|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 8, 2019 17:00:37 GMT -5
I didn’t learn about neti neti until much later, but I assumed it referred to the search for God/Truth. The search began and was maintained with the unconscious belief/illusion that “I”, the searcher, was separate from God. Or, “I” needed to search for Truth, because of “my” ignorance of it. As such, Realization dispels such ignorance and illusions which, of course does appear to require quite a bit of effort, as the very definition of any search would assume. But any such search is, was, and always will be indicative of the illusion at play, so neti neti might be employed to discourage certain actions or beliefs the mind has come up with to say that search is necessary. In other contexts, depending on the perceived “place” an apparently deluded appearance might seem to be, one might say, “Why not?!” And on and on the dream goes.... Yes, me too, I didn't know about the Upanishads, but I can see how trying to ritualize and systematize the process would work at cross-purposes to the original intent. Science embodies a sort of neti-neti, done collectively, with attention directed outward. This is, as satch pointed out, done on the level of intellect, but personally, I see potential in starting there. The process that happens near the end, with the head in the tiger's mouth, is directed primarily, and in all events at least to some degree inward, and what is being "neti'd" are various artifacts of limiting distinction. It's actually a process of opening, and surrender, not rejection. Nicely stated. I thought of science in the same way and often tried to express its limitations (i.e., in that it was directed outward). Neti neti is basically the same as burning it all down and then seeing what remains. Of course, it’s not hard to see what the trial by fire is all about in hindsight, but when it’s you that is on fire for an extended period of time, no answers really placate that burning sensation. 🔥 |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 8, 2019 17:12:13 GMT -5
Yes, me too, I didn't know about the Upanishads, but I can see how trying to ritualize and systematize the process would work at cross-purposes to the original intent. Science embodies a sort of neti-neti, done collectively, with attention directed outward. This is, as satch pointed out, done on the level of intellect, but personally, I see potential in starting there. The process that happens near the end, with the head in the tiger's mouth, is directed primarily, and in all events at least to some degree inward, and what is being "neti'd" are various artifacts of limiting distinction. It's actually a process of opening, and surrender, not rejection. Nicely stated. I thought of science in the same way and often tried to express its limitations (i.e., in that it was directed outward). Neti neti is basically the same as burning it all down and then seeing what remains. Of course, it’s not hard to see what the trial by fire is all about in hindsight, but when it’s you that is on fire for an extended period of time, no answers really placate that burning sensation. 🔥 heh heh .. folks should be so lucky to find themselves in such an auspicious bind, even with the discomfort that comes with it.  |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 8, 2019 17:17:51 GMT -5
yes, the problem with neti neti is that it perpetuates the duality of not/are, which are both 'mindful' categories Ramana was not a fan of neti neti to the extent it was simply thinking a set of intellectual conclusions, which is never enough, no matter how correct those conclusions may be. People would simply rehearse the Upanishadic neti-neti ideas as if that was enough. What really has to happen is that the mind must still itself and look inward... Yes, to the extent it was simply thinking of logical, conceptual, or intellectual conclusions. But “Nan Yar?” is the kind of question that begins a series of answers to which, either verbally or non-verbally, Ramana say “nah”. When you’re on fire, unable to stay in your skin, water and ideas ain’t gonna help much. Hell, even physically, water burns at 500F/260C. Imagine how hot that might be psychologically! 🤣LoL!!! ...ahem, sorry 😐.That’s why some teachers might even say how auspicious that peep is, though what’s still left of the person to burn might be a eee bit confused by. As such, saying such a “heartless” thing could be just the right thang. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 8, 2019 17:18:51 GMT -5
Nicely stated. I thought of science in the same way and often tried to express its limitations (i.e., in that it was directed outward). Neti neti is basically the same as burning it all down and then seeing what remains. Of course, it’s not hard to see what the trial by fire is all about in hindsight, but when it’s you that is on fire for an extended period of time, no answers really placate that burning sensation. 🔥 heh heh .. folks should be so lucky to find themselves in such an auspicious bind, even with the discomfort that comes with it. Whoa... talk about like minds!! 😮 I'm thinking that instead of cloaks, we should be handing out a free pair of bellows when peeps leave No Mountain and are on the way to Mountain Again. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 8, 2019 18:16:18 GMT -5
