Don, thank you for sharing this conversation. I found it insightful, and I particularly appreciate your honesty about experiencing the tightening and loosening dynamic during the discussion itself—that is a truly important piece of self-data.
I also had a lengthy exchange with Robert and found myself in a similar place, where I had to acknowledge his philosophical premise while recognizing that my own experience didn't fit neatly into his 100% deterministic, closed system. I see my experience far more reflected in your journey.
I want to offer a way to affirm the reality of your six years of practice without needing to cling to the idea of a chooser-self that Robert rightly critiques:
1. Validating Functional Causality: When Robert frames your practice as mere correlation (like "weather"), he misses the powerful, subtle causation affirmed in the deeper Buddhist concept of skillful action (kusala kamma). Your consistent meditation is not an external magical intervention; it is the action that establishes the necessary conditional environment for change. Over six years, your mind wasn't choosing the result; it was building the conditional readiness for calmness, empathy, and clarity to arise.
2. The Proof of Emergent Capacity: In my own journey, I also saw the deterministic trap—the trauma reflex running its course, unstoppable by simple "will." The breakthrough wasn't philosophical acceptance; it was achieving functional integration. This process led to the emergence of a new capacity—a pause—where none existed before. This pause isn't the act of a permanent agent; it's the new, skillful condition of the regulated system itself. Your experience of increased empathy is the natural emergent property of a mind that is now structurally calmer.
3. Reframing the Self: Robert rightly points out that the self is an illusion, but your experience points to a functional self that can be optimized. Your sustained practice is not proof of a fictional agent striving for status; it is proof that the mind can leverage its own conditional plasticity to reorganize itself.
Ultimately, Don, I believe your experience affirms that calmness is not an external condition we wait for; it is a skillful condition we create through consistent practice. Thank you for sharing your path.
Thank you very much for this, Jay. You’ve put into words my suspicion; that regardless of the ethereal, non-physical nature of “self,” it still functions, it still has a part to play in the creation of conditions that then alter its path. I understand when Robert says that in the long chain of cause and effect, there is no place where a “me” can insert itself, but that doesn’t render the functions of the “thought process” we call self illegitimate and false.
It might help me to drop goals when I meditate and to be wary of reinforcing the goal seeker, but it doesn’t mean don’t meditate. It DOES ease the stress and anxiety of wondering if I’m “making mistakes” or following the correct path. It DOES make me feel more like a natural flowing organic entity that needn’t struggle so much. To trust in what my body and mind do on their own without inserting a third disruptive entity that doesn’t really know what’s going on.
Don, I think that podcast episode really might clarify some of what you are asking. If you are interested, you might also read my lengthy discussion with him to understand better where I come from. I have laid out my own inner healing process there in the most detailed manner so far.
I couldn’t agree more! I’ve written about these same points in my own work and have attempted at length on multiple occasions, with little to no success, to open Robert to these different understandings. He is deeply committed to his position and rigorously uses AI to respond to his critics with the up-front goal of making “no concession” to their critiques, no matter how much sense they make.
Yes, Aaron. That was my understanding as well. Answering and driving engagement for the single purpose to “Be Right”. I no way to create a dialog. I have disengaged, agreed to disagree and won’t engage again.
I read Robert’s book The Ten Thousand Things when it was first published in 2018. I discovered Don’s work when I started writing on Substack and thought he might be interested in what Robert had/has to say.
As far as the impact Robert’s book had on me when I first read it? I think it’s safe to say that ever since I read the book, the subject matter of these types of discussions no longer interests me to the extent it once did. I thank Robert for that, and I’m at peace with it.
Except for Robert there's no one there who chose to do anything or could take credit. What happens simply happens and couldn't be otherwise. After studying Robert's position and engaging in respectful discussions with him, I see little to no difference between his message and that of Radical Non-duality - a view which I've seen have very real and negative consequences for people.
I will chime in on this conversation with a couple of points.
1) I don't think it's necessary or helpful to try to "open" or influence someone with whom I don't agree, especially if they have not asked for my opinion and are not trying to influence or change me (Saltzman, in most of his posts, makes it clear he is speaking "from this side of the glass" or "as he sees it.") Saltzman is presenting some ideas. We can take what we need and leave the rest.
2) Saltzman says that he makes no claims that cannot be evidenced. In regards to spirituality, divinity, life's big unanswerable questions, he will not speak or make statements of unproven fact. "I don't know" is a complete sentence. I actually respect this, and have adopted the policy.
2) I was recently given a bit of a dressing down from a reader after I posted my opinion on communicators who don't take the time to be kind or acknowledge your contribution before positing their own position. This woman reminded me that 20% of the population has some degree of neurodivergence, and one of the top symptoms is difficulty with communication, especially with being able to maintain these social niceties that we all expect. This doesn't mean we should shut them down. Her message opened my mind and my heart.
4) Not the three of you, Jay, Aaron, and Paul, but many people seem to have strong emotional reactions when reading Saltzman. And then they lash out at him. I think the reaction says more about them than Saltzman and that might be an opportunity for them to try to understand their own feelings of defensiveness.
Don, I wholeheartedly agree for the need to have respectful, level-headed communications with others (whether on Substack or life in general). However, I also think that unlike overhearing a conversation at a local coffee shop and butting in to open someone to a new way of thinking, influence them, or try to convince them that what they're saying is incorrect, Substack is a place where those types of conversations can and are meant to be had, with humility and intellectual honesty. If people aren't interested in engaging in such dialogue, that's fine. Nothing can be forced. But I do think Substack offers a unique opportunity to share one's ideas, have them respectfully questioned, critiqued, and analyzed for the purpose of coming to deeper understandings of ourself and the world. This has always been my approach, but it obviously requires a certain level of maturity, humility, honesty, and willingness to do so.
Of course, Aaron, and I hope I didn't imply that we should avoid all disagreements or conflict. If two or more people voluntarily engage in a respectful and open-minded debate about a concept or idea, that's good for them. I can't tell you how many lessons I've learned in that way.
