Neti-Neti practice

These are some notes on the Neti-Neti meditation practices from Andrey Tkachenko’s class “Assemblage Point.” 

The goal is to be able to deepen understanding of how your mind works. Neti-Neti is just one of the methods to reach this goal. The origin of the word "Neti-Neti" comes from the Sanskrit language. It is a compound of two words: "na" and "iti."

• "Na" means "not."

• "Iti" means "thus" or "this."

In the Neti-Neti practice, one notices a mental object and actively drops it by saying "Neti" and implying "This is not me". This statement allows (1) to notice mental objects present in the consciousness; (2) not to identify yourself with any mental object; (3) to acknowledge the impermanence of these objects; and (4) to notice the connections this "disappeared" object had with other objects which were not in the consciousness at the same moment (so that they hint their existence).

Many practices mention that a meditator should let the mental process appear, but once they are noticed, let them go (do not dwell on them, feed them with attention). I guess the Neti-Neti practice is more vigorous than that as it breaks self-identification from any one process.

In light of this distinction, the best translation of Andrey's term "разотождествление" would be "dissociation" (the term used to describe one of mental disorders). Not surprisingly, Neti-Neti should not be recommended to people with unstable mental health. Even healthy people can develop depression and lose the holistic image of themselves. If this happens, one should try to compose oneself back again (I am a son, an engineer, liking ice cream, etc).

So if nothing I think about is me, then what is me? Many meditation practices mention that there is not such a thing as “I.” This is somewhat absurd as in any meditation practice, there is always an “actor” as a source of intention, attention, and action. Moreover, the argument that “I” do not exist because it always changes does not work. There is something that notices these changes: the same I (the actor).

Quite the opposite, the mere possibility of the Neti-Neti practice is based on the separation of what is acting (watching, negating, releasing attention) from the other mental processes. In some sense, "I" (the actor) exists through watching this multiplicity of transient mental objects ("motives" in Serkin's language and "dominants" in the language of A. Kurpatov).

Mental objects and the "I" are not independent. The systemic qualities of the objects are subsumed by the "I" and continue to shape it throughout our life.

How is this related to the idea of Atman? Hmmm.