Ramana was not a fan of neti neti to the extent it was simply thinking a set of intellectual conclusions, which is never enough, no matter how correct those conclusions may be. People would simply rehearse the Upanishadic neti-neti ideas as if that was enough. What really has to happen is that the mind must still itself and look inward... Yes, to the extent it was simply thinking of logical, conceptual, or intellectual conclusions. But “Nan Yar?” is the kind of question that begins a series of answers to which, either verbally or non-verbally, Ramana say “nah”. When you’re on fire, unable to stay in your skin, water and ideas ain’t gonna help much. Hell, even physically, water burns at 500F/260C. Imagine how hot that might be psychologically! 🤣LoL!!! ...ahem, sorry 😐.That’s why some teachers might even say how auspicious that peep is, though what’s still left of the person to burn might be a eee bit confused by. As such, saying such a “heartless” thing could be just the right thang. Absolutely -- well, using "neti neti" as a principle that underlies self-inquiry ("I feel myself in my heart... but am I aware of that feeling? yes, I am. Well, what I am is not an object of awareness (it is neti-neti), so I cannot be that feeling...") is definitely key to Maharshi's method. Totally different from the mechanical mental repetition of "I am not the body, I am not the senses, I am not the emotions, I am not thoughts, I am neither this nor that..." -- that's the sense in which he disapproved. Even that would be ok for a while, but it has to be gone beyond. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 8, 2019 18:22:01 GMT -5
Yes, to the extent it was simply thinking of logical, conceptual, or intellectual conclusions. But “Nan Yar?” is the kind of question that begins a series of answers to which, either verbally or non-verbally, Ramana say “nah”. When you’re on fire, unable to stay in your skin, water and ideas ain’t gonna help much. Hell, even physically, water burns at 500F/260C. Imagine how hot that might be psychologically! 🤣LoL!!! ...ahem, sorry 😐.That’s why some teachers might even say how auspicious that peep is, though what’s still left of the person to burn might be a eee bit confused by. As such, saying such a “heartless” thing could be just the right thang. Absolutely -- well, using "neti neti" as a principle that underlies self-inquiry ("I feel myself in my heart... but am I aware of that feeling? yes, I am. Well, what I am is not an object of awareness (it is neti-neti), so I cannot be that feeling...") is definitely key to Maharshi's method. Totally different from the mechanical mental repetition of "I am not the body, I am not the senses, I am not the emotions, I am not thoughts, I am neither this nor that..." -- that's the sense in which he disapproved. Even that would be ok for a while, but it has to be gone beyond. Yeah, I agree. That ain't the neti neti that I appreciated either. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 9, 2019 2:54:55 GMT -5
Some peeps drunk out of their minds don't remember much about anything regarding how they got home, some might suggest that they had transcended mind and the mind-body has the intelligence to navigate through the on coming traffic, jump over fences, have a fight with a group of skinheads and eat a takeaway and put their PJ's on before bed . You see the mind-body cannot functions in these ways without the spirit being present .. when the spirit leaves the body permanently the mind-body dies so to speak, this is why you don't have the walking dead as a reality even though some entertain the theory that there are potential non perceiving zombies out there .. If the spirit is present and there is awareness of the world then there is a thought of it, whether one remembers it or not is irrelevant . To be fighting skinheads and eating kebabs one has not transcended mind .. The mind-body doesn't know kung fu and doesn't know how to put the microwave on .. All these patterns of behaviour and conditioning and intelligence won't help anyone once the spirit has left the body .. If there is transcendence there is no awareness of the world or the mind-body .. The mind-body doesn't carry on fighting or separating the chilli sauce off from the chips .. Life involves cognition, this is true. But there is a layer of it that's not necessary, and as Tolle points out, for many people that unnecessary layer of cognitive process takes on a dynamic all of it's own. This is the function of mind that discerns risk and opportunity, and that builds mental maps based on abstraction. Many people don't even notice that they're doing this, almost constantly. What can come as a surprise, is that it's not only possible to move through the world, in action, without this ongoing layter of cognition (much of it happening subconsciously), but that the effectiveness of our action is actually enhanced when that faculty is only called on when necessary. This is what Tolle means by mind as servant, rather than master, and it's what I take ZD and many others who post and have posted here over the years to mean (at the very