However, I do not think that that is RS's goal in his writings. You mentioned trying several times, without success, to "open" him to your perspective. His style is professorial, his posts are lectures, and he is willing and open to questions, which give him the opportunity to further elucidate his position. But he does not seem open to being dissuaded. That is just a fact. This does turn some people off, and I can understand it.
I will confess that his first response to my Substack Note threw me off kilter, it wounded my ego, and it took me a full day to recover. Then, when I was able to engage from a non-reactive place, I continued the conversation, and ended up appreciating some ideas that I could add to my hat for consideration. I'm not swallowing his perspective whole, and that would be foolhardy anyway, no matter how right or wrong. One must come to one's own understandings through direct experience.
I understand that Robert and I aren't going to be friends, that he is more a writer of books and essays that a "communicator" per se. I think that because this is Substack, many of us have different expectations, and at least desire to be treated as someone with valid counterpoints.
For me it's just a matter of understanding whom I'm speaking with. As they say, you don't go to the hardware store for a loaf of bread. 😊
Don, I am in agreement with what you are writing. We can always agree to disagree without lashing out or ridiculing the other person; different opinions are both valid and necessary.
I hadn’t read Robert before, and after our exchange, I can only say that I come from a different biography and position. I respect his position as being as valid as my own; we all arrived at our “current” views because of our life histories. Whenever possible, I try to see people as singular subjects and treat them as such. Thank you again for your addition and engagement.
With regard to communication, I don't think it even requires neurodivergence to struggle. Most people have never truly learned how to communicate without creating barriers. It seems to be the most common form of communication—one that often prevents us from truly hearing one another.
Paul, thank you for sharing that. It is interesting to hear how Robert’s work provided a sense of completion or a "final" interest in these topics for you. I can certainly respect finding that kind of peace.
For myself, I find I am coming currently from a different direction—less focused on the philosophical conclusion and more interested in the real-time mechanics of how our systems actually function and integrate. It is always fascinating to see how the same material meets different people in such distinct ways.
Thank you, Jay. I don’t think Robert’s work provided a sense of completion or closed off any final interest since some of my writing touches on areas of identity, the self, etc, and always will in some way, I suspect. Rather, the entire scope of the topic drives many people to want “to be right.” I don’t need to be right. I just need to be.
What a fantastic interview, Don, and another great photo of you with the donkey (so cute).
This really struck me: "Clarity isn’t chosen. It isn’t earned. It isn’t the result of meditation or mindful effort. Like every other configuration of the system, it appears when the conditions tilt that way and disappears when they don’t."
As I was reading the exchange between you and Robert, a question formed: How does all of this apply to people with trauma? I've read a fair amount about PTSD and cPTSD from the viewpoint of psychology and spirituality mostly, and I wonder how trapped or unresolved trauma may influence a person's reactions or responses to others, as well as their need for control or solutions/answers.
There seems to me, from both personal experience and in speaking with others who are working on unraveling their own trauma history, that there is a common thread among us that involves this propensity to reflexively react from a place of fear--which often translates into "What can I control? What can I change? How can I make this better/improve/make the violence or abuse stop?" I wonder what part of a human's nervous system may be responding in the fight/flight/freeze/fawn default when this happens? I don't have answers, just wondering.
When I see a slew of comments that seem to be written from a place of reactivity, my default thought is this: "I wonder what trauma they are speaking/writing from." I see a lot of the reactivity in this world as a symptom of what some experts call collective trauma, as well.
What a beautiful and freeing place to be able to say to onseself, "I don't need clarity. It will come in its time" or to allow life to wax/wane as it will, without trying to force things to change or happen before the right time comes along. Surrender and detachment are incredibly difficult for me personally, and every time I open up your essays and read, I learn something new. Really, Don, your essays speak into a place that I find to be a gentle invitation. Thank you for that.
Thank you so much for reading this, Jeannie. I so appreciate how you always find the positive in what you read.
I think that trauma response is a pretty good example of our choiceless response to conditions. And I think, as Robert says, even our carefully weighed out decisions are influenced by a host of past and present conditions, many or most of them unIdentified at the time of decision making.
Thank you, Jeannie, it’s always such a pleasure to hear from you.
Hahaha, Don, the picture of you AND the donkey is adorable! I love the bright smile on your face. :)
Yes, this has been a great discussion. Jay pointed me to a separate conversation thread between her and Robert that addresses the matter of trauma as it relates to the way we view ourselves and interact in the world. That’s been quite eye-opening.
I agree—these conversations are always edifying to me!
Hey Jeannie, have you read “The Body Keeps the Score” by Bessel Van Der Kolk? BTW, sometimes people don’t react from a place of trauma, sometimes, as seems evident here, one reacts from a place of grandiose egotism and pomposity. I mean, c’mon Robert, read the room—I almost felt I needed to send him a tuition check, but then thought, naw, I’d drop his course in a New York minute.
Yes, “The Body Keeps the Score” was one of the first books on trauma I read, which opened the rabbit trail to other trauma writers and researchers (Peter Levine is one).
I also agree that sometimes people react from a place of grandiosity and hubris. I don’t try to discern which is which in digital spaces, because I know that we are lacking the nuances necessary to make that kind of determination—body language, tonal inflection, facial expressions, etc.
It does seem, in general, that most people react rather than respond. I believe that is a default trauma indicator, based on what I know—whether or not the people themselves realize it. And I do believe in the existence of collective trauma, which is, in part, what motivates me to show up radically differently by being intentional, listening, holding space for divergent beliefs and lifestyles, etc.
What did you mean by “I almost felt I needed to send him a tuition check, but then I thought, naw, I’d drop his course in a New York minute.” I did smile when I read that. :)
We were being given, courtesy of Don’s open space, free of charge and unasked for, an esoteric lecture with BIGLY words to describe simple concepts. It wasn’t an interview.
