Who Is Rama? The Doctrine Of Neti, Neti

Rama_Sita-Lakshman in_forest

In order to explain the Advaitic doctrine of “Neti Neti”, Sri Ramana used to tell the story of Sita and Rama.

Prince Rama was exiled for 14 years from the kingdom to a forest by his loving father. The full story is too complex to be told here.  

When Prince Rama, obeying his father, left the kingdom of Ayodhya, his wife Sita came with him to endure the hardships of poverty and penance side by side with her husband. Rama’s younger brother Lakshman insisted on coming as well to keep them company and to protect them in the forest.

When the three reached the forest, they took off their royal clothes and sent them back via the Chariot that had brought them to the edge of the forest. They put on clothes of forest dwellers and Rishis who lived in the forest.

In order to get to know the forest dwellers and the Rishis, Sita and Rama attended a social gathering of the Rishis and their wives in the forest.

The wives of other Rishis introduced themselves to Sita. They wanted to know who Sita’s husband was.

Rama was standing among the other males, the other Rishis a few feet away. He was wearing the clothes of Rishis. Prince Rama looked like a forest dweller and a Rishi himself and did not stand out in anyway.

The wives of the Rishis gathered there were curious about Sita as she was a newcomer to their group. They wanted to know who Sita’s husband was. Where was he? Which one was he among the Rishis at that social event?

Sita was in a dilemma due to her upbringing and modesty as she was a Princess. In the old Indian tradition, the wife does not speak her husband’s name. So what could she say?

The wives of the Rishis understood Sita’s difficulty in not saying her husband’s name and pointing to him.

Since Sita would not take Rama’s name and point to him, the wives of the Rishis started to point at each Rishi in the group.

Every time a Rishi was pointed at, Sita was asked “Is that your husband Rama”? Sita would look and if it was not Rama pointed at, she would nod her head in the negative.

Thus one after another, the Rishis were pointed at and Sita nodded her head in the negative.

Finally Sita’s actual husband Rama was pointed out and Sita was asked, “Is that Rama?” Sita did not nod her head and did not say either a ‘yes’ or a ‘no.’ but simply bowed her head and remained silent.

Bhagavan Ramana pointed out that Sita’s silence was eloquent and revealed Rama without saying a word. Similarly, when in the Advaitic doctrine of “Neti-Neti”, everything is denied as Real, what remains is only the Self whose very nature is blissful silence.

Bhagavan said that just like Sita’s silence is graceful and eloquent and reveals who Rama is, the Vedas also are eloquent in the Neti-Neti doctrine (not this, not this) and then become silent. Their silence is the Real State.

In this way, Bhagavan taught that the Reality cannot be directly pointed out. Only that which is unreal can be pointed out and denied. We must leave aside all that is unreal. What is left then is the Real alone which cannot be denied. Silence rules there. 



10 thoughts on “Who Is Rama? The Doctrine Of Neti, Neti

  1. Thanks Harsha, nice story!

    If you say “not this”, it is also important to remember: NOT “not this”.

    From Mandukyopanisad with Gaudapada’s Karika III-44:
    If the mind becomes inactive in a state of oblivion awaken it again (nirvikalpa samadhi? Not This!). If it is distracted, bring it back to the state of tranquillity (Not This!). In the intermediary state know the mind containing within its desires in potential form (Not This!). If the mind has attained to be state of equilibrium, then do not disturb it again. (NOT Not This!).

    Liked by 2 people

    • Wonderful! When the Self has spontaneously and effortlessly revealed ItSelf, there is no one left to disturb it or not disturb it. “Neti-Neti” is just a method. It dissolves along with the mind and the Self reveals ItSelf. The Self is the nature of silence and beyond thought. No one remains to say “Not this” or “Not Not this”, etc. Mandukyopanishad is referring to a very high state of Yoga (Samadhan) preliminary to Self-Realization. In my view, it cannot be referring to the Final state of effortless abidance in the Self in this verse. In the Self, no questions or thoughts can arise at all. 🙂 ❤

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Reblogged this on mira prabhu and commented:
    “Bhagavan taught that the Reality cannot be directly pointed out. Only that which is unreal can be pointed out and denied. We must leave aside all that is unreal. What is left then is the Real alone which cannot be denied. Silence rules there. ” Thank for, Harsh Luthar.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Yes, I agree: Neti-Neti is just a method which dissolves. Perhaps this is a hallmark of all various useful meditation techniques: if followed… they dissolve. For me: there is vigilent attention and in this I may effortlessly notice an attachment or identification as it starts to arise. Just being aware (noticing) that an identification is arising results in breaking free of it (hopefully). So IMO “neti-neti” is very subtle and effortless: just noticing an arising attachment. And if no attachments are arising there is still vigilant watching. So I am at a state somewhere prior to “final effortless abidance in the Self” because there is still subtle effort at maintaining awareness, identifications still arise (at least today! Ha!)

    I am not sure about “no thoughts can arise at all” in the final state, although I bow to your experience. Yes, certainly there must be states where “no thoughts can arise at all”.

    There is an absorption which occurs in this “neti-neti” process. Maybe it is something like savikalpa samadhi. It occurs during awareness of external objects (or internal objects), for example eyes open during sitting meditation, or eyes open in nature. “Absorption” in that the attention is rooted, fixed inwardly, while also being aware outwardly at the same time. This is relatively effortless, but… since the experience is temporary, effort must be applied to re-enter it. Or… perhaps while attention is rooted inwardly… there is some subtle thought activity going on… but it is not outwardly strong enough to break the inward absorption.

    So… rather than “no thoughts can arise at all”… I read a couple of Jnana Yoga teachers who suggest a state where subtle thought can occur during absorption. In Sahaja, permanant all the time natural samadhi… there is still subtle higher level thought and feeling but without the possibility of attachment or identification to it arising?

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.