[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Neti-neti is a means of realizing the expansion of self into the infinity and will of true Self that is and contains all within Itself, the Real Self, not the illusory shadow of that Self.
~ J

Partial quote just for reference. I thought the entire piece was a very understandable and thorough articulation of the philosophy, J, and I have absolutely no quibble with any aspect of that as such.

The main 'point' I wished to advance is that any philosophy (idea or set of ideas) is only a tool, and that any tool may be 'used' for 'good or bad', 'good' and 'bad' themselves just being creative-value related ideas.

Please read my criticisms of its (the 'neti-net' philopshy's) uses, such as yours which negatively pan any and all uses of the 'ego' (which also is just an idea referencing a facet of Life, both the idea and the facet itself just being tools) as necessarily being faulty or fault-prone in and of themselves, as being based on the observation that it often (though not always - I 'see' that it can be used for positive purposes ) results in egregious (IMO) kinds of 'crimes of omission' (just a meaningful figure of speach now!) against LIFE's purpose in incarnating in a 'body' among other bodies and hence naturally have a 'sense' of its 'own' 'self' being a distinct in many ways sub-SELF in the context of others 'selves' which are also likewise non-identical parts of the same SUPER-SELF.

IMO, because of the configuration of its concept-architecture (which IMO postures as though it has no 'configuration'al bias), the "neti-neti" philosophy tend to be very miss-leading. If nothing else, I think it is useless as a 'tool' for meaningfully sorting out and and hierarchically ordering conflicting LIFE values (of which there are REALLY many, IMO!) and wisely choosing between possibilities relating thereto (again, IMO).

Because I am devoted to fulfilling my purpose for incarnating and in facilitating others' fullfillments of their purposes in said regard, my dharma is leads me to criticize any philosophy which I 'see' as having 'blind spots' and/or as being miss-used, by you for example in this threadd as you self-reifyingly and other-dismissively sweep the validity and value of what I have present via many thoughtful posts under the "neti-neti" rug. You have merely reiterated the "neti-net" philosophy, as though you think saying it more clearly, actually relates to the truths/concepts/ideas which relate to things 'outside' of the "neti-neti philosphy 'box' which you live 'in' which I have presented and continue to present. In this regard, it looks to me like you are just interested in circularly reiterating what's going on 'in' your head. In this regards, you remind me of others on the world stage who can't (won't? in any case, don't!) actually relate to what others say about what they see, think, feel, believe, etc.

Your (the "Neti-Neti" philosophy's?) view has a lot of 'good' (positively useful) elements in it, but IMO it is only 'good' as far as it goes and often 'serves' thangs which I consider to be 'bad' because it doesn't go 'all the way' in terms of constructively relating to why we are here in all our interdepented-and-inteconnected-individual-personality-related GLORY in the first place.

"By their fruits ye shall know them" is a wisdom saying which applies here, I think. Others may of course have a different assessment in this regard - that's the wonderfulness of 'the truth' NOT being MONOlithic! Based on what I see, and please know I have seen a LOT that is pertinent to the issues I raise by virtue of having grown up in India. It is my 'assessment' that 'adherence' to said philosophy very often results in peeps (unconsciously?) betraying, i.e. not honoring and not positively utiliizing the opportunity which LIFE in incarnated forms providentially provides us with. I say unconsciously because such folks only see what's visible through that 'lens'. Which is why I also advocate that people look to see and then actually/meaningfully/positive relate to what's visible when one looks through other lenses, in your case what's visible pertaining to you through my lens.

My last comment to you, J, which I sincerely hope that you appreciate the signifance of even though I believe that you won't, is that my main motive in writing all this is to present it for other readers and consider and contemplate. I think that there's "a snowballs chance in hell" (as the saying goes) that someone as close-minded as I think you are in relation to the issues I am addressing will 'get' anything useful out of this.