Seems I had a visceral reaction to the feeling tone of the words, which I took as intentional—and my reaction, to the best of my knowledge, isn’t based on a trauma experience, neither individual or generational.
Van der Kolk’s work transformed how “we” did school, as a staff, in service to all our kids. I’m a disciple of Peter Levine as well. Same with Gabor Maté.
So what I am reading in your response here, Kert, is that your visceral reaction to this essay was not what you believe would be based on a trauma response? I can respect that.
When I write of collective trauma, it's not exclusively generational. It's broader than that, at least the way I've come to understand it. My hunch, based on my observations in digital spaces and in real life, is that most of us have defaulted to a reactive way of being. If we're emotionally activated, we impulsively or reflexively act without taking time to pause and process. I do think that is evidence of what might be called collective trauma, whether or not an individual has experienced trauma in their own life or within their family.
Also, what does BIGLY mean?
I love Dr. Mate's work, as well. I've read all of his books.
"100% deterministic closed system" says Jay in comments. This resonates more with "me" than Robert's metaphorical finger poking your chest--and "mine."
And, your composure and generosity in words toward Robert's ideas speaks volumes about your steadily developing skillful effort.
I wonder how Robert thinks the weather conditions come about. Makes me wonder about his politics, too, as does just about anybody says or does these days.
Thank you, Don, for sharing your considered thoughts.
This all sounds like a discussion of karma to me. What I've gotten out of my study is, it's what my intention is right now that's important. No matter how terrible all the past stuff is I have to make a choice type or not type. Who cares what drives that? Can I say something skillful now? How do you do something skillful? By applying close attention to the results you are getting from the action you take now. Worrying about all the conditions that got me here doesn't help, it's this moment now.
As a young man I was all about self improvement. Then it became self acceptance. Then I began to drop the self. Good luck finding a fixed self anyway - I'm not even the same person I was when I started writing this comment!
I think about that a lot; how memory creates the illusion of a little 10-year-old boy being the very same entity as this 61-year-old body. And yet those memories exist nowhere except as a neural pathway of images that can be activated in the brain.
Thanks Don! People like Robert have an alienating effect on people like me. It isn’t helpful. You bridge the gap - that’s really nice.
My thoughts on this subject are running parallel to yours I believe, though I’m not trying to get rid of the “me” just yet. I’m exploring the idea of environment supporting or hindering the development of a person (I have young children and have also been struggling personally with accepting responsibility that isn’t mine to accept.)
I do believe we can choose to create an environment that supports ourselves. Maybe technically something external caused that, and the way I was born resulted in my response, and therefore I have no control - but that’s not terrifically helpful. Because there is a moment of choice. I’m not fixed. Last night I sat with really uncomfortable thoughts and my journal. I wrote two lines. I reached for my phone and started scrolling. I watched myself do that, went back to the journal, and acknowledged the deep and subconscious avoidance of what would actually make me feel better but that was harder.
I think there’s a balance between self and non-self. The level of non-self that acknowledges that the journal writing choice was built into me and is just a fact, not a virtue, is helpful. It removes the judgment that is easy to have when people with similar struggles can’t see the solution that worked for you! Or even the judgement on earlier week’s self that just scrolled.
But the perception of self that says “I have a choice here - shall I write or scroll?” gives me some agency when so much is genuinely outside my control. I think Robert’s perception is that choice is an illusion. And he may very well be right- I think he technically is.
Still. I’ve chosen to bring art, journaling, meditation, and community into my life and the lives of my family by creating the space for them and assigning them a priority equal with dinner, dishes, laundry, and paid work. I have observed an increase in moments of happiness and clarity and equanimity and compassion.
Thank you, Heather. I very much appreciate and resonate with your thoughts on this. I’m going to absorb the comments and conversations on this post, allow them to enter the mix, and wait and see where my mind would like to go next 😊
Not just on “people like you,” Heather. Adjectives like pompous, egotistical, superior, bellicose, kept surfacing as I was reading. Dianne, elsewhere here, captured it 100% accurately: his “metaphorical finger poking your chest—and mine.” We’ve been duly poked. But, seeing as he’s not a part of “my system,” I’ve let him go his merry way, grateful I’m not a paying grad student of his.
Kert, I presented this conversation between RS and me without judgement, and certainly without name calling. RS did the same in responding to me.
He is describing things “as he sees It,” “from here,” and “from this side of the glass,” as he makes clear.
The man, I assume, responded to my original Substack because I made an implication, by using his quote to back my view on meditation and mindfulness, that he supported my view. He did not. Therefore, I basically invited him to share how he sees things. He is my guest here.
I'll admit that I'm not in a place to fully understand this conversation, Don. My mind--determined to stick with what it thinks it knows--reacts to these concepts the way it reacts to the idea of time travel. 🤯
What I can say with greater certainty is that I appreciate your willingness to explore, ask, assert, and learn. That part, for me, is marvelous!
Elizabeth, I can’t even begin to tell you how much I appreciate your comment. Thank you for hanging in there. Though I didn’t accompany the post with much side explanation, I think you discovered the reason I shared this conversation.
What was going on for me outside this back-and-forth with RS is the real story. When the man first commented on my Substack Note, my ego took a pretty hard blow (because he basically invalidated my position and left me doubting my meditation and mindfulness practice of the last six years). I was in a bit of a funk for about a day and a half. I didn’t want to tell my wife why, because I knew she would support me by criticizing RS, and I didn’t want that. I knew it was about me, not him.
I somehow came back to a non-reactive state (probably by thinking about the fact that thoughts and feelings are just non-physical, temporary “arisings” and not proof that anything is fundamentally wrong in my world) and continued the conversation. In the process, I managed to collect a few tidbits to put under my hat for consideration. And, more importantly, I managed to separate my needs for support or validation from this person’s imparting of information as he sees it (he’s more like a textbook than a healer).
