• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

june 2005 - edition 9

Non, je ne regrette rien...

What is trust? Is trust letting yourself fall backwards into a group of people? Is trust getting behind the wheel of your car with a blindfold on? Is trust taking away all the traffic signs and allowing traffic to regulate itself? Is trust turning the other cheek? Is trust being intimate with what there is? Is trust not being sorry about anything?

Maybe the questions are more exciting than the answers. Nevertheless, searching for an answer can unfold as an attractive and interesting story, which wants to be told and heard. In this way, words and stories can be reborn again and again with fresh meanings. Another option is to carry the story off to the vanishing point of the One and wave away the importance of stories with the remark that after all it is all illusion. But try telling that to the person sitting next to you at the movies watching an exciting film... Even if it is an illusion, that doesn't say that you have to deny your life story, but rather to live it as if your life depends on it. Isn't that what Being is?

'Could trust be a key word in the (seeming) way to the expression of being that you already are?' That was question for investigation with which we built beautiful sandcastles in our figurative sandbox. In this amigo you find various speakers, writers and teachers who explore the word trust more closely, each in their own way: - Wolter Keers with a parable about an iceberg. - Jan van Delden about trust in his spiritual master Wolter. - Douwe Tiemersma over courage and trust - Osho: 'Trust is egoless.' - Hans Laurentius: 'How is it possible not to trust yourself?' - Leo Hartong: Trust is more a description than a prescription. And further: Nathan Gill - Charles Hayes (once a top ten racecar driver) - Almaas - a column

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 1 by D. the Doer - Douglas Harding, who like Martin Luther nailed his tract about the eleven ways to freedom on the door of the ultimate holy house (the ego), and a report of an 'Amigo- roundtable-conversation' on our theme.

I can't avoid adding one of my 'all-time favorite songs' here: 'Have a little faith in me' by John Hiatt. A love song, it is true – but a new light falls on it if you read it as the love between Being and apparent being as is true for so many love songs...

Have a little faith in me

When the road gets dark And you can no longer see Just let my love throw a spark And have a little faith in Me And when the tears you cry Are all you can believe Just give these loving arms a try And have a little faith in Me

Have a little faith in Me Have a little faith in Me

And when your secret heart Cannot speak so easily Come here darling, from a whisper start And have a little faith in Me And when your back ís against the wall Just turn around and you, you will see I will catch you, I will catch your fall Just have a little faith in Me

Have a little faith in Me Have a little faith in Me

Cause I’ve been loving you, for such a long, long time Expecting nothing in return Just for you to have a little faith in Me You see time, time is our friend Cause for us, there is no end And all you gotta do, is have a little faith in Me I will hold you up, I will hold you up And your love, gives me strength enough to Have a little faith in Me Hey all you gotta do for Me Is have a little faith in Me

[Kees Schreuders]

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 2 contents:

• the iceberg [Wolter Keers]

• a question of trust [interview with Jan van Delden]

• trust never deceives [Osho]

• trust is just being your Self [interview with Douwe Tiemersma]

• where there is mistrust, there is the I [interview with Hans Laurentius]

• Already awake [Nathan Gill]

• a tale told by an idiot [interview with Charlie Hayes]

• synthesis between spirituality and psychology [Almaas]

• the elevenfold liberation [Douglas Harding]

• trust [interview with Leo Hartong]

• Why practice when you can celebrate? [column by D. the Doer]

• on trust [the Amigo round table]

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 3 T h e I c e b e r g

The following fairy tale comes from Yoga Advaita (nr. 3 – 1981), the magazine that appeared under the editorship of Wolter Keers. It is not clear whether Wolter wrote this story himself, because the under title announces with a bit of a wink: 'From the apocryphal collection of stories – You're It – by Sam. S. Kara.' It is clear that the spirit and mind of Wolter shines clearly throughout the piece. In addition, the story fits nicely with the theme of 'trust'. That is enough of a reason to share it with you in this issue of Amigo.

How it began

Far to the north where the sun doesn't come up in the winter a new iceberg broke away with a cracking noise from the white glacier and tumbled foaming into the sea. It turned over a few times, shook itself, looked around and immediately began to float in full force. It was really an impressive happening, this breaking away, but he had probably not felt real fear because his parent - the white glacier - had prepared him thoroughly for what awaited him here.

'Soon, my boy', the wise glacier had said, 'you will go into the hard iceberg society and begin the fight for existence. There you will have to stand up for yourself, not let any grass grow under your feet, say your say and win your place in the sun. So pay attention, do your best but especially... remember that the minute you have broken free and are standing right again you begin to float immediately and that you don't stop under any circumstances, until your very last splinter. Because if you don't do that you won't be able to remain floating... well, just look once under yourself into the immeasurable dark depths, that no iceberg has ever come back from. If you stop floating for even an instant you fall into that and you are lost for good! Floating to survive

The new iceberg understood all that very well so he began to float vehemently. He floated with all his power... and indeed; he did not fall into the dark abyss beneath him, where he could vaguely make out the sharp tops of deep ravines that could surely pulverize him to pieces if he stopped floating for even one instant as his father had predicted.

And so he bumped with his full force into the other icebergs around him to secure his place. He tried to get one or more of the nice, round icebergs to remain in the neighborhood. He was careful that he didn't fall over when the storm was raging around him and soon he was floating solemnly and self assured towards a rocky coast where the Wise Old Iceberg gave lessons to beginners.

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 4 Free choice

'We icebergs,' so did he speak, 'are the highest rung of civilization, because we have, as the only ones the so-called Free Float Capacity. That means that we ourselves choose and determine the destination of our floating. Others can't do that - just look beneath you, there you see that fishes are flitting back and forth without any will, forced to look for food and to mate. But you don't see them floating. Just as the birds over your heads that are flung about by every breeze. But we, we go where we want.

Just see, soon in the spring around the time the North Wind rises we suddenly begin to float towards the South. And later, some choose to float towards the West, to the place where we meet the East wind, while other prefer to float towards the North when they feel the warm Gulf Stream. As free as an iceberg! Of course you have to know what you want, you must be able to choose and be a self-sufficient iceberg that knows where the North and the South are, otherwise you just float aimlessly around. Luckily you have us, the wise Icebergs, to teach you all that you need.'

With perked up ears the new ones had listened and looked around proudly at each other - we, Free Icebergs, lords of the creation, not bad eh!

But then a small timid little voice asked suddenly: 'Old Wise One, would you please tell us a bit more about the water? The icebergs all became very quiet and the Old Wise One looked very stern and solemn - The Water - oh yes, that is one of the things that you don't just talk about, that was a Holy thing, and very secretive.

'The Water', said the Old Wise One seriously, 'is the greatest mystery that we know, but I will pass on to you as has happened from generation to generation what we know about it.' Do your very best

'Our old books state that somewhere, very far away - there is in 'the heavens' - but no one really knows what that is - a place where icebergs no longer need to float with all their might and nevertheless still do not fall into the abyss. That is a place where peace, rest, and happiness reign and where we can remain floating around forever. If you here above do your best, listen to the old books and to what the Old wise Ones say, then after you fall into the abyss you come directly into the Water, at least that is what we believe. There have been icebergs that claimed that you could see the Water while you still floated – but our ancestors smashed them because what they said was just too crazy: that we are all supposed to be a kind of cast or image of the Water or something like that. Some of the old books actually honor these fools and even have descriptions of all that you have to do to finally become Water.'

'What then?', asked the young icebergs full of curiosity.