least, in part) by a silent mind, and it's what I meant by action, free of thought. Regardless of the layers, what you are is present . What you are is aware of the mind environment . There is no transcendence here . If you have a thought of the world, here I AM .. I think even niz or Ramana termed it in some way along the lines of the lighters flame analogy. If you are aware of the lighters flame here I AM, here is the world . There is no floaty talk of I AM aware of the world butt I have transcended mind . It is false to think mind has been transcended when you are aware of I AM in reflection of the flame . The mind-body by itself isn't aware of the flame nor does it try and blow it out . It doesn't function it that way . There needs the spirit present of the body . When there is transcendence there is no world . It's that simples .. There are no layers beyond the mind-body, only of it .. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 9, 2019 3:16:31 GMT -5
Makes no sense to me, just explain to me how what I have said has warranted your unsavoury remarks / comments . There is nothing here other than your speculations and your accusations . Back it up or please refrain from further speculations and accusations . I am in my right here to ask you to back up what you claim . OK, here's an example. You persist to exhibit any understanding or insight of what things like "no people", "no things", or "no other" points to based on things physically appearing to you. It indicates you don't understand what it points to that is prior to mind. You then claim to have transcended self whilst saying awareness of self must be present for yada yada, and on and on it goes. Things like this. And don't worry, man. I loves ya just the same! Your example is based upon your own theories and the theories that contain falsities of the mind and therefore reflect in the falsities of your theories. This is why under questioning this theory with Sifting, the Truth wasn't the Truth after all . It can't be because the foundation doesn't support it by their own admission . This is why when you imply I am at 1st mountain and you are not, your false sense of I AM that gives you the impression that you are sky high and I AM at rock bottom shows me the lack of understanding you have about your own premises. This is why you never answered my post at the time . Your unprovoked attack on me is based upon your lack of understanding your own premises .. Doesn't seem like 3rd mountain stuff to me . Putting other's down through a lack of understanding shows a lack of something if you ask me . |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 9, 2019 6:03:26 GMT -5
OK, here's an example. You persist to exhibit any understanding or insight of what things like "no people", "no things", or "no other" points to based on things physically appearing to you. It indicates you don't understand what it points to that is prior to mind. You then claim to have transcended self whilst saying awareness of self must be present for yada yada, and on and on it goes. Things like this. And don't worry, man. I loves ya just the same! Your example is based upon your own theories and the theories that contain falsities of the mind and therefore reflect in the falsities of your theories. This is why under questioning this theory with Sifting, the Truth wasn't the Truth after all . It can't be because the foundation doesn't support it by their own admission . This is why when you imply I am at 1st mountain and you are not, your false sense of I AM that gives you the impression that you are sky high and I AM at rock bottom shows me the lack of understanding you have about your own premises. This is why you never answered my post at the time . Your unprovoked attack on me is based upon your lack of understanding your own premises .. Doesn't seem like 3rd mountain stuff to me . Putting other's down through a lack of understanding shows a lack of something if you ask me . The misunderstanding of your misunderstanding might very well be because of a lack of meeting of minds, sure. I don't really understand what you're on about with respect to Sifting, but I understand very well what Sifting was talking about, and we for sure weren't talking about any sort of foundation whatsoever. On the contrary. This is one of those things that I tend to pick away at, and that seems to get you so upset about "unprovoked attacks" on "you". You identify with/as your ideas way too much, imo, get emotionally attached, and subsequently, get all whiny when the idea gets poo pooed. I said your writing sounded First Mountain, because it actually did. It seemed as such when trying to piece together the various arguments you were posting and/or you were not understanding explanations when they were clearly articulated to you. Perhaps you are here to create air-tight arguments that make you feel you've won some debate about what is right/wrong. I only care about whether an apparent other has woken up and can stay awake within this dream. This might be where our lack of meeting of minds comes from, a disconnect of intention. You OK now? |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 9, 2019 6:33:11 GMT -5
