Thusness commented, "Yes good stuff. "Things" are just set of relations.

Whatever felt, seen, heard, tasted, smelled and thought that seem so real and awareness that is often taken to be more "real than real" is no different from the "chariot" and its basis of designation."

“[3/8/19, 1:23:25 PM] John Tan: However the article (by Adyashanti) should not lump all into one. They are different insights. "More real than real" is one insight. Everything is in fact truly real is another. The "real" is just "inter-ratedness". Then the clear view of the relationships and how to re-understand and live with the new experience and insights.
[3/8/19, 4:53:14 PM] Soh Wei Yu: More real than real is different from everything is in fact truly real? What do you mean? More real than real is just luminosity right
[3/8/19, 4:54:26 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Btw it occurred to me that advaita talks about non arising but the diff with buddhism is that buddhism non arising is the rejection of inherent production due to being free from causation by self, others, both and causeless, which is to say everything is non arising and free from inherent production due to dependent origination. Whereas in advaita everything is non arising due to everything being mere imputation and projection upon the inherently existing substratum of brahman
[3/8/19, 5:06:41 PM] John Tan: Yes. That (More real than real) is also an insight that turns the mind internal. Non-arising means appearances without essence similar to a reflection, like a rainbow. That (More real than real) comes with I AMness. The different between anatta and substantiality is beside appearance, there is innate feeling of some essence separate from the appearances of colors, sensations, sound, smell, taste and thoughts. Therefore one cannot be fully open and release.”


I wrote to someone to clarify -

"the OP is not about who has the higher view, it is about the necessity
to distinguish the different insights and not lump them all up.

Which is to say, Adyashanti has expressed most of those important insights, but could have done a better job delineating them"

"it is not a dispute, it is just stating that it is necessary to delineate them for readers to understand

I am sure adyashanti will agree if he is around. He did some delineation in his books"

"the “innate feeling of some essence separate from the appearances of...” is not a
criticism of adyashanti’s current mode of insight but the flaw of being
stuck with I AM paradigm.

Which adyashanti has criticised several times himself in recent articles. Adyashanti has warned many times about being stuck in the I AM.

I am very sure, just from adyashanti’s recent expressions alone, that he no longer has “innate feeling of some essence separate from the  appearances of...”


by Adyashanti

“When you feel love or fall in love, that’s a very real feeling to you, and yet you can’t see it, you can’t weigh it; it doesn’t have any objective sort of existence. Nonetheless, we treat it as more real than the things we consider to be real—certainly as more important.” 
When we think of interrelatedness, we usually think of big or small things that are in relationship with one another. However, the way I’m using the word is not like that. I’m not denying that, but there is something deeper than that. Things are actually nothing but interrelatedness itself.  
It’s really hard for a human mind to think that a thing could be nothing but interrelatedness, that interrelatedness itself ends up to be what things actually are. In this sense, things end up to be no-things, and no-things end up to be all things. So when we hear words like no-thing or nothingness, we shouldn’t try to understand that conventionally. In its truest sense, nothingness doesn’t have much to do with nothing. It has to do with interrelationship or interrelatedness.  
And so it is with each of us. When you look inside for your true being, you might say, “Okay, exactly, precisely, what is this thing called ‘me’? What actually is it?” The more you look for it, the more you can’t find it. The reason you can’t find it is because it is nothing but interrelatedness. There’s no substance. There’s no thought, idea, or image to grasp. In that sense, it’s empty, but not empty in the sense of being nonexistent. It’s empty in the sense of being unexpected or inconceivable.  
When you feel love or fall in love, that’s a very real feeling to you, and yet you can’t see it, you can’t weigh it; it doesn’t have any objective sort of existence. Nonetheless, we treat it as more real than the things we consider to be real—certainly as more important. Most people, if they feel love, their love feels more important to them than the solidity of their toaster. The love has no solidity to it at all. It has no objective tangibility to it, and yet, it’s something that one could orient their whole life around.  
The Buddha used to talk about the thusness or suchness of each moment. It means not just each moment, but the thusness or suchness of each apparent thing that we perceive. So when I say being, this is the sense I’m using it in, a similar way that the Buddha used the thusness or suchness of something. When we perceive the thusness or suchness of something, we’re actually perceiving it as being nothing but interrelatedness itself. So this ordinary moment, with nothing particularly unusual about it, is being awareness, and awareness itself is interrelatedness. It’s not like interrelatedness is aware; it’s more like interrelatedness is. It’s not that the interrelatedness is that which is aware—it’s that the interrelatedness is awareness.  
This is probably the fundamental barrier that any of us will bump into in spirituality: the barrier between awareness and the objects of awareness. The fundamental duality is that there is this world of things, and then there’s seeing and experiencing this world of things, and somehow those two are different. One of the great misunderstandings about unity is the belief that it reduces the world to a sort of homogenized “goo” of agreement. Actually, in some ways it’s almost the opposite. It frees the uniqueness in you, and it frees you to allow the uniqueness in others. Uniqueness flourishes when we see the unity of things. It doesn’t get flattened out—just the opposite. You just stop arguing with the difference that isn’t like yours.  
When you have two viewpoints that are open to interrelating, almost always something will arise if you stick with it long enough, if you’re sincere, if you’re openhearted, if you actually want the truth more than you want to win or be right. Eventually something will bubble up from that engagement that’s truer than either one began with. If you have two people who are openhearted and see the truth and usefulness, even the utility, of really relating, they’ll see that, and both people walk away feeling like “Gosh, I feel good about that, like we both win because we both discovered more than we started with.”  
The unity of things isn’t that there are no differences. It isn’t that a tree doesn’t look different than the sky, or behave differently than the sky, or have a different kind of life than the sky. The unity is that a tree—an object—is nothing but interrelatedness. The sky is nothing but interrelatedness, and the awareness of things is itself nothing but interrelatedness. That’s an explanation that is coming from a way of perceiving. That’s what enlightenment really is: seeing that the seeing and what one is aware of are one simultaneous arising. It’s an arising that’s always flowing because interrelatedness isn’t static—it’s ever flowing.  
That’s why I’m always saying that this is really about a kind of vision, not in the sense of having visions, but the quality of our vision, the quality of our perception when we can perceive without the dualistic filter. What seems to be this impenetrable sort of barrier between us and things, us and the world, us and each other, is fundamentally between our consciousness and what consciousness is conscious of. That seemingly basic and immovable sense that there is a fundamental difference, a fundamental separation, is what’s really dispelled when our insight gets deep enough.  
At the deepest level, the most fundamental level, interrelationship is just that—it’s interrelating. It’s not things interrelating. Things end up to be themselves interrelatedness. When vision becomes clear, that’s what we perceive. The world becomes not a world of things, but of interrelatedness. 
Excerpted from “The World of Interrelatedness,” April 10, 2019 ~ Garrison, NY 
Available as an audio download, The World of Interrelatedness
0 Responses