'Well, there are a lot of rules that we will discuss in the future: You have to be always nice to your fellow icebergs, you are not allowed to push them away or break them, you are not allowed to take away round icebergs from each other and more like that. You have to work hard on yourself - you have to lose all your sharp edges, and you must try to become a completely square iceberg - a cube so to speak. Only when you become a cube are you perfect

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 5 and can become Water. But especially, and that is very important you may not commit any sins.'

'What are those, sins, Old Wise One? Asked one of them. Becoming water

'Well, it's like this: as you know, once in a while something falls out of the air on us icebergs. We call that snow or rain. Well, snow is very sinful and bad; you have to shake that off yourself as quickly as possible. But rain, that is very good, that is a virtue. Remember that as much as you can, because whoever has the most rain, is the first to become Water!

The young iceberg was completely confused from all this news and soon went furiously to work, because he wanted to become Water and not fall broken into the abyss below. But it was really difficult – if he tried to get rid of a sharp side of himself two came to take its place. If snow fell on him that changed immediately into ice and he couldn't see the difference from rain anymore, which was almost impossible to hang on to because it poured off him so quickly.

With all that toil it became spring and the Free Icebergs were driven further towards the South; the little one succeeded in gathering a little bowl of water on his crown and he had to be very careful that it didn't stream away again. A special question

Then, on a beautiful morning, a great white bird landed on him and drank some water out of that rain puddle. 'Hey, go away, I have so little and then I will never become Water!' complained the iceberg. But the white bird looked straight at him with his bright, dark eyes and said: 'Water lies on water lies on water, why are you so thirsty?' then spread his wings and disappeared.

The iceberg was struck dumb: he couldn't make any sense of it anymore. It is after all that snow and rain that fall on me, the iceberg that is floating above the abyss - that's the way it is. And the bird's question didn't make any sense... still?

But he couldn't forget the question. In his desperation he drifted further and further away from the others, busy night and day with the question: 'Water lies on water lies on water, why are you so thirsty?'

In this way he was floating along on a quiet morning, looking quietly into the abyss, alone on the calm sea. Suddenly he looked up: there, from out of the depths there rose a red fireball high up into the air that reflected itself for a long perfect moment - in the rain puddle, his armor of ice and the abyss; all around him was golden sunlight.

And then like a bolt of lightning all his questions, plodding and fear fell away from him and he knew with complete certainty: 'Water lies on Water lies on Water, where is the thirst?' A deep relaxation took hold of him - all the effort to remain floating fell away and he disappeared into total silence. Different from the others

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 6 A long time later - or was it just a little - a breeze began to blow and floated him back towards his fellow icebergs. Almost no one noticed anything special about him - icebergs generally don't pay that much attention to each other, they are too busy keeping afloat - and it looked as if no one had changed. But for him everything had changed. After a while it occurred to one iceberg or another that their neighbor apparently wasn't doing anything special to become a cubic iceberg and that he just let the snow and rain flow over him, as if it didn't matter or as if there was no difference between them. Some of them asked him questions about that; mostly he just smiled and gave an answer that pleased him and they could understand; those few who persisted he took step by step through his experience.

Only the white gull and a rare young iceberg noticed that he floated among the other icebergs as if he were one of them – but that he made no effort at all anymore to keep himself afloat, but that he drifted effortlessly and relaxed on the streaming of the Water, the only really Free Iceberg.

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 7 A question of trust

In his Dutch book: Terug van nooit weggeweest' Jan van Delden writes: In contrast to Odysseus I chose the way of the mind seeker who finds it easier to travel the most difficult path and not the path of surrender, which was then vague for me, as heart seekers do. Wolter Keers - Circe in the story of Odysseus - explained to me how the way of the head seeker looks and gave me a totally new look at what Jan with his world is in reality.

Wolter explained what he had learned from his mentor that we follow the waking state, the dream and the dreamless sleep (which Charybdis is a symbol for) not with a personal witness, but rather by being the impersonal witness. That is the most direct way of arriving home. Of course, it is very special that of all the people I met Wolter was the only man in Holland - according to me - who knew this way. Listen, it is not that I saw it as a blessing! I thought of myself then above all as someone who trusted nothing and nobody and only discovered years later that something like trust is not something that you can 'do'. It overcomes you.

It takes a while before Jan takes up the theme of 'trust' that I've been trying to sell him. He consumes a plate of oatmeal during the conversation to keep himself in condition. Some things seem irrelevant in this connection, but one can talk about advaita under all kind of circumstances and that makes understanding it so self-evident and 'natural'.

Jan: Jantje can't, couldn't and will never have anything to do with that word trust. This trusting no one colored his entire life. Finally seeing that Jantje could never reach trust but that I could become the liberation. However, looking back I can say that I got the first trust, that there was apparently an emergency exit to the misery that I thought I lived from my teacher Wolter Keers

Trust in the person Wolter?

Of course I tested Wolter to the extreme, but I could never find anything to contradict his words. Finally that gave me the trust - I prefer to call it surrender - that what he said must be true. He brought me to the point where I seriously began to look and examine.

Wolter let me see that a complete abstraction of the impersonal being-a-witness existed, beyond Jan's concepts, while he just functioned normally as Wolter. He was in the world even better than I, because he dared certain things that I didn't. And I was so naïve that I actually thought that I dared everything! As far as the world was concerned I made my way like a king. I could see through everyone immediately: everything was just about having and outer show.

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 8 Wolter was the first one who was way ahead of me in all territories in the sense that he did things without any resistance - he was just like that. I never really had a fight with him or any trace of jealousy since I was already defeated because of the beauty of his naturalness.

Give an example.

That is difficult because it was often subtly hidden. For example he went shopping with me and just like that began a conversation with the girl in the shop! Now, I couldn't do that, I couldn't just begin to talk with someone in public without a reason... Or at a certain moment he tried to seduce me to allow him to take naked photos of me in a public park where other people were walking around - that was against everything in me. Being photographed as a nudist was not a problem. I said: OK I'll get undressed behind that bush. No he said, there where, all the people are walking around! Do you understand, he was always trying to break through all my taboos and resistance. Breaking through the belief that you are a person goes beyond your understanding and therefore it is mostly necessary to meet a spiritual master who makes that clear to you. On the one hand I found Wolter to be wonderful and on the other hand my head said: watch out eh! You must not trust anybody; because they will always take advantage of you.

Doesn't trust have to do with the way you were brought up?

Yes. That belief that I was born with a father and a mother in the world had to be broken by Wolter. Everything that I was not supposed to trust in the world came to attention when I met Wolter.

I had graduated in resistance. There was no one who could penetrate my wall. I understood right away that they were only busy with themselves and were only grabbing at problems. After all, you don't believe that they- and I'm also talking about my own little Jans, and politicians and directors of organizations and companies - are talking about something other than their own wallet or power trip?

That's the way I looked at everything and with Wolter I recognized for the first time that there is something that could be called happiness that you have without having money or for which you have to do a year of manual labor, and not even experience is necessary!

He was the only person I knew who had something that I was really looking for. Looking at it romantically he was a sort of super papa in the beginning. Only later did I discover this; it took a totally different turn. Wolter was ready to play my papa, but then you have to really see the consequences of that. For example, that he was allowed to talk about scary things. He gave a name to everything I was afraid of, for example death, and I didn't like that. Nobody wants to talk about scary things. Wolter could do that easily and at the same time play it out so that on the one hand he confronted you with the temporary nature of everything but also with the message that confronting everything will liberate you. In that way he only spent time with people who were very close to him and were really asking to go over the boundary of a world in which thinking plays the leading role. With other people he did not do that at all and he reacted completely differently.

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 9 Jan takes a little aside - one of his trusty characteristics to those who know him - to the apparent changeable character of gurus/spiritual masters, etc.