You get and learn a lot more from this world when you put yourself in an open position of intelligent and discerning reception rather than a constricted position of need. I think that the more you need from others, the more you warp what you receive as good or bad, welcome or unwelcome.
In a recent "compassionate communications" session, I discovered -- or rediscovered -- that one of the most powerful tools I have at my disposal is to pause before reacting. I also explored (I certainly haven't reached mastery yet) the value of identifying which of my needs aren't being met when I become defensive, ashamed, sad, or any number of feelings we perceive as negative. One need that comes up for me a lot is choice. I'm uncomfortable when told how to think, feel, or act because choice is something I value. Had it been me in this conversation, that one would have been jumping up and down. ☺️
That makes sense. I’ve been meditating for six years and now this guy is trying to tell me that any consequences, like calm or empathy, are only mutual unrelated arisings? I still think I may be misunderstanding, because RS also claims that he never makes speculative claims that cannot be proven.
But anyway, Elizabeth, I think that’s pretty cool that you went to a compassionate communications session. That sounds right up my alley!
This is a spectacular article Don! It is a favorite here. There are so many great quotes. This one may be my favorite for both impact and simplicity. “Seeing that desires arise unchosen but determine behavior, is the release from personal authorship I mentioned.”
“Seeing no doer” is game over. I did enjoy the cause and effect question and answer. Darryl Bailey has a similar answer.
So, here is my question Don. Did the implications of what you write about here clarify anything regarding the relationship with your kids in the “apparent past?”
The reason I ask is the implications “might appear” to be healing in the story based on this exchange.
Thank you so much, Ben. Apparently, a lot of people read The Ten Thousand Things and then have a similar "game over" sentiment, thus ending their spiritual search.
I really appreciate the question about how these views help my relationship with my kids. It's been a long and difficult road, for sure, and I am ever-evolving my ability to absorb my kids' alienation from me. As you know, one is not speaking to me; the other will reply to my texts but never reaches out on their own.
I would be lying if I said the "release from personal authorship" removes the pain. It doesn't. But I do very much understand that I have not been "chosen" to suffer more than anyone else, that conditions were such that my children learned to mistrust me. The causes are complex, and at this point, pretty irrelevant. It's not their fault at all. So I live with a broken heart but no resentment, hatred, or desire for revenge. Just a sadness.
Another way understanding the lack of a self helps is that I can actually stand back and accept all of my feelings as just arising conditions, "weather." I don't beat myself up for, for example, choosing not to go and pound on my son's door begging him to forgive me for my early absence in his life, like a father in the movies might do. He has been very hostile and angry, and after enough of that, I'm just standing by. Knowing that there is no such thing as a moral authority helps with the guilt that accompanies that.
I have been wanting to ask this question for some time because I wanted some relief for you in some form and it appeared that this kind of discussion may be it.
However, what arose here was “keep your big mouth shut Ben! The world doesn’t hang in balance for your prying. Also, there was an Indefinable sense that more was afoot than what was arising and here it is!!!
We, your readers, scored an awesome article, and I am reading the best possible response to a question I have been pondering for some time,
Thank you for the well crafted response Don! It was my highest and best hope for the situation given where it is at currently. 🙏
Dear Don, I follow your posts because you describe your awakening life in regular language and relate it to what you actually experience. Please keep doing that.
Thank you, Musho. Fear not, my voice isn’t going anywhere! Next week I’m going to share a children’s poem I wrote, which is very much rooted in my childhood experience, and the following week is probably going to be the post I had originally planned for this week, in which I share how I actually put my back out trying to prove to myself that I was a good meditator. I learned an unforgettable lesson that day! I also plan to tell more stories about my experience as a sensitive shy guy working on construction crews, and being married to a person who resented my inner life and personal aspirations.
I may come back with a longer comment after I have a chance to think on this for a bit.
For now though, what I'm taking away is that even though I've been thinking about adopting things like meditation and mindfulness, according to Dr. Saltzman, when the conditions are right, I'll just start doing them, it won't have been a choice.
Or you WON'T start doing them, but either way, I think all he is saying is that our decisions are predicated on a vast host of past and present conditions, even when we carefully balance out the options and believe we ourselves are the sole decision maker.
Fascinating. I don’t understand a word of it and it doesn’t change what I think about anything. Nonetheless, I am content to acknowledge it. I don’t understand quantum mechanics either and that is OK too.
Thank you for reading it, Craig. I don’t think words are sufficient for these ideas. It’s like trying to describe the taste of a banana to someone who has never eaten one; pointless. I appreciate your honesty!
Don, thank you for sharing this conversation. I found it insightful, and I particularly appreciate your honesty about experiencing the tightening and loosening dynamic during the discussion itself—that is a truly important piece of self-data.
I also had a lengthy exchange with Robert and found myself in a similar place, where I had to acknowledge his philosophical premise while recognizing that my own experience didn't fit neatly into his 100% deterministic, closed system. I see my experience far more reflected in your journey.
I want to offer a way to affirm the reality of your six years of practice without needing to cling to the idea of a chooser-self that Robert rightly critiques:
1. Validating Functional Causality: When Robert frames your practice as mere correlation (like "weather"), he misses the powerful, subtle causation affirmed in the deeper Buddhist concept of skillful action (kusala kamma). Your consistent meditation is not an external magical intervention; it is the action that establishes the necessary conditional environment for change. Over six years, your mind wasn't choosing the result; it was building the conditional readiness for calmness, empathy, and clarity to arise.
2. The Proof of Emergent Capacity: In my own journey, I also saw the deterministic trap—the trauma reflex running its course, unstoppable by simple "will." The breakthrough wasn't philosophical acceptance; it was achieving functional integration. This process led to the emergence of a new capacity—a pause—where none existed before. This pause isn't the act of a permanent agent; it's the new, skillful condition of the regulated system itself. Your experience of increased empathy is the natural emergent property of a mind that is now structurally calmer.
