Moller/a view of "not this"

[Guest guest]

At 03:52 PM 3/25/00 +0200, you wrote:

>J M de la Rouviere <moller

>

>Dear Danji,

>

>Something I picked up (or thought I picked up) from your posting on Neti

>neti.

>

>You said:

>

>> Taken in its fullness, neti neti undermines the concept of

>> somewhere to get or someone getting somewhere.

>> And then it undermines itself, for there is then no

>> position from which to state "neti, neti," nor any

>> assumption upon which to base any further negation.

>

>~~(M) Would it be correct to say that neti-neti is essentially a process of

>thought/thinking? If so, do you think it is possible for thought to

>undermine itself so completely that there is ACTUALLY, EXPERIENTIALLY no

>'position' left, leaving in fact only the truth of not-'I' or non-duality?

>Would you not say that the truth of the matter is that neti-neti is

>ultimately only a pointer and that that to which it points lies in a

>different category of direct being or direct experience, totally

>non-dependent on the process of neti-neti?

>

>Please help me here?

>

>Yours as always,

>Moller.

 

Dear Moller,

Appreciating very much here your

thoughtful look at "what is."

What else is there to do, as there is

only "what is" to look at, and

only "what is" to do the looking.

Choicelessly, it spontaneously appears

with no obstruction, as it is,

as a newborn babe with no mother :-)

 

To me, the basis of what manifests as

"neti, neti" is deeper than thought,

and it "takes a hold of thought" leading

thought to question its own assumptions

more and more deeply.

 

Yes, "neti, neti" is a tool for thought to

undermine its assumptions and basic

positioning of a nonexistent

central entity. "Neti, neti" is useful

only to the extent that it's not imposed,

that it arises naturally because the timing

is right. It's not thought alone

that's involved, but memory, association,

and emotional reactivity.

 

Yes, reality isn't at all dependent on

"neti, neti" - reality isn't dependent

on any process, and "neti, neti" (until

the instant of its self-implosion) is

a process.

 

The truth of "no position" is beyond

description, beyond indication,

beyond thought, beyond process,

beyond instruction.

 

The interference with pure "no-position

awareness" may be termed "addiction" -

addiction as cycles of continuity,

with results ("experienced" realities)

reinforcing the assumptions that drive the cycles.

 

Awareness, alone, (and to itself

neither "awareness" nor "nonawareness")

- with cycles of addiction and

attachment dropped - this is where reality

lives :-)

 

The "experiential actuality" of

no position, is "experience

of no experience". That is,

generally, we take experience as

reality, but our experience is

our assumptions in motion.

Experience of no-experience is

positioned nowhere, is not

recognizable in terms of

our knowledge of what experience

is.

 

If one can say, "this is my experience,"

"I am," or "this experience is reality," one

has a (perhaps subtle) position.

 

The no-position reality, although never not

present, is "opened to" only with immediacy,

discontinuity, neither grounding in experience

nor imagination -- and neither investment in

maintaining life and "goodness," nor seeking

nonexistence and "annhilation".

 

Love,

Dan