The Logic of ‘Neti, Neti’ and ‘Iti, Iti’

From Negation to Iteration

By Bodhanngkur

1. The Dualist Logic: “Neti, Neti” as Defensive Knowing

In the dvaita (dualist) worldview, reality is structured by difference — between subject and object, creator and creation, knower and known.
Cognition functions by exclusion: “this is not that.”
When applied to the absolute, this logic yields the famous formula:

नेति नेति — neti, neti — “not this, not this.”

Epistemic function:

· Each na-iti rejects a mistaken identification: “Brahman is not body, not mind, not world.”

· Knowledge proceeds by elimination: the truth is inferred as what remains when all false predicates are stripped away.

Ontological implication:

· The real and the unreal are separate categories; the knower must purify itself of contamination by the known.

· The method stabilises dualism: the world is the realm of error to be transcended.

Psychological tone:

· Defensive and apophatic.

· The seeker gains control by saying “no.”

· The world becomes a set of threats to be negated in pursuit of a safe, immutable One “beyond.”

Thus, neti, neti is both cognitive tool and emotional shield — the dualist’s survival strategy against the fear of flux.

2. Śaṅkara’s Advaita Logic: The Fudge of Half-Negation

Śaṅkara inherits neti, neti and senses its limitation.
He recognises that the absolute cannot be “other” than the knower, yet he remains linguistically and socially bound to dualist grammar.
His solution — Advaita, “not-two” — is a deliberate ambiguity that allows him to straddle both camps.

Logical structure:

· Advaita does not affirm oneness (ekatva); it merely denies twoness.

· It thus retains the syntax of negation (a-dvaita, like a-vidyā, a-sura).

· The affirmation of unity is smuggled in via denial, never directly stated.

Consequences:

1. Epistemological limbo: The world is “not real, not unreal” (anirvacanīya).

2. Ontological split: Brahman is “without attributes,” yet Īśvara (God with attributes) still functions in practice.

3. Pragmatic ambiguity: One can preach monism yet live dualistically — convenient for priest and ruler alike.

Śaṅkara’s Advaita is therefore neither negation nor affirmation but permanent indecision.
It masks fear of commitment with mystical subtlety.
Finn rightly calls this the adolescent stage of thought: the intellect senses unity but cannot yet live procedurally as it.

3. The Monist Logic: “Iti, Iti” as Procedural Knowing

The mature ekatva (monist) position — formalised in Finn’s Procedure Monism — replaces negation with iteration.
The Upaniṣadic question “That by which all is known — by what shall it be known?” no longer demands silence or withdrawal.
The answer is operational:

इति इति — iti, iti — “this, this.”

Epistemic function:

· Knowledge is not derived by exclusion but by direct contact — every this is the procedure knowing itself.

· The act of cognition is the iteration of the One.

· There is no “that” apart from “this”; every instance is full enactment of the whole rule.

Ontological implication:

· Reality is quantised, serial, self-referential operation — not a static being but an active procedure.

· The One does not oppose the many; it becomes them in each bounded event.

Psychological tone:

· Open, affirmative, fearless.

· The mature mind no longer needs to protect the One from the world; it recognises the world as the One at work.

· Where the dualist says “not this,” and the Advaitin says “not-two,” the monist simply says “this.”

Hence, iti, iti is both affirmation and demonstration: the One speaks by doing.

---

4. Comparative Summary

Aspect	Dvaita (neti neti)	Advaita (Śaṅkara’s fudge)	Ekatva / Procedure Monism (iti iti)
Grammar	Negative exclusion	Apophatic denial of duality	Affirmative iteration
Cognitive method	Elimination of error	Suspension of decision	Direct operation
Ontology	Two realms: knower & known	One real, one “not quite real”	One procedure iterating locally
Epistemic stance	“Not this”	“Not two”	“This”
Psychological mode	Defensive	Ambivalent	Decisive
Cultural stage	Child — dependent	Adolescent — indecisive	Adult — self-regulating

Śaṅkara’s Advaita thus appears as the hinge between denial and affirmation — a necessary but unresolved middle stage.
It protects the culture from premature monism while preventing full intellectual maturity.

5. The Procedural Resolution

In Finn’s logic, the transition from neti to iti marks the passage from transcendence-seeking to immanence-realising thought.
Once reality is understood as serial operation of a single universal procedure, the entire dialectic collapses:

There is no “beyond,” no “other,” no “not-this.”
Every “this” is the One iterating perfectly in its context.

Thus the final, adult articulation is not “This, This — is That,” but:

“This, This — is THIS.”

Here language itself becomes procedural: each “this” is an executable instance of the One.
The redundancy that once required neti neti is gone; the Advaitic fudge dissolves; what remains is pure functional realness — the grammar of existence without negation.

Addendum:

Linguistic Notes

1. Etymology and syntax

o iti is indeclinable (an avyaya), used to enclose or mark direct expressions — “thus said,” “so is,” “in this way.”

o When preceded by na, as in na iti → neti, it forms negation.

o Therefore, removing na yields the pure affirmation of immediacy: iti iti = “thus, thus,” or “this, this.”

2. Semantic nuance

o iti does not merely point to an object but demonstrates or enacts reference — it’s the linguistic gesture of showing.

o So iti iti functions like a procedural demonstrative: this-as-itself, this-as-iteration.

3. Finn’s procedural sense using ‘eti’

o While “eti” (from √i, “to go”) beautifully carries the sense of emergence or iteration, “iti” is the grammatical mirror of neti and thus the exact corrective form.

o The two can even combine for nuance:

§ “iti iti” = ontological affirmation (“this, this”).

§ “eti eti” = procedural affirmation (“this emerges, this emerges”).

In Finn’s lexicon you might gloss them together as:

इति इति — the linguistic affirmation of the One.
एति एति — the procedural enactment of the One.

Finn’s final linguistic repair

Original Upaniṣadic negation	Procedural correction	Meaning
नेति नेति (neti neti)	इति इति (iti iti)	“This, this.” (affirmation of presence)
—	एति एति (eti eti)	“This emerges, this emerges.” (affirmation of operation)

Thus, the purely linguistic correction is iti iti; the procedural, dynamic version is eti eti.

Both complete Finn’s monist reversal, but for perfect symmetry with neti neti, the correct Sanskrit is unequivocally:

इति इति — iti, iti — “this, this.”

Home