If you have to practice this sport then you will see that you are one way with a person and another way with a different person. Moreover, that happens by itself. If you are busy plucking juniper berries you put on gloves don't you? You just simply adjust yourself. At a certain moment you notice that the adjustment happens all by itself, it is also not something that a little Jan does. The trust that Wolter radiated in common life became my trust at a certain moment. What does that mean? Seeing effortlessly that everything is regulated by consciousness. There is no question of trust anymore, because everything dissolves, everything is consciousness...

Seekers think that they have to have trust first in order to go beyond their thoughts and to see what happens without expectations. The person says to himself all day: it has to be like this or like that for me to be happy and yeah... (a sigh of relief) being happy is the experiencing itself having an experience.

As long as you may not look at the experiencing itself in one way or another, but remain fixed on seeking the experience you remain the same. At all levels whatsoever. I myself remained looking at the experiences as the measure for a long time, also at the very highest level.

It is also difficult among all these objects...

Certainly, because your little I's say: There must be something to achieve, otherwise what's the point? Where else does it lead? While everything we do as a person is always for getting satisfaction and satisfaction is irrevocably the dissolution of the 'I'. We search all day for the disappearance of the 'I', but if you were to talk about that directly you would be locked up in the nut house. If it's about regular stuff, like sports or orgasms, then you are allowed to disappear. But if you direct your attention from the experience to the experiencing in itself, which is nothing more than looking at the looking or whatever you want to call it, and you see that that is your self-evident, own, simple, unchanging silent presence... yes, well, then your little 'I's' begin to grumble. That's the whole point; we just keep on listening to that little 'I'. Even if you have seen through all that, then still they go on complaining as a sort of automatism. They seem to be as dead as doornails, just like the lovers in Hades who go on chattering, but they stop only if by holding that attention on the attention everything transform itself to the one all encompassing attention. Only seeing is not sufficient.

OK, it is seen, but then you go into a fight with that...

Yes, finally it seems that your 'I' experience is also consciousness. Do you disturb yourself about this bottle (points to a bottle of cognac on the table)? If you recognize every experience as undefined experiencing then the 'I' thought would not be in the way any more, even if you are neurotic, stupid, backwards or bitchy.

Certainly if you can see that sense organs do not exist, therefore no inside or outside, no matter... and that it is completely impossible to see something that appears in you – no matter what it is – as being outside of you, or that it might be an object, is simply impossible! I mean: you can't deny that if you get a bump on your body it hurts a lot, but they are both perceptions

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 10 in me and not the other way around. It is not true that the body perceives that thing over there.

It is not true that your leg perceives that object

That is what your thinking makes of it. No: if you get a clout against what the mind calls 'leg', then you just feel that in the undefined experiencing as the experience of pain.

If you understand that, then you will see more and more that the story of a 'world outside yourself' is nonsense. Can you then talk about 'others outside yourself'? Certainly you cannot.

But you just play along with the game?

Imagine, you don't see it... then still you can say that consciousness sits behind everything.

(again an aside)

Imagine that a bad guru exists, imagine something like that exists, who is it that makes the bad guru bad and what does he appear in? Is he now inside or outside you?

Now then... everything is in you! What is there then left to do? I don't understand how that might be possible. I can listen to reams of stories about little Jans and other fellow actors, but they are all within myself. I can hear all kinds of stories about planets light years far away in other dimensions and so on, but these are all within myself.

Now, if I see that experiencing is just like that in myself, stable and unchanging, then maybe I will pay some attention to that. With that attention I shift my point of view and I gain trust to be that. If Janny stubs his toe again or something else happens, your child dies or whatever... then Janny can scream: That shouldn't happen! Then he would like to begin a crusade again to find the why and so on. But then just let him chatter like a child of three who says he is going to work... just let him talk. Or if your head says: You are greedy and that has to change, then just for fun give 200 euros away immediately just to bug Janny. Then perhaps you will see that it is a sort of game that the undefined consciousness is playing with itself by pretending that experiences could be made of something else besides experiencing itself.

Speaking of trust...

In conclusion: the known, the thoughts, the little I, your feelings, emotions, your peak- experiences: everything is in the service of searching for happiness. Searching for the trust that happiness really exists. Trusting that your search will bring you to the treasure.

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 11 The known - the experiences - goes on a search but the seekers who in fact are also an experience (!) only find happiness - or rather experience - if they can let go of the belief that they are something separate, or something known. Thus they can only find trust that they are experienced if they can unmask and so let go of the belief of being independent and separate from the 'known'. Now, that is trust...

At that moment there is no trust anymore, so that is gone.

That's right; trust is thus being experienced.

Does that seem strange?

Yes, but it is written: You have to lose what you are seeking for. You have to lose the trust that you are searching for.

Jan scrapes his bowl clean and close concludes:

The known and all its experiences can never find trust... thus you go from trust to self-trust to being trust yourself. The surprise about what we are remains, because if experiences are nothing more than experiencing, then life is a surprising experience.

You can also say: the beauty and grace of experiencing is - in itself - the recognition of being the experiencing.

(...for those who love cryptograms...)

Dutch website Jan: www.ods.nl/la-rouselle

[Peter van Steenwijk - La Roussellie feb. 2005]

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 12 Trust never deceives

It is beautiful to trust and to live full of trust. Trust or mistrust is also a theme in 'spiritual circles' and we talk about trusting ourselves, our partner, the society and the world around us. We often experience the mixed feelings that come with trusting or not trusting. Without trust we feel fear, but looking at it the other way around we see that it is exactly fear or reservations that stand in the way of trust.

Osho breaks through the duality that arises this way with great clarity. He makes it clear that trust is different from trusting in something. And this trust will never disappoint us. Letting go of the ego

You are saying: When you speak of the need for trust in order to let go of the ego ... You are saying that I say to you: Trust so that you can drop the ego! I am not saying that. I am saying that if you trust, the ego is dropped. It is not like cause and effect - that your trust will be the cause, and the ego will be dropped as an effect. I am saying that the moment you trust, the ego is not there. In trust the ego is not found.

But you are so much concerned with the ego that you say `Okay. If you say in trust it is not found, I will trust in order - so that the ego is not found. That 'in order' you are bringing in!

Please be very careful, because what is being said to you is immensely significant. Don't change it. Don't interpret it. Let it be as it is said to you. I am not saying `Trust in order - so that the ego can be dropped'; otherwise your trust will be a means and the dropping of the ego will be an end. Naturally, the end will be in the future, and the means have to be practiced. You will have to practice for years or for lives, and when you really have come to gain trust, then you will be able to drop the ego. No! Trust is egoless

I am saying `This very moment, if trust is there, ego is not there!' They don't exist together. It is like the room is dark and I tell you `Take this lamp'. And you say 'If I take this lamp into the room, how long will it take for the darkness to disappear? If I go in the room and practice light there, how long will it take for the darkness to disappear?' You need not practice anything. Simply take the light there and you will not find darkness there. They don't exist together. Purest love

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 13 What is trust? It is the highest kind of love. It is the purest love. It is uncontaminated love- uncontaminated by any desire. If you trust me with a desire, it is not trust. Then you are using me. If you think by trusting in me you will attain to nirvana, moksha, the kingdom of God - then you don't trust me. You are using me: you have made a means of me. That is not very respectful. If you trust me, this is your kingdom of God - this trust. There is nothing else; there is nowhere to go. This is your nirvana. In this very trust, darkness has disappeared, and the light is burning bright.

B. says: When you speak of the need for trust in order to let go of ego...

Now he is creating a great problem.

