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

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)

 











 
 

• 
  
• •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 3h
  •  · 
    Edited
• 
  
Soh Wei Yu


• 
  
• •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 3h
• 
  
Soh Wei Yu


• 
  
• •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 3h
• 
  
Soh Wei Yu


• 
  
• •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 3h
• 
  
Soh Wei Yu

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

Hale Oh then sent me these which I sent JT:
• 
  
• •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 3h
• 
  
Soh Wei Yu














• 
  
• •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 3h
• 
  
Soh Wei Yu


• 
  
• •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 3h
• 
  
Soh Wei Yu


• 
  
• •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 3h
• 
  
Soh Wei Yu

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

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

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
  
  Isn't that the whole point of this inquiry? Natureless nature is one way of put it.
  • 
    
  • •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 2h
  • 
    
  Soh Wei Yu
  
  Geovani Geo
  Jun
  09
  Wetness and Water
  https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=28648&start=20
  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
  
  

• Yuan Yin Lao Ren left behind tens of thousands of sarira (colorful relics - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Aar%C4%ABra)
  

   

  Another Chinese teacher clearly expressing anatta.

  John Tan, “Yes very good. But difficult to translate 境”

  元音老人, 1990, full article in http://www.book853.com/show.aspx?page=2&&id=1380&cid=22

  Excerpt:

  良由真心如鏡光，一切色、聲、香、味、觸、法，皆如鏡中所現之影。凡夫愚昧無知，背鏡光而取影，造業受報，生死不了；二乘聖人，雖不著塵境，但又背鏡影而住光，以有所住，又成法妄，只了分段生死，不了變易生死；一乘學者，悟透佛法、世法，不即鏡影，亦不離鏡影。以一切影像皆是鏡光所成，鏡即是影，影即是鏡；離鏡無影，離影無鏡，既不可背鏡住影，亦無須離影求鏡。既深知影鏡皆無所住，當能心無愛憎之情，境無取捨之住。

  故學者不必怕妄，但深契一乘玄旨，於境無取無捨，無喜無瞋，則妄自除矣。

  .....

  第七句：「問心何來？因境而起。」

  「心本無生因境有！」這是毘舍浮佛的名言？我人之心—即思想本來沒有因對境而生起影像，執著不捨，才生起妄想，這就是心。這個心是根—心、塵—境集合而生起的，所以叫作「集起為心」，它是六塵落謝的影子，純屬虛幻，無有實體。佛經中所說的「一切唯心造」和「三界唯心，萬法唯識」的「心」字就是指這個由客觀外境反映而生起的虛幻影像心，所以它也是外境，也是客體，而且也不離物質，不可把它看作主觀的心！當作主宰世界的真神而寶貝它。我們做功夫，既要不著森羅萬象的外境！更要把這幻影妄心銷盡。所謂內而身心，外而世界一起銷殞，妙明真心，方才現前。反是，把這虛幻心當作主觀實體！真性就被掩沒不見了。因之！我們所說「一切唯心造」的「心」字！是把它視作被消滅的客觀對象來處理的！並非說它是萬物的主宰者，這要請廣大學佛者搞清楚，不要誤會才好！

  第八句：「境亦不有！同屬幻影！」

  經云：「心不自心，因境故心；境不自境，因心故境。」這就把心與境，境與心的相因相成的關係說得一清二楚。心既因境而有，境亦不能離心獨立，因境係因緣生！無有自體。比如鏡影！雖有萬別千差之相，如無鏡光，影不能現；境亦如是，無心境無成，即或有美景佳境，無心領受鑒賞，有亦同無。以境不自境，不自謂為美妙勝境也。心與境既相對而生，離一即無，則境與心，皆非真實，同屬虛幻之影明矣。或許有人要說，娑婆世界所有景物，皆我人共業所招的業果，假而非真，謂為幻影，可以說得；至於西方極樂世界，乃阿彌陀佛多生歷劫精勤修行，為廣大眾生造福，積累功德，緣熟果滿所感之真境，似不可謂為幻影。

