Comments about Robert Saltzman

In the AtR group https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality/permalink/4911472082227516/?__cft__[0]=AZVycLqK9QyLOhF_W5ZwjTd9fAl2wa4Vnwyd-hIuv-t_EIkif6Saes8tVWOC-zbk9_Ff0Djm3ISuACVFX3EbyYANp4KNCqnvMNLpWHnO2gXphCe6P7DCr-cJn0DDS2sez5dKrUglhXIMeIqdXLD4cgMqBIIWMb_K3vVCwAYwp1s3u9cY09ncqUqUVwnPNAxrcOs&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R some people commented about Robert Saltzman, about 'not knowing', some people think Robert Saltzman only talked about non-doership and not further insights, etc.


    Soh Wei Yu
    badge icon
    Robert Saltzman does talk a lot on non doership. Although, his insight is more than just non-doership. I have read his stuff and listened to some of his talks before, in one of his talks (or was it a facebook post) he did say that he personally went through the I AM/Eternal Witness phase as an initial kensho, before that too collapsed. His final realization is non-dual anatta, it is anatta. But so much into two-fold emptiness.
    John Tan commented before on Robert Saltzman and the 'not knowing' part.
    In response to some of the Robert Saltzman images I sent him (which were sent to me by Hale Oh):

    (Click to view)
     




     
     
    Image may contain: text

    • Reply
    • 3h
    • Edited

    • Image may contain: text

    • Reply
    • 3h

    • Image may contain: text

    • Reply
    • 3h

    • Image may contain: text

    • Reply
    • 3h

    • Soh Wei Yu
    badge icon
    John Tan responded to the above:
    I think it is very well articulated. However that is only into the first step and taste of anatta.
    After this initial anatta insight and no-mind experience, practitioners must also understand how the language that breaks experiences into subject/action/object paradigm creates confusions abt:
    1. The idea of coming, going, arising, ceasing in relation entity and characteristics. If there is no entities, what do all these mean?
    2. What is meant by "physical"? We r so used to and being so deeply hypnotized into seeing a world that is "objective"...and if we deconstruct the "objective and physical world", does it means pure subjectivity?
    So what is DO? To me, we cannot really understand DO and emptiness without deeply looking into questions...

    • Reply
    • 3h

    • Soh Wei Yu
    badge icon
    Hale Oh then sent me these which I sent JT:

    • Reply
    • 3h

    • Image may contain: text

    • Reply
    • 3h

    • Image may contain: text

    • Reply
    • 3h

    • Image may contain: text

    • Reply
    • 3h

    • Soh Wei Yu
    badge icon
    John Tan then replied:
    [9:18 AM, 1/20/2020] John Tan: No time to read yet
    [9:24 AM, 1/20/2020] John Tan: Quite ok.
    [9:43 AM, 1/20/2020] John Tan: Not exactly what I m looking for. This "aliveness", "vibrancy", without essence and self understood from essenceless-ness view...when we say materialism or oneness, pure subjectivity or objectivity, that is essence view. If it is not negating both ends with Neti Neti but by DO, then what does it mean and how does it relates to the nature of experience?
    [9:50 AM, 1/20/2020] John Tan: When the mind stop subscribing from essence view, how is one to orientate oneself and "knowing" is replace by what? Not knowing? Don't have to know? Knowing by way of "what"?
    [10:06 AM, 1/20/2020] John Tan: There is a big difference between "not knowing" and "cannot b classified as such".
    [10:34 AM, 1/20/2020] John Tan: What does the four logical arguments of the middle way do try to achieve? A state of not knowing?
    [12:51 PM, 1/21/2020] Soh Wei Yu: No.. recognition of the nature of phenomena/appearance as free from extremes like reflections

    • Reply
    • 3h
    • Edited

    André A. Pais
    badge icon
    Yes, like JT said, part of what I was trying to say to
    Broasca Om
     is that 'not knowing' feels to me like the "dumb" cousin of 'knowing that which is beyond conceptual elaboration', or 'the view free from ontological extremes'.
    1

    • Reply
    • 3h
    • Edited

    • André A. Pais
    badge icon
    We're not going through profound and complex philosophical analysis and deconstruction to end up with 'not knowing'. That also was one of my criticisms concerning the little I read from Peter Brown.
    1

  • Reply
  • 3h
      Geovani Geo
      André
       writes, "I'm talking about knowing the nature of phenomena, not non-conceptual concentration."
      Are you trying to mean that you, that anyone, can know the nature of phenomena? What would such nature be?

      • Reply
      • 3h

      • André A. Pais
      badge icon
      Isn't that the whole point of this inquiry? Natureless nature is one way of put it.

      • Reply
      • 2h

      • Soh Wei Yu
      badge icon
      Jun
      09
      Wetness and Water
      Malcolm:
      The idea that things have natures is refuted by Nāgārjuna in the MMK, etc., Bhavaviveka, Candrakīrti, etc., in short by all Madhyamakas.
      A "non-inherent nature" is a contradiction in terms.
      The error of mundane, conventionally-valid perception is to believe that entities have natures, when in fact they do not, being phenomena that arise from conditions. It is quite easy to show a worldly person the contradiction in their thinking. Wetness and water are not two different things; therefore wetness is not the nature of water. Heat and fire are not two different things, therefore, heat is not the nature of fire, etc. For example, one can ask them, "Does wetness depend on water, or water on wetness?" If they claim wetness depends on water, ask them, where is there water that exists without wetness? If they claim the opposite, that water depends on wetness, ask them, where is there wetness that exists without water? If there is no wetness without water nor water without wetness, they can easily be shown that wetness is not a nature of water, but merely a name for the same entity under discussion. Thus, the assertion that wetness is the nature of water cannot survive analysis. The assertion of all other natures can be eliminated in the same way.
      ...
      Then not only are you ignorant of the English language, but you are ignorant of Candrakīrti where, in the Prasannapāda, he states that the only nature is the natureless nature, emptiness.
      Then, if it is asked what is this dharmatā of phenomena, it is the essence of phenomena. If it is ask what is an essence, it is a nature [or an inherent existence, rang bzhin]. If it is asked what is an inherent existence [or nature], it is emptiness. If it is asked what is emptiness, it is naturelessness [or absence of inherent existence]. If it is asked what is the absence of inherent existence [or naturelessness], it is suchness [tathāta]. If it is asked what is suchness, it is the essence of suchness that is unchanging and permanent, that is, because it is not fabricated it does not arise in all aspects and because it is not dependent, it is called the nature [or inherent existence] of fire, etc."
      Labels: Ācārya Malcolm Smith, Emptiness, Madhyamaka |
      DHARMAWHEEL.NET
      Mipham: Gelug = Svatantrika Madhyamaka - Page 2 - Dharma Wheel
      Mipham: Gelug = Svatantrika Madhyamaka - Page 2 - Dharma Wheel

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 11m

Labels: , | edit post
0 Responses
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)