I feel that's where I'm stuck.

You are stuck because of your misunderstanding, lack of clarity. It is not the ego that is obstructing you; it is the lack of clarity. It is because you have not been present to me; it is because you have not been listening to me without desire. It is not the ego that you are stuck with it is your unintelligence. Now that will hurt you, because it is okay to be stuck with ego, but to be stuck with unintelligence? That will hurt very much. 'Am I unintelligent?' You can accept the idea that you are an egoist, but to accept the idea that you are unintelligent is very difficult. Your ego will say 'you - and unintelligent Bodhiprem? You are the most intelligent person in the world!' That's what Bodhiprem must be saying right now.

But be patient try to understand. We are stuck because of our unintelligence. Call it sleep, call it ignorance, call it whatsoever you want to call it, but basically it is unintelligence. An intelligent person... And I don't mean that there are intelligent persons and there are unintelligent persons. Every unintelligent person carries the potential of being an intelligent person. Unintelligence is just the seed that has not broken its shell yet. Once the shell is broken and the seed starts sprouting, it becomes intelligence. So unintelligence is not against intelligence; it is the very womb intelligence arises out of. Fear stand in the way

But let me tell you that a spade is a spade. Even if it hurts, one has to understand it. It is unintelligence that hinders us. Intelligence becomes freedom. You have not understood me. Out of your unintelligence you are creating desires.

For me distrust is a tangible thing.

It is not distrust, because you have not even known trust, how can you distrust? Let it be very clear to you. Distrust is possible only when you have known trust. You have not known trust, so distrust is impossible. So what is it then? It is a not trusting - not mistrust and that is a different thing. It is not-trust. What is the difference?

Not-trust simply means you have never tried trust so you are afraid, frightened. Everybody is frightened when there is something new one is going to do, when one enters into an uncharted sea, or goes into a jungle where there are no more any maps available, no milestones, and there is every possibility that you will never come across any other human being that you can ask where to go and how to find the way.

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 14 I have heard... It happened in a jungle. A man, an explorer, was lost for three days - hungry, almost going crazy, running from this place to that and reaching nowhere. On the fourth day, early in the morning, he saw another man sitting under a tree. He was overjoyed; he forgot all those three days of suffering when in the night he could not sleep because of the wild animals, and in the day searching and searching and there was no way to find out how to get out of this jungle. It had appeared endless.

Naturally, if you were that explorer you also would have been overjoyed, you would have become full of joy at seeing another human being. Now...

He rushed, hugged the man, and said 'I am so happy' And the man who was sitting under the tree said `For what?'

And this explorer said 'Just seeing you, because for three days I have been lost.' And the man said `So what? I have been lost for seven days!'

Now even if you can find a human being - who is himself lost - what is the point of finding him? Now you will both be lost together, that's all. Maybe even more lost, because now there will be two persons continuously conflicting. Up to now you were alone, at least free to move on your own. Now you have a marriage partner, now there are going to be more problems, because he would like to go north and you would like to go south. And both will create fear in the other. 'Maybe the other is right and I am going wrong?' And both may create guilt in each other.

It is a natural fear of the unknown that creates not-trust; it is not distrust. Distrust means that you trusted and you were cheated; you trusted, and because of your trust you were deceived. Then comes distrust. Unlimited trust

But trust has never cheated anybody, it cannot. And I am not saying that through trust people cannot cheat you. Remember, I am saying trust never cheats anybody. Sometimes it has happened that a disciple has become enlightened because he trusted the Master, and the Master himself was not enlightened. This strange thing has been happening down the ages many times.

It happened in a Tibetan mystic's life. He went to a Master. The Master was a fraud - and frauds exist in the world of spirituality more than anywhere else, because there it is very easy to cheat since they deal in invisible things. You cannot see. They say 'Here is God. Look into my hand.' If you don't see, they say you don't trust. If you see, they say ' Then, perfectly okay... can't you see?' and you say `Yes, sir.' And you are not seeing. When you deal in invisible goods it is very simple to cheat. In the marketplace there are frauds, but not so many. There cannot be so many there, because they deal in visible goods. There is some way, some criterion to judge whether the thing is right or wrong.

But in religion there is no way to judge. So out of one hundred, ninety-nine per cent are frauds. It is the best way to cheat people, nothing like it.

This mystic went to the Master, and the Master was a cheat. But this young man trusted - trusted utterly. He thought his Master was enlightened, and whatsoever the Master said, he

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 15 followed one hundred per cent. It was rumored around the place that the Master was such a great man that even if you repeated his name and walked on the water, you could walk. Nobody had tried it before. And even if somebody had tried, then he must have sunk. Then there is always the rationalization that your trust is not entire. So you cannot catch hold of the Master - 'Your trust is not entire, that's why you sank.'

This young man walked on the water - and really he walked. And that became his usual thing. When you can walk on the water, who bothers to go to the bridge or things like that? People started coming and seeing him, and the other disciples - particularly the senior ones - became very disturbed. They tried in secret, but they all sank. So, even the Master was puzzled. One day, in secret, the Master himself tried thinking that `When my disciples can walk on the water just by trusting in me, then what can't I? I can do anything! I am the greatest Master in the world; my disciples are walking on water. Jesus used to walk on water and my disciples are walking on water, so I must be greater than Jesus!'

So he went, in secret of course, because he was afraid. He had never tried - 'Who knows?' And he knew perfectly well that he was a fraud. The disciple had deep trust in him, but he had no trust in himself. How could he have any trust? He knew perfectly well that he went on deceiving people. He walked and sank.

Then he called the young man and said `How do you do it?'

He said `I simply say your name - 'Master, I want to go to the other side' and you take me. And recently I have started flying from one peak of the mountain to the other, because I said 'When it is possible on water, why not in air?' So one day I tried and said 'Master, take me from this side to the other side' and you took me. Now I can do anything. Just your name...

The Master had to fall at his feet. And he said `You initiate me; you know the secret. I am an ordinary man, and last night I tried walking, and I sank.'

It has happened many times, because it is not really a question of whether the man you trust is cheating you or not, the question is that trust never cheats. You cannot be cheated because of your trust. If the trust is infinite you are impossible to cheat. Nobody can cheat you. Your trust will protect you. Your trust will become your very experience. Your trust will become your boat. Your trust will take you to the other shore. But remember, what you have is not distrust. You can't have distrust; you have never trusted. Distrust can come only as an experience that trust failed. But trust never fails, so distrust is just a word; not-trust is true.

You have never tried, so only just a little courage is needed to try. Give it a try. Be a little courageous. Slowly, slowly go beyond the limitations that you have created around yourself - step by step. And the more you go beyond the barriers that you have created around yourself, the bigger you become, more expanse comes to your consciousness. Then you will see that you can go as far as you want, because every move beyond the limitation brings more joy, more freedom, more being. See what there is

It is not distrust; it is only fear that is tangible.

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 16 It feels painful, but I can't let go of it.

There is no need to let go of it. Meditate on it see exactly what it is. We go on giving names to things that we have not even watched correctly. And once you give a wrong name you will be in a trap. The wrong name will never allow you to see the thing as it is. Don't be in a hurry to name a thing and categorize a thing and pigeonhole a thing. There is no need. Just watch what it is. If you watch you will find it is not-trust, not distrust. If you watch you will find it is simply a lack of courage - fear, not distrust and `tangible', no.