  關於這一點，確應好好討論一下。因為現在修淨土的人很多，如不把淨土真相搞清楚，不明白淨土究竟是怎麼一回事，修行起來不易得力，更談不到深證念佛三昧，上品往生了。

  首先就相來說，娑婆是業障眾生造業所招的五濁惡果，而極樂是彌陀願滿德圓所感的清淨世界，故一是穢濁醜惡，一是美妙莊嚴，大有區別。但土從心生，離心無土，離土無心；心即土，土即心。故經云：「欲淨其土，先淨其心！」「隨其心淨，即佛土淨！」是教我人識得淨土為何物，好下手用功證取，以免徒取外相，流入歧途。

  既然土外無心，心外無土，心土不相分離，而一真法界—真心—又在聖不增，在凡不減，則極樂淨土係從淨妙真心中流出，而娑婆穢土離清淨佛性亦何可得？以是，極樂雖淨，娑婆雖穢，同是真心中顯現之影像，猶如鏡光中顯現之影，雖有形式之殊，淨穢之別，但皆如水中之月，了不可得，絕不可因極樂為淨月影而妄謂可得也。

  次就真假來說，『金剛經』謂：「凡所有相，皆是虛妄！」以相如上文所說皆鏡中之影了不可得，故假而非真，絕不因淨、穢、美、醜而分真假，所以極樂國土，雖盡善盡美，亦是虛妄之相。進一步來說，說真道假，皆是我等凡夫執相立名，妄加分別之過。以所謂真假，乃相對而有，離一即不可得，故皆假名。真假既相對而有，則說真之時，假即在其中矣；說假之時，真亦在其中矣。諺云：「假作真時真亦假。」於無真假處妄作真假，寧非庸人自擾？

  復次，鏡必顯影故，有真心不無假相，無相無從顯示真心，故『彌陀經』宣示極樂莊嚴；影不離鏡故，有假相不無真心，無真心無從成其假相，故『金剛經』顯示妙體，一法不立。性相既不相離，密切有如水之與波，故見相即見性，無有一物可當情，故謂全假即真；見性不廢相，圓成差別妙用，故謂全真即假。真假假真，全是我人妄心作祟，實則靈妙真心，一物不立，有何真假之可言哉？

  故如說極樂世界是真，則娑婆世界亦真；如謂娑婆係假，則極樂亦假。故淨穢二土皆從一真法界中流出，絕不可因在纏凡夫，迷昧真心，造業受報，而否定其靈性，謂所現穢土業相，非從佛性真心中宣流也。

  再說極樂世界，有四土九品之別。最下層凡聖同居土，雖有種種莊嚴妙相，但方便有餘土與實報莊嚴土，則土愈高而相愈清淡妙微，至最高常寂光淨土，則更淨妙微明而一相不立。雖一相不立，亦不出上述三土之外。故執相修行者，只得下品往生，空相見性者，始能往生上品。以是真修淨土者，既不執相，亦不廢相，只一切放下，端身正坐，誠心敬意，執持名號，以呼吸為數珠，晝夜六時，綿綿密密念去，久久不懈，自得念佛三昧。到那時，不等命終生西，已早預上品蓮位矣。

  book853.com

  淺釋_『悟心銘』淺釋　元音老人著

  2 Comments

  Comments

  • 
    

  Soh Wei Yu

  2008, John Tan:

  (12:34 AM) Thusness: 元音老人

  (12:38 AM) Thusness: Too bad. He is the level of practitioner I m looking for.

  (12:38 AM) Thusness: But dead liao.

   

  (12:48 AM) Thusness: One that broke the stage 5 and understand 6 but no philosophical concepts

  (12:48 AM) Thusness: Direct experience

   

  (12:50 AM) Thusness: he is the sort of practitioner I seek for.

  (12:50 AM) Thusness: Self liberation
• 
  
• •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 1h
  •  · 
    Edited
• 
  
Soh Wei Yu
https://baike.baidu.com/item/元音老人