

[Guest guest]

> >M: It describes the classical neti-neti way, which I regard

> >as a dangerous teaching because it presumes from the start that there is

> >something to be found, just take all appearances away, and it will be

there.

 

R: It'd be more accurate to say that absolutely nothing is presumed. No

eventual discovery need be presumed, in fact all presumptions are just

illusory expectations or projections.

 

The only step is to see what is false. There is no danger as part of the

_successful_ practice of neti-neti. How can recognizing the false as false

carry danger?

 

A very real danger is this: different people have different innate skills.

Some have the skill of devotion, some the cultivation of subtle energy:

kundalini etc etc... If a person does not have the innate skill at "not

this-not this", then negation will be weak, it will not have the necessary

depth, the mind will remain on the level of the mind rather than cutting

through to stillness.

 

We see this for example in Krishnamurti's organization, so I'm told. Some

people may have had a fondness for him, or his teaching, they mimick his

mannerisms, his style of speach, his words... yet none of this is actually

the practice he recommended!

> >M: This presumption will become a self-fulfilling reality, leaving the

seeker

> >with this presumed 'I' which is then equated with the Self. But we could

go

> >into this at another time if you like.

 

R: I believe, Moller, the flaw in your argument is that a presumption could

be entertained as the Self. If one has the skill at cutting away

presumptions, then any presumptive "I" must go as well.

> D:

> Neti, neti undermines the very assumptions that allow

> one to use neti, neti as a process.

> It ends thinking in terms of process, getting somewhere,

> or knowing where one is starting, or who would be starting.

> So, in a sense it may be dangerous, in the sense that disorientation,

> the unknown may be dangerous.

 

R: The false is what's disorienting & dangerous! Stripping away the false

might be uncomfortable at times, seeing oneself as one is can be

uncomfortable, at first.

> D: Yet, in the end, the negation

> negates itself. Neti inevitably undermines its own position

> to negate. It is a "tool" to be discarded, at the point

> where there is no point, no place to stand.

>

> If neti, neti "occurs" instantly and totally, rather than

> one piece at a time, everything is instantly

> thrown into doubt, even the basis for doubting anything

> is thrown into doubt. Instantly "done" it is nonvolitional

> and timeless. It ends the assumptions, the comparisons

> that give a sense of time.

 

R: You're right on as seen from here Dan. Seems to me that the tool "not

this-not this" can only be invoked when there is some movement of mind into

emotion/thought. If there is vigilent alertness, any movement of

consciousness outwards into thought/emotion will be seen as it happens.

 

The tool neti-neti does not make the jump to transcendental "I AM" or

realization. It just removes false appearences leaving vigilence, "I AM"

descends as Grace and this is beyond any volition. "I AM" will not fail to

descend into stillness: a still mind soon discovers the truth.

> D:

> The opposite of neti, neti is to include All.

> Including everything leads to the inclusion of negation.

> To include all is to negate all.

> Creation and destruction are mutually interdependent.

> To come into being is to go out of being, to

> be is to be not.

 

R: "including the All" sounds like Bhakti/devotion, expansive feeling which

is the opposite of negation. True love must warmly embrace everything, even

that which is different from it: negation or destruction! And the sharp

destructive sword of negation finds it's highest expression when tempered by

love.

 

Roger