Then things will be different. When you know it is fear, when the disease is known rightly, a right medicine is possible. When you go on calling your TB `cancer', then you go on treating cancer and the TB is never treated. Diagnosis is far more important than medication. And this is the problem: people don't worry about diagnosis and they are simply ready to jump upon any medicine. They are ready to take any medicine without bothering at all what their disease exactly is. And that is ninety per cent of the problem; medicine is only ten per cent. Diagnosis is needed, and that's why a Master can be helpful - to diagnose things. Absence of trust

I would like to remind you that it is not-trust not distrust, that it is fear and, in a way, natural. It exists in everybody. So don't start feeling yourself a coward; it is natural. The fear of the unknown exists in everybody. And one has to go slowly, slowly beyond the known - just a few steps so that if it becomes too much you can come back. But once you have started going...

Taken from: Osho - But I say onto you Transformation in the words of Jesus © Rajneesh Foundation in 1980 www.osho.com

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 17 Trust is just being your Self An exchange of thoughts with Douwe Tiemersma

Amigo asked me to speak with Douwe Tiemersma on the subject of trust. To comply with this request I wrote Douwe a letter asking him whether it could be the subject of the evening (satsang) in Gouda. Thinking that this would happen I sat open-minded in the beautiful space of the Advaita Center in Gouda. Halfway through the evening the subject of Trust arose spontaneously. What is nice about that sort of happening is that there are apparently all sorts of people from different backgrounds who evidently have questions on the same themes. Below follows the conversations that took place during the evening and what we later exchanged via mail on the subject of Trust.

V: Trusting the teacher, trusting life that just seems to go its own way, how do we handle that, especially if fears lurk around the corner? How can you be aware of your own fears?

D: Whenever there is any movement towards the boundary (of disappearing), the remains of the I that are still there become one and all fear. When that boundary is crossed and falls away then that seems to be trust. But it is certain that there is fear at the edge of the abyss as long as there is a trace of I. This fear can become a block.

Trust is then nothing other than being your Self. There is trust in being the Self. Being a separated Self that we call 'I' is by definition fear. That becomes very clear when you approach the abyss, but also before that. The possibility of disappearing can be experienced everywhere. As the Self you actually have nothing to do with the structure of the I-world, the boundary and going beyond the boundary. All of that is there just as the little I experiences it.

It is good to realize that the spacious being Self and trust are always already there, also in everyday life. Just think of everything that you trust. There is actually a tremendous amount of trust in everyone even in those who are distrustful. That you are sitting there so comfortably means that you have great trust in the chair, the piece of concrete under it, and the earth on which it all rests. No one can exist without rest and without trust - which is also rest. Everyone recognizes that in their own lives. If you are immensely suspicious then you are paranoid. But even the most paranoid figure still has a great deal of trust, because if you mistrusted everything you would die. If you imagine that there are deadly poison gasses here then you would stop breathing. Nevertheless everyone breathes fully, so there is trust that the air is a bit pure and that life goes on.

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 18 V: You trust that you will not fall through this chair because you have seen in the past that you don't fall through them. That has always been OK. Because you have sat in the past you don't pay any attention to that, but there is a subtle movement in thought behind that.

D: Movement in thought or not, at a certain moment you trust that the chair will not collapse if you sit on it, whether you make the thought detour or not. Mostly the detour is not there and you just plain sit down. The fact that you sit, that you breathe, that you are not sitting totally cramped in your chair, doesn't that all indicate that you have trust?

V: You take it for granted; little by little you take everything for granted.

D: That's just what I want to point out: that as a matter-of-course you have an infinite trust. Original Trust

V: Is that an original experience?

D: an original being experience! And not just for a bit something like: now I'm experiencing that I'm getting a bit of trust, and now trust is almost gone. It is an original being experience that cannot be further discussed. When you go to bed in the evening you trust that the bed will not fall apart and that you will wake up in the morning. There are gradations from trust to distrust and even up to paranoia, but nevertheless there are always some pieces of original trust there.

V: For example that you trust your complete not being there while sleeping?

D: Exactly, then you fall away and the question remains if you will ever return. If you don't trust that you don't sleep.

V: Disturbances can occur in that trust, especially in inter-personal contacts.

D: Disturbances can be everywhere, thus also in contact between people. Not everyone has the same experience. But, the fact remains, if you don't completely close up and are autistic in any case, that there must be trust if you associate with people.

V: Is fear then only a disturbance in trust? Does no fear appear anymore in your Self-being?

D: What is fundamental is: do you identify yourself with a limited I or with unending Self-being with unending trust? Can you see that in everyday life the Self-being, including mistrust, is present everywhere? When you become conscious of that you recognize that you are actually already enlightened. Because you have an unending trust in the world space, in the ground, and in people.

What is fine is that everyone can recognize that in every day life. If you drive or walk through the city, and you are not paranoid, then the Self-being is so spacious that the others, and the surroundings have a place in that trust. It is remarkable that you have so much trust that you can walk calmly through the city.

When real breaks appear in your life's sphere, when you are informed of terrorist attacks, the trust can be damaged. Therefore, something fundamental changes when people are suspicious.

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 19 Then there is no basis anymore for living together. But: this suspicion is secondary. It is a deterioration of original trust. Naïveté and surrender

V: Could you say that being naïve is trust without clarity?

D: Depends on what kind of being naïve we are talking about. I have said in the past that you have to foster your naïveté so that it remains present. Promote your naïveté, but do that a bit consciously. In a conscious way, naïveté can become a life-style, in the good sense of the word, namely that you remain open and keep good trust. Perhaps it may be embarrassed every once in a while, but remain by the great trust. Just let others call you naïve just turn that around, keep your eyes on what is the most important.

That is also true for money affairs: there you can get one percent point more, over there it is even cheaper, maybe now you must sell your shares.

The quality of open Self-being is more important than money, possessions or career. You can also say: what difference does it all make, maybe a little less money, living in an open sphere is more important than being clever in a limited situation.

It is not about the practical everyday situation where you should trust more where you trust that everything will be okay. Also, after you re-discover your trust when it is not going well, has nothing to do with the most important: the open Self-being.

V: Then there is pure surrender...

D: Not even that. See that you can use words in a certain context, but when an actual situation arises the words fall away. The most that you can still say is: trust is identical to Self-being.

V: It does begin with trust, for example to go to a teacher...

D: It is clear that at a certain stage of development as experienced by a person trust comes is clear. Just at the point when Self-being becomes more open and the obvious is no longer so obvious, when things are less certain, then trust is important.

V: Why does one person trust more easily than another?

D: There is not much to say about that, it is either there or it isn't. In a certain situation in duality a relation can happen with someone through which something is experienced of the great Self-being and the great trust. In a phase in which there are still some remains of the I with fears, such a relation can be helpful to letting go of handholds and to making the transition. That trust is necessary to make the transition is clear, because otherwise it doesn't happen. As soon as the little I comes in the neighborhood of the boundary it goes back directly, because it is scary there, then the personal I-sphere contracts. The trust can be so great that fear falls away at that moment. This trust can be helped by 'someone' who has already realized that there is no somebody. For example you can be aware that there is no fear in that person, also not for the ultimate Nothing. Then you know that it is all right.

V: Does that lead to a search for trust?

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 20 D: What is it all about? Haul the direction of the seeking back to you! It is the remains of an I form of which you experience that something still needs to happen. What has to happen? Consider that consciously by your Self. Everything has been there all along. Therefore there is nothing to seek.

V: To me that is the difference between trust and self-evidence. The moment that there is trust, there is still an uncertain element in which the self-evidence is still not present. Otherwise if the self-evidence were already there you would not need the trust.