3. Reframing the Self: Robert rightly points out that the self is an illusion, but your experience points to a functional self that can be optimized. Your sustained practice is not proof of a fictional agent striving for status; it is proof that the mind can leverage its own conditional plasticity to reorganize itself.
Ultimately, Don, I believe your experience affirms that calmness is not an external condition we wait for; it is a skillful condition we create through consistent practice. Thank you for sharing your path.
Thank you very much for this, Jay. You’ve put into words my suspicion; that regardless of the ethereal, non-physical nature of “self,” it still functions, it still has a part to play in the creation of conditions that then alter its path. I understand when Robert says that in the long chain of cause and effect, there is no place where a “me” can insert itself, but that doesn’t render the functions of the “thought process” we call self illegitimate and false.
It might help me to drop goals when I meditate and to be wary of reinforcing the goal seeker, but it doesn’t mean don’t meditate. It DOES ease the stress and anxiety of wondering if I’m “making mistakes” or following the correct path. It DOES make me feel more like a natural flowing organic entity that needn’t struggle so much. To trust in what my body and mind do on their own without inserting a third disruptive entity that doesn’t really know what’s going on.
Thanks, Jay!
Don, I think that podcast episode really might clarify some of what you are asking. If you are interested, you might also read my lengthy discussion with him to understand better where I come from. I have laid out my own inner healing process there in the most detailed manner so far.
I would love to read your discussion with Robert, Jay, but it might be hard for me to find. Are you able to link it here?
Here is my comment thread with Richard, it is quite long…https://robertsaltzman.substack.com/p/there-is-no-otherwise/comment/186174160?r=1sss7q&utm_medium=ios
Well, Don, I’m glad to see you and Robert are having some interesting, hopefully useful, interactions.
Thank you for the introduction, Paul!
I couldn’t agree more! I’ve written about these same points in my own work and have attempted at length on multiple occasions, with little to no success, to open Robert to these different understandings. He is deeply committed to his position and rigorously uses AI to respond to his critics with the up-front goal of making “no concession” to their critiques, no matter how much sense they make.
Yes, Aaron. That was my understanding as well. Answering and driving engagement for the single purpose to “Be Right”. I no way to create a dialog. I have disengaged, agreed to disagree and won’t engage again.
Thanks, Don. Life is the way it is, even if you don’t believe it.
That’s exactly my approach, Paul. As Greg Brown puts it, “Life ain’t what you think it is, it’s just what it is.“
I read Robert’s book The Ten Thousand Things when it was first published in 2018. I discovered Don’s work when I started writing on Substack and thought he might be interested in what Robert had/has to say.
As far as the impact Robert’s book had on me when I first read it? I think it’s safe to say that ever since I read the book, the subject matter of these types of discussions no longer interests me to the extent it once did. I thank Robert for that, and I’m at peace with it.
Paul, I think Robert would feel that he'd done his job well haha! 😆
Except for Robert there's no one there who chose to do anything or could take credit. What happens simply happens and couldn't be otherwise. After studying Robert's position and engaging in respectful discussions with him, I see little to no difference between his message and that of Radical Non-duality - a view which I've seen have very real and negative consequences for people.
I can't get into a discussion about non-duality because I'm not well informed, but I do know that Saltzman is not a proponent.
I will chime in on this conversation with a couple of points.
1) I don't think it's necessary or helpful to try to "open" or influence someone with whom I don't agree, especially if they have not asked for my opinion and are not trying to influence or change me (Saltzman, in most of his posts, makes it clear he is speaking "from this side of the glass" or "as he sees it.") Saltzman is presenting some ideas. We can take what we need and leave the rest.
2) Saltzman says that he makes no claims that cannot be evidenced. In regards to spirituality, divinity, life's big unanswerable questions, he will not speak or make statements of unproven fact. "I don't know" is a complete sentence. I actually respect this, and have adopted the policy.
2) I was recently given a bit of a dressing down from a reader after I posted my opinion on communicators who don't take the time to be kind or acknowledge your contribution before positing their own position. This woman reminded me that 20% of the population has some degree of neurodivergence, and one of the top symptoms is difficulty with communication, especially with being able to maintain these social niceties that we all expect. This doesn't mean we should shut them down. Her message opened my mind and my heart.
4) Not the three of you, Jay, Aaron, and Paul, but many people seem to have strong emotional reactions when reading Saltzman. And then they lash out at him. I think the reaction says more about them than Saltzman and that might be an opportunity for them to try to understand their own feelings of defensiveness.
Don, I wholeheartedly agree for the need to have respectful, level-headed communications with others (whether on Substack or life in general). However, I also think that unlike overhearing a conversation at a local coffee shop and butting in to open someone to a new way of thinking, influence them, or try to convince them that what they're saying is incorrect, Substack is a place where those types of conversations can and are meant to be had, with humility and intellectual honesty. If people aren't interested in engaging in such dialogue, that's fine. Nothing can be forced. But I do think Substack offers a unique opportunity to share one's ideas, have them respectfully questioned, critiqued, and analyzed for the purpose of coming to deeper understandings of ourself and the world. This has always been my approach, but it obviously requires a certain level of maturity, humility, honesty, and willingness to do so.
Of course, Aaron, and I hope I didn't imply that we should avoid all disagreements or conflict. If two or more people voluntarily engage in a respectful and open-minded debate about a concept or idea, that's good for them. I can't tell you how many lessons I've learned in that way.
However, I do not think that that is RS's goal in his writings. You mentioned trying several times, without success, to "open" him to your perspective. His style is professorial, his posts are lectures, and he is willing and open to questions, which give him the opportunity to further elucidate his position. But he does not seem open to being dissuaded. That is just a fact. This does turn some people off, and I can understand it.
I will confess that his first response to my Substack Note threw me off kilter, it wounded my ego, and it took me a full day to recover. Then, when I was able to engage from a non-reactive place, I continued the conversation, and ended up appreciating some ideas that I could add to my hat for consideration. I'm not swallowing his perspective whole, and that would be foolhardy anyway, no matter how right or wrong. One must come to one's own understandings through direct experience.