Your example is based upon your own theories and the theories that contain falsities of the mind and therefore reflect in the falsities of your theories. This is why under questioning this theory with Sifting, the Truth wasn't the Truth after all . It can't be because the foundation doesn't support it by their own admission . This is why when you imply I am at 1st mountain and you are not, your false sense of I AM that gives you the impression that you are sky high and I AM at rock bottom shows me the lack of understanding you have about your own premises. This is why you never answered my post at the time . Your unprovoked attack on me is based upon your lack of understanding your own premises .. Doesn't seem like 3rd mountain stuff to me . Putting other's down through a lack of understanding shows a lack of something if you ask me . The misunderstanding of your misunderstanding might very well be because of a lack of meeting of minds, sure. I don't really understand what you're on about with respect to Sifting, but I understand very well what Sifting was talking about, and we for sure weren't talking about any sort of foundation whatsoever. On the contrary. This is one of those things that I tend to pick away at, and that seems to get you so upset about "unprovoked attacks" on "you". You identify with/as your ideas way too much, imo, get emotionally attached, and subsequently, get all whiny when the idea gets poo pooed. I said your writing sounded First Mountain, because it actually did. It seemed as such when trying to piece together the various arguments you were posting and/or you were not understanding explanations when they were clearly articulated to you. Perhaps you are here to create air-tight arguments that make you feel you've won some debate about what is right/wrong. I only care about whether an apparent other has woken up and can stay awake within this dream. This might be where our lack of meeting of minds comes from, a disconnect of intention. You OK now? You felt the need to put me down and you poo pooed my posts and yet you by your own admission you don't understand what I am on about in regards to my conversation with Sifting .. You interjected on my reply to Z who was supporting Siftings theory .. It makes no sense to interject and put me down when you don't know what we are on about . You never answered my reply addressed to you but felt the need to put it in the kindergarden category . If you actually don't know what I am on about or what Sifting and I were on about then it is foolish to make a comment on what was said especially in such a negative way . If you care to reply to my post made to you in response and converse like an normal peep without putting me on 1st mountain then we will see what is what and perhaps you will actually begin to know what I am on about, otherwise it is pure speculation isn't it . The self measure you have of my attachments and my levels of being upset are equally speculative and are consumed by your already negative expression towards me . I am not here to win arguments I am here to speak about what topics are at hand, but I will stand my ground in regards to my understanding when other's put me down and try and make me out to be some kinda chump that doesn't know what I am talking about . If for instance someone want to be adamant that while there is perception of this world they have transcended mind, I will say that is incorrect, it doesn't mean I want to win some type of war, it is simply disagreeing with another's belief . Now if all you want to do is put me down and tell me how misconceived I am regarding all topics I am involved in without actually answering my posts, then i will again ask you politely to refrain from making posts addressed to me . You are welcome to your thoughts but to simply convey your opinion of my spiritual status then i see no reason to engage with you that will be of any real benefit . |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 9, 2019 7:10:14 GMT -5
You felt the need to put me down and you poo pooed my posts ... you've written this or something similar at least a thousand times.. why? This for some reason is what some peeps do when they don't actually answer posts or direct questions and spend more time and energy on trying to discredit other's or will deflect or morph . In this case, there seems to be more of a negative energy being put forward than anything else . I want to be clear on that . You see if that's all a peep want's to do rather than converse and answer questions based upon what they have already said as a theory or as a foundation then what does that say about the expression and the theory? Look at what's been said, thats being said and what isn't . I have a good eye for what is unanswered and what expression carries forth . |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 9, 2019 7:28:44 GMT -5
you can't infer anything about what isn't said When you have been around certain peeps for as long as I have on this forum you pretty much get to know how they will respond and you get to know that certain questions asked be it from myself or other's will not get answered or they will be answered in a way that deflects . That in itself speaks volumes . I am sure that you have experienced the same with certain peeps in your life . |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 9, 2019 8:15:45 GMT -5