D: For some trust is self-evident. That is so evident that then there is totally no problem. It is self-evident that non-duality is unending Trust in spontaneous and evidently Self-being. You can only speak about the presence of trust from a certain point of view. This is about a child-like trust, child-like belief. Just see how a child trusts without naming it that. It loves being thrown in the air. If something goes wrong with that fundamental trust, if for example grown-ups do something wrong, then later it hardly ever becomes better again for such a child then the basis of life, that grownups call trust is gone.

V: Sometimes it is scary, like when someone lets himself fall backward onto a table or something, that is really scary and then trust seems to be very big.

D: The naivety is excellent practice itself teaches what is and is not possible. But it is good to become conscious that everything is OK in the Self-being. And that good is not the opposite of bad, but it means that everything can happen and that there is relaxation, acceptance and trust. Even if you are really mistrusting; take a look at who or what you mistrust. Some people even mistrust themselves. But if you look at that more closely maybe you mistrust your angers, emotions and thoughts. They can set a trap for you. But the core of Self-being is what you trust the most and most absolutely.

V: Actually you can't trust anything because you never know beforehand what is going to happen.

D: You can trust everything you witness...

V: Everything happens in the Self-being. You have no control over that. That could make you very mistrusting, exactly because you have no control of it.

D: Not a single self-being, no one, mistrusts his or her own Self-being. You can have doubts about everything, you can mistrust everything, but the origin is always there, untouched: the Self-being.

V: Because there is nothing else.

D: Yes, that is the first and the last.

V: Is that trust not just plain (impersonal) Love?

D: Call it Love. Being-in-bondage

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 21 V: Ver-trouwen, far and marriage, actually a kind of mystical marriage. (Ed: The following question arises out of a word play. Trust in Dutch is vertrouwen, which the questioner breaks up into 'ver'= distant and 'trouwen'= marriage)

D: Yes, it is that resting in being connected, being carried, and becoming one. These are all words that are spoken on the path where there is fear. But, it is good to realize that there is also trust on that path. When everything opens you recognize as the last the infinite trust: resting in Self-being. Discover the unending trust in the ground of what you actually have.

V: Otherwise you will discover it just to survive. It has to be there otherwise life would not be possible.

D: You don't have to discover it because it is already there. Trust is something limited; sooner or later it gives rise to problems. The I is limited, and what you marry or trust is limited. Sooner or later that gives rise to problems. That happens after every marriage.

V: Thus is everything that has form 'not trusting'?

D: The actual trusting knows no forms separate from your Self. It is not about the fact that limited people or things in which your trust can be disappointed. If trust is disappointed then that is something you do.

You suppose yourself to have trust in something from your limited being. And mostly that does not end happily. Trust, just like Love is fundamentally unbounded, unending. It is not dependent on forms that you have to trust first, and certainly not on the limited I. The I cannot have unending trust because it is not unending itself.

V: Because it falls apart if you trust it completely.

D: Precisely, therefore it remains suspicious. But if you look a little further for a bit and you realize: I am unending myself then the unending trust breaks open. If you observe that there is already a lot of trust present in common life, then in that you recognize that you are unending.

V: Why isn't it: I know what I can't trust and I'll see what happens further?

D: But what do you see then? That it goes back and forth between 'I trust it' and 'my trust was misplaced'? You begin from a limited situation that proposes limited trust. The I can only trust in a limited way, it is an I-tension, it remains suspicious and anxious.

V: Actually you can be trusted, except as an 'I'.

D: You are your Self and that is unlimited trust. You are it; it only needs to become conscious and so conscious that the limited doesn't work anymore. People often talk about self- confidence, 'You should have more self-confidence' If you just become more assertive and your I becomes bigger then you can accomplish something in life. The word self-confidence is excellent, but you need to know what that self is. With a more assertive, firmer I you maintain the problem of mistrust.

V: Thus it is not so that the ego needs to be strengthened first in order to let it go later?

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 22 D: In general nothing can be said about that. Sometimes it works like that, but sometime not. There was an extensive discussion about that between Rama Polderman and Wolter Keers. Rama said that the I-weakness had to disappear first. Thus there has to be therapy first. Wolter disagreed and emphasized the independence of enlightenment on conditions. Just remain open and then you will see everything for yourself. Don't get stuck in an opinion ahead of time because if you begin like that the end is lost. . In no case hang on to conditions such as: I have to get rid of the I-weakness first and so on. Applying trust?

V: You often begin with the end of the whole 'story'.

D: Yes, the end is the beginning. Everything in the middle is nonsense.

V: Still, begin and end are also nonsense.

D: Indications toward it can be useful on the path, but non-duality does not take place in time. Then there is neither a beginning nor an end. What more can you say about it? In the dual situation, when it comes to fear, then it is good to look further in the way that we are now discussing: that you will experience that there is trust, that there is always a certain kind of resting that is a certain kind of relaxation and thus is trust. It is always unfounded and nevertheless it is there. Then you feel yourself sitting, and you feel your weight. Out of becoming heavier you experience your contact with the infinite carrying earth. You experience yourself as the never ending. And you are that your Self!

V: As long as there is still an ego or little I, courage can nevertheless still be needed to remain established in trust, not to constantly be caught up in disturbing thoughts and as warriors not surrender to them. You may observe fear of suffering, but not fall into it just as Arjuna did (in the Bhagavad-Gita) to finally establish the dissolution of your 'I' in yourSelf as Conscious-being. Thus, as long as there is an ego sometimes courage is needed.

D: Being yourSelf, Conscious-being and Trust cannot be put into words. They have their origin in the Nothing. That is thus in the groundless everyday trust. Even if there is still an I or a fragment of an I that original trust is always there at the same time, namely in always being yourself.

Courage is more than an ego identity. People rise above their ego in courage. However, this rising above does not go very far because courage always presupposes a separate I sphere. The identity of the warrior is broader than most, but nevertheless it remains limited. It can be useful to be courageous and to encourage in a certain phase, but it is advisable to look further as soon as possible and to realize that you had unending courage, in the sense that you have always been unending, much more roomy than the warrior; see the story of the tea-server who did nothing but still defeated the samurai. This is it.

Once there were a samurai and a tea-master. On a certain day the tea-master had to fight against the samurai. He visited many samurai trainers to learn about sword fighting because he had never had a sword in his hands. However everyone thought that it was impossible in

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 23 the short time remaining. That last samurai he visited asked him: 'What can you do really well?' 'Serving tea according to the ancient ritual.' The samurai's advice was: 'approach the other as if you are beginning a tea ceremony.'

The moment for the fight arrived; the samurai stood ready and the tea-master approached in the perfect manner of the tea-master. The samurai with his sword ready to attack saw the perfection; felt that there was no weakness where he could strike and bowed as a sign that he had lost. Finally there is only one surrender

V: So, back to original trust. Nevertheless, there are often questions put to you such as: 'What more can I do? And then the answer is: 'you can't do anything. No one can do anything, not-someone.' That is why I find the silent day so special: No one is doing anything. Then the question is: Can you as a teacher make something clear to a student as long as there is a somebody (person) who is stuck on the border of resistance?

D: The last resistance appears with the confrontation with the last teacher. This resistance expresses itself as feeling uncomfortable, feeling attacked, seeing the teacher as being hard or even as an enemy in this last phase. If the teacher were not there, the last resistance would not make itself known and everything would remain the same.

If the last resistance appears and the student does not pull back then the resistance disappears. The resistance cannot exist in openness and love and the great trust in which the limited personal is let loose. That is all.

V: If the last resistance is visible and the student does not pull back the resistance disappears. So therefore; be a warrior?

D: No, not being a warrior, but to surrender consciously.

V: Therefore, conscious surrender to the core of you that you recognize in the teacher. Surrender in the trust that you are your Self?