I understand that Robert and I aren't going to be friends, that he is more a writer of books and essays that a "communicator" per se. I think that because this is Substack, many of us have different expectations, and at least desire to be treated as someone with valid counterpoints.
For me it's just a matter of understanding whom I'm speaking with. As they say, you don't go to the hardware store for a loaf of bread. 😊
Don, I am in agreement with what you are writing. We can always agree to disagree without lashing out or ridiculing the other person; different opinions are both valid and necessary.
I hadn’t read Robert before, and after our exchange, I can only say that I come from a different biography and position. I respect his position as being as valid as my own; we all arrived at our “current” views because of our life histories. Whenever possible, I try to see people as singular subjects and treat them as such. Thank you again for your addition and engagement.
With regard to communication, I don't think it even requires neurodivergence to struggle. Most people have never truly learned how to communicate without creating barriers. It seems to be the most common form of communication—one that often prevents us from truly hearing one another.
Thanks, Jay. I really appreciate your open mind (and kindness! ❤️)
Paul, thank you for sharing that. It is interesting to hear how Robert’s work provided a sense of completion or a "final" interest in these topics for you. I can certainly respect finding that kind of peace.
For myself, I find I am coming currently from a different direction—less focused on the philosophical conclusion and more interested in the real-time mechanics of how our systems actually function and integrate. It is always fascinating to see how the same material meets different people in such distinct ways.
Thank you, Jay. I don’t think Robert’s work provided a sense of completion or closed off any final interest since some of my writing touches on areas of identity, the self, etc, and always will in some way, I suspect. Rather, the entire scope of the topic drives many people to want “to be right.” I don’t need to be right. I just need to be.
Ok, we are d’accord there. Sorry to have misread your answer it that way. I now understand what you meant. Glad you clarified it again.
What a fantastic interview, Don, and another great photo of you with the donkey (so cute).
This really struck me: "Clarity isn’t chosen. It isn’t earned. It isn’t the result of meditation or mindful effort. Like every other configuration of the system, it appears when the conditions tilt that way and disappears when they don’t."
As I was reading the exchange between you and Robert, a question formed: How does all of this apply to people with trauma? I've read a fair amount about PTSD and cPTSD from the viewpoint of psychology and spirituality mostly, and I wonder how trapped or unresolved trauma may influence a person's reactions or responses to others, as well as their need for control or solutions/answers.
There seems to me, from both personal experience and in speaking with others who are working on unraveling their own trauma history, that there is a common thread among us that involves this propensity to reflexively react from a place of fear--which often translates into "What can I control? What can I change? How can I make this better/improve/make the violence or abuse stop?" I wonder what part of a human's nervous system may be responding in the fight/flight/freeze/fawn default when this happens? I don't have answers, just wondering.
When I see a slew of comments that seem to be written from a place of reactivity, my default thought is this: "I wonder what trauma they are speaking/writing from." I see a lot of the reactivity in this world as a symptom of what some experts call collective trauma, as well.
What a beautiful and freeing place to be able to say to onseself, "I don't need clarity. It will come in its time" or to allow life to wax/wane as it will, without trying to force things to change or happen before the right time comes along. Surrender and detachment are incredibly difficult for me personally, and every time I open up your essays and read, I learn something new. Really, Don, your essays speak into a place that I find to be a gentle invitation. Thank you for that.
Who’s cute, me or the donkey? 🤭
Thank you so much for reading this, Jeannie. I so appreciate how you always find the positive in what you read.
I think that trauma response is a pretty good example of our choiceless response to conditions. And I think, as Robert says, even our carefully weighed out decisions are influenced by a host of past and present conditions, many or most of them unIdentified at the time of decision making.
Thank you, Jeannie, it’s always such a pleasure to hear from you.
Hahaha, Don, the picture of you AND the donkey is adorable! I love the bright smile on your face. :)
Yes, this has been a great discussion. Jay pointed me to a separate conversation thread between her and Robert that addresses the matter of trauma as it relates to the way we view ourselves and interact in the world. That’s been quite eye-opening.
I agree—these conversations are always edifying to me!
Jeannie, I explained some of it in my own answer to Robert. Don has asked me to provide the link to my exchange here, which I will do shortly.
Thanks, Jay. I didn’t get a chance to read your response yet.
The part I am referring to is pretty much down the discussion near the end
Oh, I didn’t realize the rabbit hole went deeper than three comments, Jay. :) I’ll have to take another look.
https://robertsaltzman.substack.com/p/there-is-no-otherwise/comment/186174160?r=1sss7q&utm_medium=ios
Great! Thanks for the link. I found your comment and read it.
Hey Jeannie, have you read “The Body Keeps the Score” by Bessel Van Der Kolk? BTW, sometimes people don’t react from a place of trauma, sometimes, as seems evident here, one reacts from a place of grandiose egotism and pomposity. I mean, c’mon Robert, read the room—I almost felt I needed to send him a tuition check, but then thought, naw, I’d drop his course in a New York minute.
Hi Kert, great seeing you in Don’s space!
Yes, “The Body Keeps the Score” was one of the first books on trauma I read, which opened the rabbit trail to other trauma writers and researchers (Peter Levine is one).
I also agree that sometimes people react from a place of grandiosity and hubris. I don’t try to discern which is which in digital spaces, because I know that we are lacking the nuances necessary to make that kind of determination—body language, tonal inflection, facial expressions, etc.
It does seem, in general, that most people react rather than respond. I believe that is a default trauma indicator, based on what I know—whether or not the people themselves realize it. And I do believe in the existence of collective trauma, which is, in part, what motivates me to show up radically differently by being intentional, listening, holding space for divergent beliefs and lifestyles, etc.
What did you mean by “I almost felt I needed to send him a tuition check, but then I thought, naw, I’d drop his course in a New York minute.” I did smile when I read that. :)
We were being given, courtesy of Don’s open space, free of charge and unasked for, an esoteric lecture with BIGLY words to describe simple concepts. It wasn’t an interview.