The misunderstanding of your misunderstanding might very well be because of a lack of meeting of minds, sure. I don't really understand what you're on about with respect to Sifting, but I understand very well what Sifting was talking about, and we for sure weren't talking about any sort of foundation whatsoever. On the contrary. This is one of those things that I tend to pick away at, and that seems to get you so upset about "unprovoked attacks" on "you". You identify with/as your ideas way too much, imo, get emotionally attached, and subsequently, get all whiny when the idea gets poo pooed. I said your writing sounded First Mountain, because it actually did. It seemed as such when trying to piece together the various arguments you were posting and/or you were not understanding explanations when they were clearly articulated to you. Perhaps you are here to create air-tight arguments that make you feel you've won some debate about what is right/wrong. I only care about whether an apparent other has woken up and can stay awake within this dream. This might be where our lack of meeting of minds comes from, a disconnect of intention. You OK now? You felt the need to put me down and you poo pooed my posts and yet you by your own admission you don't understand what I am on about in regards to my conversation with Sifting .. You interjected on my reply to Z who was supporting Siftings theory .. It makes no sense to interject and put me down when you don't know what we are on about . You never answered my reply addressed to you but felt the need to put it in the kindergarden category . If you actually don't know what I am on about or what Sifting and I were on about then it is foolish to make a comment on what was said especially in such a negative way . If you care to reply to my post made to you in response and converse like an normal peep without putting me on 1st mountain then we will see what is what and perhaps you will actually begin to know what I am on about, otherwise it is pure speculation isn't it . The self measure you have of my attachments and my levels of being upset are equally speculative and are consumed by your already negative expression towards me . I am not here to win arguments I am here to speak about what topics are at hand, but I will stand my ground in regards to my understanding when other's put me down and try and make me out to be some kinda chump that doesn't know what I am talking about . If for instance someone want to be adamant that while there is perception of this world they have transcended mind, I will say that is incorrect, it doesn't mean I want to win some type of war, it is simply disagreeing with another's belief . Now if all you want to do is put me down and tell me how misconceived I am regarding all topics I am involved in without actually answering my posts, then i will again ask you politely to refrain from making posts addressed to me . You are welcome to your thoughts but to simply convey your opinion of my spiritual status then i see no reason to engage with you that will be of any real benefit . I get it, and I truly do understand why you feel violated. Sure, it does suck being in that position, so I won't carry on in that vein with you. No, the ideas presented as they have been will not receive much benefit from my opinion about them. 🖐 |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 9, 2019 9:03:23 GMT -5
Tenka,
Since most of us regard thoughts as "mind talk" rather than direct sensory perceptions, I'm curious about your view on this matter. If you are looking at a specific form, perhaps an elephant, you've said that you regard your perception of that form as a thought whereas most of us would only regard a mental comment ABOUT what's seen as a thought. If, instead of looking at what can be distinguished as a specific form, you turned your head from one side to other and let your vision sweep around, would you consider everything seen to be one single thought or some vast number of individual thoughts? Also, if you were driving down the road and not thinking any verbal thoughts (no mind talk), and you were not looking at specific aspects of the visual field as distinct forms, would your perception be one thought or a multitude of thoughts? I'm trying to understand how you think about this issue. IOW, is the entire world you see throughout all of your activities during the day one big continuous thought or an infinite number of thoughts depending upon whether you're focused on specific forms or whether you're focused on your entire visual field without distinction?
When people look at a large number of trees, they can distinguish and focus their attention upon a single tree, or a small grouping of trees amidst the totality, or all of the trees in totality. which is conceived as a forest. If the mind is totally silent, and people look at a large number of trees without distinction, they simply see "what is" because the visual field remains undistinguished as form and therefore incommunicable via language. I assume you understand that it's possible to interact with the world in that way. Is that true?