D: Conscious surrender to the core of yourself that you recognize in the teacher, in the trust that you are your Self. To the extent that this recognition and that trust are not complete there can be the recognition of the Self of the teacher and trust in that when the I falls away. In this way, a genuine teacher seems to be needed.

V: About surrender, a quote from you: 'There comes a moment of surrender. The remains of the I come loose. The feeling that I am dying, that the I becomes so insignificant that it dissolves, it disappears. And there appears to be a Self-being that is unending.' You recognize that as the conscious core, it is not a blind core. For all certainty, this is the same surrender, the conscious surrender, that we have been discussing above, the trust that the Not-Self is your-Self.

D: Right, there is a final surrender, and before that all the concepts named and words have their place.

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 24 Dutch website Douwe Tiemersma: www.advaitacentrum.nl

[interview: Pia de Blok, with thanks to Gisela Feld who typed out the conversation]

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 25 Where there is mistrust, there is the I interview with Hans Laurentius

Clear language from Hans Laurentius: 'How can you not trust yourself if you have discovered that you are the self? You can't mistrust what you actually are' But that's not the end of the story. Trusting is something that can arise in the eyes of the seeker. If you feel threatened or unsafe it is not possible to be receptive. Apparently it is a prerequisite for the seeker to trust the teacher. Still Hans prefers to talk about friends rather than about students. But of course this is not actually anything new under the sun. In Amigo number 5 about teaching Hans made it clear that being a student is something that only occurs in the eyes of the student himself. Finally it is seen that neither the teacher nor the student ever existed. The notion 'friend' is a more adequate way to speak of the relation. It makes no distinctions or inequalities. The conversation between Amigo and Hans went in a friendly way as follows:

Amigo: What are we actually talking about in the subject trust?

Hans: That question applies to all these types of subjects: at what level are you examining them. From the psychological point of view people will think; yes: trust is very important. From another perspective trust is always something from the I. Where there is trust there is also mistrust, doubt and uncertainty. There has to be an opposite, otherwise the subject does not exist. Recently at a satsang, the subject of trust was coincidentally also part of the discussion. I said then that if someone comes to me and says: ' I have a lot of trust.' Then I know immediately which way the wind blows. Then I don't believe it, because if it were indeed true, then there would be no need to speak of it. Trust would then be only the absence of uncertainty. It doesn't exist by itself. Therefore, it depends on the perspective of your approach. As Nisargadatta said: 'There are two approaches to realization: hard work, thus doing self-investigation, and trusting. His own story is an example of that. He said: 'I met my guru and I had no reason to doubt him at all. The guru told me to remain in the I-am and I did that.' Things became clear in three years. Further, he never asked any questions, did not visit the guru a hundred times, he just heard what was told to him: 'You are the self and to realize that just stay with the I-am' he said OK and that was that. As he put it himself: 'I had no reason to

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 26 doubt, nothing in me doubted the guru.' There was an absence of doubt. Trust is not something that exists by itself.

You also cannot force trust just by wanting to trust.

No, absolutely not. That is an empty expression. But that is true for all these subjects; finally they all fall apart and appear to be only stories. If you look at life, you see that by definition appearances cannot be trusted, because of the simple fact that they are constantly changing. Now there is something and a second later it might be gone. You can't base your trust on that. The only thing that is worthy of trust, that always leads you, is consciousness itself. Whatever happens you are conscious of it. If you are searching for trust or safety, it has to be found there. Nevertheless there we still sit as a little I staring at the self, because it is a step in between. There we sit mistrusting. We still keep a distance. There is still a certain movement or separation: I am here, and myself, or God depending on what you call it, is there. Apparently there is some distance that has to be bridged. That is also a misconception. How could you mistrust yourself the moment you discover that you are the self? That is completely crazy. That is absolutely impossible. You can only mistrust what you know, what passes before you. The moment you realize that everything changes the concept mistrust refers to nothing anymore. Relaxing and trust

On the other hand, it is also true that some people are all tied up psychologically. Then I notice that my remarks calm down their system. You could call that ' giving trust'. By means of a certain connection that comes into being (in their experience in any case) they can relax and gain trust in this place, in the teaching or in me, as I come across. They can relax enough to receive. But actually we are talking about a sort of earlier stage.

It is true on this level, that if there is no trust, if you feel threatened or unsafe you also cannot receive anything. That is not possible. The system has to relax a bit first. But still, something brings them here (The Horizon Center in Ottersum where Hans and his family live and work. There are satsangs, weekends and retreats there – eds.), no matter how afraid they are, however scary they find it, they nevertheless, come again and again, something drives them. That can't be explained. They also don't know it, but actually we never know that. What is good?

No one of us actually knows that. No one knows why they do what they do. We can create all kinds of theories about that, but I would rather remain with the not-knowing. I also don't need to know it. What happens happens, that's it. It is all independent of qualifications like good or bad those are all additions from the thinking I. The I-thought has to be there first before you can say this is not going well, or that is my behavior. The I-thought has to be there first before there can be a claimer. In fact you are only conscious of things happening, and then you say 'I did that', and the question arises whether it was good or bad. You can ask yourself what are the criteria for good and not good.

People often think that what I do must be good because I talk about the truth. But whether that is good or not is a good question. Imagine for example that someone comes covered in sack

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 27 and ashes; he talks with you for an hour, cheers up and decides he can go on. Everyone would say: 'Gosh, that is good.' And then the person runs into the street in their blind enthusiasm and gets hit by a car. Was it good? Was it not good? I don't know. I know absolutely nothing about it. The only thing that is possible is to be myself. I can't do anything else. Something comes into view, we call that another person, there is an interaction and then they depart. All this time my experience is just the Being itself, and in that level of appearances things appears, but I have not done it, this just happens, it is an interaction. It is not clear to me how that happens. The only thing that is clear is that things happen around me that don't happen elsewhere because 'there' other things happen. But I can neither say that I do them nor that I have nothing to do with them. I don't know what the path of the other is, or what my path is. I only know this here-and-now. That is the only thing, and that is enough. I can fantasize about what might or might not be good for someone, but that is all thinking. Actually I don't know anything about it. And I just remain in that not knowing and apparently that does something. OK. Other say then: 'Thank you very much Hans' or 'Hans is such a great guy,' or 'Hans is such a bastard.' They have judgments, but those are their stories. I also have nothing to do with that, it says nothing about me. It says something about the way they see me. So, strictly speaking there is no basis whatsoever from which we can make statements. It is impossible. I never know what is good or not good. I only know what is happening this moment. Acting without doubt

Based on that you either act or not. That is also much quicker!

Yes exactly. That goes very quickly because there is no need to think about it.

Do you not have doubts then, for example when it comes to your children?

Naturally. The thinking is also active on a practical level and you see: 'Now, this snarling at my children was also unnecessary.' Yes of course. But there is no doubt; you simply see that it is loveless. As far as the world is concerned I can only just see - and that is also a shaky standard – whether something is loving or not. That is actually the only one. You just feel that in your body. It is not something that you think about. And what follows from that: I don't know. But I do know, in the given situation, what the sphere and the energy are like. Is it something broadening or inviting in which everything is welcome, or a pushing away and aggressive energy? But be careful, we must not assert that resistance is always bad! You have to resist some things, for example, bacteria, or aggression from another. Then it is fight or flight. If three men are beating on someone then you might have the opinion that it is not loving to get involved, but according to me it is more loving to get involved. But that is my way.

Still, it is sometimes better to remain still a bit. For example if you are swallowed up by a problem then you make mistakes sooner.