Seems I had a visceral reaction to the feeling tone of the words, which I took as intentional—and my reaction, to the best of my knowledge, isn’t based on a trauma experience, neither individual or generational.
Van der Kolk’s work transformed how “we” did school, as a staff, in service to all our kids. I’m a disciple of Peter Levine as well. Same with Gabor Maté.
So what I am reading in your response here, Kert, is that your visceral reaction to this essay was not what you believe would be based on a trauma response? I can respect that.
When I write of collective trauma, it's not exclusively generational. It's broader than that, at least the way I've come to understand it. My hunch, based on my observations in digital spaces and in real life, is that most of us have defaulted to a reactive way of being. If we're emotionally activated, we impulsively or reflexively act without taking time to pause and process. I do think that is evidence of what might be called collective trauma, whether or not an individual has experienced trauma in their own life or within their family.
Also, what does BIGLY mean?
I love Dr. Mate's work, as well. I've read all of his books.
"100% deterministic closed system" says Jay in comments. This resonates more with "me" than Robert's metaphorical finger poking your chest--and "mine."
And, your composure and generosity in words toward Robert's ideas speaks volumes about your steadily developing skillful effort.
I wonder how Robert thinks the weather conditions come about. Makes me wonder about his politics, too, as does just about anybody says or does these days.
Thank you, Don, for sharing your considered thoughts.
Thank you, Dianne, I appreciate that. (I’ve seen RS’s anti-Trump posts on Facebook, so there’s that 😊)
Thank goodness for that. 🙏
Well, that’s one BARELY in his favor.
This all sounds like a discussion of karma to me. What I've gotten out of my study is, it's what my intention is right now that's important. No matter how terrible all the past stuff is I have to make a choice type or not type. Who cares what drives that? Can I say something skillful now? How do you do something skillful? By applying close attention to the results you are getting from the action you take now. Worrying about all the conditions that got me here doesn't help, it's this moment now.
That's my take on all my reading from here :) https://www.dhammatalks.org/search/?q=past+karma
And a good take it is, thank you, badgetoon! 🙏💚
Here’s where I wish other’s had the courage to disclose their real names. I can’t have a connection with a “badgetoon.”
As a young man I was all about self improvement. Then it became self acceptance. Then I began to drop the self. Good luck finding a fixed self anyway - I'm not even the same person I was when I started writing this comment!
I think about that a lot; how memory creates the illusion of a little 10-year-old boy being the very same entity as this 61-year-old body. And yet those memories exist nowhere except as a neural pathway of images that can be activated in the brain.
Thank you for this, Don. I need time to absorb and reflect on this before I comment, but I just wanted to thank you for an intriguing conversation.
Thanks, Tom!
Thanks Don! People like Robert have an alienating effect on people like me. It isn’t helpful. You bridge the gap - that’s really nice.
My thoughts on this subject are running parallel to yours I believe, though I’m not trying to get rid of the “me” just yet. I’m exploring the idea of environment supporting or hindering the development of a person (I have young children and have also been struggling personally with accepting responsibility that isn’t mine to accept.)
I do believe we can choose to create an environment that supports ourselves. Maybe technically something external caused that, and the way I was born resulted in my response, and therefore I have no control - but that’s not terrifically helpful. Because there is a moment of choice. I’m not fixed. Last night I sat with really uncomfortable thoughts and my journal. I wrote two lines. I reached for my phone and started scrolling. I watched myself do that, went back to the journal, and acknowledged the deep and subconscious avoidance of what would actually make me feel better but that was harder.
I think there’s a balance between self and non-self. The level of non-self that acknowledges that the journal writing choice was built into me and is just a fact, not a virtue, is helpful. It removes the judgment that is easy to have when people with similar struggles can’t see the solution that worked for you! Or even the judgement on earlier week’s self that just scrolled.
But the perception of self that says “I have a choice here - shall I write or scroll?” gives me some agency when so much is genuinely outside my control. I think Robert’s perception is that choice is an illusion. And he may very well be right- I think he technically is.
Still. I’ve chosen to bring art, journaling, meditation, and community into my life and the lives of my family by creating the space for them and assigning them a priority equal with dinner, dishes, laundry, and paid work. I have observed an increase in moments of happiness and clarity and equanimity and compassion.
Thank you, Heather. I very much appreciate and resonate with your thoughts on this. I’m going to absorb the comments and conversations on this post, allow them to enter the mix, and wait and see where my mind would like to go next 😊
Not just on “people like you,” Heather. Adjectives like pompous, egotistical, superior, bellicose, kept surfacing as I was reading. Dianne, elsewhere here, captured it 100% accurately: his “metaphorical finger poking your chest—and mine.” We’ve been duly poked. But, seeing as he’s not a part of “my system,” I’ve let him go his merry way, grateful I’m not a paying grad student of his.
Kert, I presented this conversation between RS and me without judgement, and certainly without name calling. RS did the same in responding to me.
He is describing things “as he sees It,” “from here,” and “from this side of the glass,” as he makes clear.
The man, I assume, responded to my original Substack because I made an implication, by using his quote to back my view on meditation and mindfulness, that he supported my view. He did not. Therefore, I basically invited him to share how he sees things. He is my guest here.
I'll admit that I'm not in a place to fully understand this conversation, Don. My mind--determined to stick with what it thinks it knows--reacts to these concepts the way it reacts to the idea of time travel. 🤯
What I can say with greater certainty is that I appreciate your willingness to explore, ask, assert, and learn. That part, for me, is marvelous!
Elizabeth, I can’t even begin to tell you how much I appreciate your comment. Thank you for hanging in there. Though I didn’t accompany the post with much side explanation, I think you discovered the reason I shared this conversation.
