Guest guest Posted November 5, 1999 Report Share Posted November 5, 1999 At 11:16 AM 11/5/99 -0500, Dan Berkow, PhD wrote: >"Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd > > >Hey Skye and Dan, > > > >You non-duality outlaws, reprobates. Yes, Skye, you have violated one of > >the non-duality linguistic laws by using "identify." I'm in the enemy camp > >too. Here's a story that happened to me (from my page on Jerry's site): > > > > > > One of the disciples of Papaji of Lucknow, India, now himself a teacher, > > told me this: to avoid the appearance of identification with the ego, > some > > of Papaji's disciples go into linguistic contortions to avoid using the > > first person pronoun. It has become known as the "Lucknow Disease." You > > can't even discuss a movie without the disease striking. This happened > > recently: Some of us in our weekly satsang were discussing movies. > > Someone said, "THE 13TH FLOOR was great." I said "I really loved THREE > > SEASONS." A friend said, "WHO loved it?" His girlfriend (not a Papaji > > follower) kicked him, saying "Honey!!" Then I asked him, "Who wants to > >know?" > > > >Love, > > > >--Greg > >Dan: Thanks for this, Greg. It's easy to get caught in "right" >terminology and views vs. "wrong" terminology and views. It seems easy for >us to adopt a view that a particular verbal or numerical way of >conceptualizing reality will yield reality. The trap is particularly >pernicious when the "correct" conceptualization is to view reality as >"nonconceptual," or the "correct" view of self is that there "is no self." >However, if there isn't an ultimate "correct" view, that also applies to >this statement! There's no particular benefit to the view that there is no >"correct" or "incorrect" view. So, let the discussion continue, let the >dance be danced, let the weaving be woven. Hey Dan-ji, Yes it is easy to get caught in these traps. You make a very good point about our adopting "a particular verbal or numerical way of conceptualizing reality [that] will yield reality." This inclination to yield reality is a "making it true," you know, as though it needed our help! You point to the self-referentiality of a view that there is no ultimate view. Such a view certainly would be self-defeating like the liar's paradox ("Everything I say is a lie."). But it can be the case that there is no ultimate view, and it can be talked about, without there being a view to that effect! In fact, this is another way of describing non-attachment to the intellect. Another teacher I know in the Papaji tradition is one of the stricter advaita linguistic policemen I know. He never uses the word "I" when he speaks publicly or in small groups. Rather, he just says his name as though speaking in the 3rd person, or says "this form,this incarnation," or "this lifestream." (!!??!!) Love, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 1999 Report Share Posted November 5, 1999 >>>>Dan: Thanks for this, Greg. It's easy to get caught in "right" terminology and views vs. "wrong" terminology and views. It seems easy for us to adopt a view that a particular verbal or numerical way of conceptualizing reality will yield reality. The trap is particularly pernicious when the "correct" conceptualization is to view reality as "nonconceptual," or the "correct" view of self is that there "is no self." However, if there isn't an ultimate "correct" view, that also applies to this statement! There's no particular benefit to the view that there is no "correct" or "incorrect" view. So, let the discussion continue, let the dance be danced, let the weaving be woven. >>Greg: Yes it is easy to get caught in these traps. You make a very good point about our adopting "a particular verbal or numerical way of conceptualizing reality [that] will yield reality." This inclination to yield reality is a "making it true," you know, as though it needed our help! You point to the self-referentiality of a view that there is no ultimate view. Such a view certainly would be self-defeating like the liar's paradox ("Everything I say is a lie."). But it can be the case that there is no ultimate view, and it can be talked about, without there being a view to that effect! In fact, this is another way of describing non-attachment to the intellect. Dan: Yes. This is what it seems to be about. The view that there is no ultimate view cannot be based on anything other than its own utility in revealing attachment. It cannot provide a basis for rejecting other views. Thus, the "case" as you call it, that there isn't one, simply ends up being a tool for uncovering attachment to conceptualizations of reality. The "work" is then to see clearly how such attachments occur. The "work" cannot coherently be considered as a means to get to an "underlying" reality, an "ultimate" truth, or anything of that nature. Clear seeing about attachment to concepts is beneficial if it leads to freedom, peace, nonconflict. Such clear seeing is by no means a way to indoctrinate others in a linguistic mode of one sort or another, to propogate a particular belief, etc. >>G: >>Another teacher I know in the Papaji tradition is one of the stricter advaita linguistic policemen I know. He never uses the word "I" when he speaks publicly or in small groups. Rather, he just says his name as though speaking in the 3rd person, or says "this form,this incarnation," or "this lifestream." (!!??!!) D: Yes, those (!!??!!) seem very called for. Warning, warning, linguist mode being propagated. Alert. Seek Nonduality Shelter immediately!! -- with love -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.