|
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 9, 2019 10:13:22 GMT -5
Tenka, Since most of us regard thoughts as "mind talk" rather than direct sensory perceptions, I'm curious about your view on this matter. If you are looking at a specific form, perhaps an elephant, you've said that you regard your perception of that form as a thought whereas most of us would only regard a mental comment ABOUT what's seen as a thought. If, instead of looking at what can be distinguished as a specific form, you turned your head from one side to other and let your vision sweep around, would you consider everything seen to be one single thought or some vast number of individual thoughts? Also, if you were driving down the road and not thinking any verbal thoughts (no mind talk), and you were not looking at specific aspects of the visual field as distinct forms, would your perception be one thought or a multitude of thoughts? I'm trying to understand how you think about this issue. IOW, is the entire world you see throughout all of your activities during the day one big continuous thought or an infinite number of thoughts depending upon whether you're focused on specific forms or whether you're focused on your entire visual field without distinction? When people look at a large number of trees, they can distinguish and focus their attention upon a single tree, or a small grouping of trees amidst the totality, or all of the trees in totality. which is conceived as a forest. If the mind is totally silent, and people look at a large number of trees without distinction, they simply see "what is" because the visual field remains undistinguished as form and therefore incommunicable via language. I assume you understand that it's possible to interact with the world in that way. Is that true? This is a bit long-winded so read it or not  Well for starters it would be a misconception to compare 'mind talk' with 'direct sensory perception' in a way where the perception somehow nullifies mind or means that it transcends mind . This is why I posted niz's quote If you see the lighters flame, there I AM, there is the world . When there is no lighters flame there is no you, there is no world . Mind talk is just an option of the mind, when I AM of this world you can chat away or you can be silent . Both are mindful in this I AM awareness. Attention in itself is a mindful thought. There is always attention where there is perception. There are obvious degrees of attentive mindfulness of course but that is irrelevant. This is the main reason I don't believe there is awareness of the mindful world while there has been transcendence. This is why I say beyond mind is beyond self and this world . My realization didn't occur while I was doing the hoovering or eating my dinner, or walking home from the pub or running away from an elephant . It happened in such a way where the world disappeared and there was no perception . Addressing your questions regarding one single thought or not when looking from left to right, well if you understand that every object that you perceive will be perceived one micro second before the next due to the range you have . As I look down on my keyboard I can see all keys, but there is only an attentiveness on a certain range, as my view changes my attention shifts. We can call these different thoughts one after the other or we can call it one sweeping movement, I don't really care too much about how many thoughts one has scouring the immediate landscape, all I know is that where there is attention / perception / recognition there is a thought of it even when one is silently perceiving .. Your tree analogy doesn't work for me because for there to be the notion that a peep doesn't see the trees there is just seeing 'what is', then is there the recognition that there is 'what is' being perceived .. If there is something being perceived there is mind, there is self. I will bring back niz's quote here about the lighters flame .. You are suggesting you can see the lighters flame, but what is seen is not the lighters flame, only 'what is', is perceived . That isn't the same as saying there is no lighter, there is no tree, there is no mind .. All your doing is coming to terms with 'what is' of the mind rather than recognising a label, it doesn't mean you have transcended mind, it means your seeing beyond the label of the mindful objects. When I sun gaze I don't have a conscious recognition at times and I remember my mum asking me something a while back while I caught sight of the sun and went into a light trance, I didn't hear what she said, I can't even remember being conscious of the sun but in these moments I am not fighting off skinheads or running from elephants, so all this mind-body stuff that is intelligent to do things by itself while what you are has transcended isn't the case . My mum said I didn't move a muscle it was like time stood still lol . When andy got knocked unconscious he didn't get up and pick up the rugby ball lol . Driving a car or doing things where there is a momentarily lapse of awareness of the road doesn't mean there is transcendence as said before and it really depends on the situation at hand that reflects the limitations of what the mind-body can do. And like said again, if the spirit is of the body then one hasn't transcended mind, and you can't drive a car when the spirit has left the physical body .. You can't do anything using the mind-body when the spirit has left the body permanently. When the spirit has left temporarily when one sleeps, then the body continues to function by design in order to keep the body alive, but the spirit is still attached to the body .. People that sleep walk have not transcended mind have they, the spirit has not left the body either, there is no mind-body walking down the stairs on it's own accord . There is simply the conscious self that has not fully integrated the waking state in the normal way .. almost like in between states . |
|