What was going on for me outside this back-and-forth with RS is the real story. When the man first commented on my Substack Note, my ego took a pretty hard blow (because he basically invalidated my position and left me doubting my meditation and mindfulness practice of the last six years). I was in a bit of a funk for about a day and a half. I didn’t want to tell my wife why, because I knew she would support me by criticizing RS, and I didn’t want that. I knew it was about me, not him.
I somehow came back to a non-reactive state (probably by thinking about the fact that thoughts and feelings are just non-physical, temporary “arisings” and not proof that anything is fundamentally wrong in my world) and continued the conversation. In the process, I managed to collect a few tidbits to put under my hat for consideration. And, more importantly, I managed to separate my needs for support or validation from this person’s imparting of information as he sees it (he’s more like a textbook than a healer).
You get and learn a lot more from this world when you put yourself in an open position of intelligent and discerning reception rather than a constricted position of need. I think that the more you need from others, the more you warp what you receive as good or bad, welcome or unwelcome.
Thanks again, Elizabeth. I appreciate you. 🙏💚
In a recent "compassionate communications" session, I discovered -- or rediscovered -- that one of the most powerful tools I have at my disposal is to pause before reacting. I also explored (I certainly haven't reached mastery yet) the value of identifying which of my needs aren't being met when I become defensive, ashamed, sad, or any number of feelings we perceive as negative. One need that comes up for me a lot is choice. I'm uncomfortable when told how to think, feel, or act because choice is something I value. Had it been me in this conversation, that one would have been jumping up and down. ☺️
That makes sense. I’ve been meditating for six years and now this guy is trying to tell me that any consequences, like calm or empathy, are only mutual unrelated arisings? I still think I may be misunderstanding, because RS also claims that he never makes speculative claims that cannot be proven.
But anyway, Elizabeth, I think that’s pretty cool that you went to a compassionate communications session. That sounds right up my alley!
This is a spectacular article Don! It is a favorite here. There are so many great quotes. This one may be my favorite for both impact and simplicity. “Seeing that desires arise unchosen but determine behavior, is the release from personal authorship I mentioned.”
“Seeing no doer” is game over. I did enjoy the cause and effect question and answer. Darryl Bailey has a similar answer.
So, here is my question Don. Did the implications of what you write about here clarify anything regarding the relationship with your kids in the “apparent past?”
The reason I ask is the implications “might appear” to be healing in the story based on this exchange.
Thank you very much for this one! 🙏
Thank you so much, Ben. Apparently, a lot of people read The Ten Thousand Things and then have a similar "game over" sentiment, thus ending their spiritual search.
I really appreciate the question about how these views help my relationship with my kids. It's been a long and difficult road, for sure, and I am ever-evolving my ability to absorb my kids' alienation from me. As you know, one is not speaking to me; the other will reply to my texts but never reaches out on their own.
I would be lying if I said the "release from personal authorship" removes the pain. It doesn't. But I do very much understand that I have not been "chosen" to suffer more than anyone else, that conditions were such that my children learned to mistrust me. The causes are complex, and at this point, pretty irrelevant. It's not their fault at all. So I live with a broken heart but no resentment, hatred, or desire for revenge. Just a sadness.
Another way understanding the lack of a self helps is that I can actually stand back and accept all of my feelings as just arising conditions, "weather." I don't beat myself up for, for example, choosing not to go and pound on my son's door begging him to forgive me for my early absence in his life, like a father in the movies might do. He has been very hostile and angry, and after enough of that, I'm just standing by. Knowing that there is no such thing as a moral authority helps with the guilt that accompanies that.
Thank you, Ben. 🙏
I have been wanting to ask this question for some time because I wanted some relief for you in some form and it appeared that this kind of discussion may be it.
However, what arose here was “keep your big mouth shut Ben! The world doesn’t hang in balance for your prying. Also, there was an Indefinable sense that more was afoot than what was arising and here it is!!!
We, your readers, scored an awesome article, and I am reading the best possible response to a question I have been pondering for some time,
Thank you for the well crafted response Don! It was my highest and best hope for the situation given where it is at currently. 🙏
Wow, that is so kind and compassionate of you, Ben. Thank you!
Dear Don, I follow your posts because you describe your awakening life in regular language and relate it to what you actually experience. Please keep doing that.
Thank you, Musho. Fear not, my voice isn’t going anywhere! Next week I’m going to share a children’s poem I wrote, which is very much rooted in my childhood experience, and the following week is probably going to be the post I had originally planned for this week, in which I share how I actually put my back out trying to prove to myself that I was a good meditator. I learned an unforgettable lesson that day! I also plan to tell more stories about my experience as a sensitive shy guy working on construction crews, and being married to a person who resented my inner life and personal aspirations.
Thanks for reading this one, Mucho. 🙏
Hi Don,
I may come back with a longer comment after I have a chance to think on this for a bit.
For now though, what I'm taking away is that even though I've been thinking about adopting things like meditation and mindfulness, according to Dr. Saltzman, when the conditions are right, I'll just start doing them, it won't have been a choice.
Hmmm.
Or you WON'T start doing them, but either way, I think all he is saying is that our decisions are predicated on a vast host of past and present conditions, even when we carefully balance out the options and believe we ourselves are the sole decision maker.
Fascinating. I don’t understand a word of it and it doesn’t change what I think about anything. Nonetheless, I am content to acknowledge it. I don’t understand quantum mechanics either and that is OK too.
Thank you for reading it, Craig. I don’t think words are sufficient for these ideas. It’s like trying to describe the taste of a banana to someone who has never eaten one; pointless. I appreciate your honesty!
Don Thank you for sharing this. D
Thanks for reading, Dave!
Interesting I just listened to a podcast by Mary Stancavage that somehow talks about what you talk about. Maybe it’s of benefit https://www.buzzsprout.com/220274/episodes/18358269-mindfulness-all-the-time.mp3?client_source=small_player&download=true
Thanks, Jay, I'll check this out. 🙏
AKA: Why I don’t read Saltzman. He’s intentionally not a part of “my system.”