Guest guest Posted November 5, 1999 Report Share Posted November 5, 1999 >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. -- with love -- 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.