Certainly, that is why one of the most important spiritual tips is simply STOP. Finally that is what it all is in the end. Whatever you are doing with your head or emotions: STOP. Then you have a little pause, a chance for a kind of resetting. The whole system is stopped. You can begin to breath again and experience what is going on in a new way instead of going on running in the reasoning or mood in which you are caught. It is always a question of STOP and at a certain moment you are just stopped and then it doesn't start anymore. Then you just are.

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 28 In the meantime we speak a little haphazardly because we still have the idea that we can change something that way.

Yes certainly, we think that we can a get a grip on reality with words. In fact we talk constantly to ourselves to tell ourselves that the world is like this or like that. It is all just stories, stories, and stories. In the meantime we lose sight of the space in which these stories take place whereas that is exactly what it is all about. If you are just simply there, then stories are no longer needed. Check it out: if you have to keep constantly telling yourself that you are full of trust for someone then apparently something is wrong because if it were true you wouldn't have to constantly repeat it. You don's spent the whole day saying: 'I am a woman' that would be mad. Or: 'this is my hand.' Do I have to say that every morning: this is my hand; these are my knees and so on? No, you just take that for granted that is a fact, finished.

The only thing I know is that I am myself and I also don't know what that means exactly. Apparently that interests other people. That is also something. It doesn't strike me as special in any way. I only see it in relation to others. But actually, it still a bit strange that people come to folks who are only just themselves, because finally that's all it is. Apparently it is exceptional to just be yourself. That is also a bit crazy. Without hanging on

Strictly speaking, all subjects such as fear and trust are only interesting for a mind that is confused; a mind that does not see itself for what it is. Then all these themes become extremely important. The moment that you have seen through the I as being only an illusion, these themes are not interesting anymore. My experience is that the interest in this kind of problematic disappears. The moment itself is enough. I don't have to seek for another theme to add to that.

Don't people have to trust you?

No, that is not necessary. If they don't trust me they disappear, they leave. That's good; I don't hang on to them. Then I hope they find someone else with whom it clicks. That's the way it is, and it is ok.

You don't have to make an effort for it?

What for? The people who come have the idea that they are not enlightened. I don't see it that way. If I would also think that the people who come have a problem, if I also believe in the problem, then the other would have not a ghost of a chance. For that matter, also enlightenment does not exist. That is also only an idea. The only thing that I explain is that we are exactly the same. We are all consciousness. The only miniscule little difference is that you still think that you are someone, and that on this side there is someone sitting who does not think that he is someone. That is really a miniscule little difference, but it does have a lot of consequences. That is actually everything. Empty hands

It only becomes important because it has so many consequences. That means that you are going to do your extreme best again.

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 29 Yes, exactly. In the beginning you only see the sphere of consequences because people only identify with their emotions and their thinking. If you don't know who you are it is chaos, that's logical. Because people only identify with that small territory their life seems to be a mess. They don't look to see what else there could be. The endless space they ignore. They have no idea about the infinite silence, the fullness, they have no notion of all that, just sometimes when they relax for a few moments. But then they think something is causing it. Maybe someone was nice, or they had good sex, or they bought a new TV. It is always coupled to something. They do not see the immediacy of the natural relaxation. At a certain moment people realize that they have to go through to the core. Then you have to have strong motivation, because you are going to lose a lot of ideas that give you support. In the beginning it seems that you get something in return: a feeling of love and clarity, that kind of side effect, but finally its about arriving at a state of standing with empty hands. Having nothing more to hold on to is scary for the ego that began the search. Then you have to recognize that you know nothing. We say a lot and we explain a lot, but actually it all explains nothing. Recognizing that is a dreary business, especially for someone who is uncertain. In the first place you go to a teacher to get certainty. Then he says: 'That doesn't exist, dear sir or madam.' 'But I don't know what its about!' 'Yes, yes, nether do I. The only difference is that I feel perfectly comfortable with that and you become afraid with it'. The game is to take someone by the hand and give some certainties at first: 'You can trust the feeling of being, that is always there, even when you are afraid. Just do a little step back, feel it for a moment... aah, yes, there it is.' That gives confidence. Finally that being swallows you. You must not reveal that too soon, because then the fear would become too strong.

Until a point comes when it is impossible to go back.

On that level that is also very important, if there is a click at a certain moment, then that has a kind of strength that people call trust: I just plain trust you, so bring it on. Dissolution of tension

If you take a good look, it is just a good feeling and the absence of tension.

Yes, exactly. The entire ego-principle is just a kind of restlessness, fear or tension in action. This dissolves. If people experience this a few times, for example at a place like this or somewhere else, then that builds trust. Because if I'm there: exhale, I feel room again, I feel the tension ebbing away. It is just like dyeing cloth the batique way: color is applied, the whole thing is put in the sun and allowed to fade and the color almost disappears. Just in that way you return to your tense state, but a little less each time. And, the following time it is again a bit roomier. If you experience that a few times then the feeling of trust grows very strong in you and you know that you are on the right track.

Don't you mean that it is also a bodily notion?

Yes, it is that also. The body recovers itself. The entire I-thing makes the body sick. There is only one sickness and that is the I-sickness. If the cramp relaxes, the body begins to function in a normal way again. The entire energy system repairs itself and goes to work. All kinds of side effects may happen, but in principle the body seeks out its natural state.

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 30 Here there is nothing to do!

No. At best that should occur naturally. I am not a proponent of helping that or tinkering with it or trying to help with all kinds of techniques. Also not at a ascertain level. I much prefer for people to remain still and allow the energy itself to do the work because the energy is immensely intelligent. It is much more intelligent than the thinking gestalt wants it to be. The body is nothing other than intelligence. If you leave it alone, thus don’t overfeed it with worries, seeking, projections or scrapping then it knows how to function perfectly well, what is good for it, where it fits and where it doesn’t. Restoring may sometimes last a year or a few days, but it begins immediately, directly the moment that we have contact with reality.

Then you can react immediately, you no longer have to think everything over.

Actually you know everything immediately. Everyone actually knows everything immediately. Only, we have given so much power to the thinking that we have become a bit estranged from the entire body which is a very sensitive instrument. If you leave that in peace, thus if you are still, then it picks up immediately where you must go right or left in a manner of speaking. It is not necessary to think that over. It is more a following of the energy.

Then trust would be something that comes via the body in the first place.

That's what I also think. But, thus it is the movement from tension to relaxation. In this movement a kind of trust can arise, but if the tension is gone at a certain moment then the trust is also gone. It is no longer needed; no counterweight is needed any more. Just being is enough. Everything is good or everything is...?

Trust is not about everything coming out all right, because that is not trust that is hope. Then you only hope that it is good, just like a new-age affirmation: 'Everything is good.' Yeah, everything is good, what does that mean? Could it also be wrong? It is again introducing a duality. Everything is not good, everything is.

You put a restriction on yourself, there is still a lot to make better or just the opposite, nothing may change because everything is good.

Precisely, that is how you keep a certain tension going. It is easy to change into; it has to be good. Then something happens that you don't like and that is not allowed. Because after all everything has to be good. Everything is good after all, but I don't feel it, so there must be something wrong with me. From the limited vision that apparently is still there you can see the inclination to tell yourself stories. People also think that it helps to call out all the time: 'Everything is consciousness', because the so-called teacher says that it is so. But this way it just becomes a little story again. Teachers say that because they see it directly, because it is their experience. Naturally they don't say that to themselves. I never say to myself 'Hans old boy, take it easy because everything is consciousness.' That never occurs to me. That only arises in me when it has a function, when there are people who want to hear that. Then I can say that sort of thing but it doesn't mean anything to me. It is something like saying 'Water is wet'. Yes, I know that so I don't have to say it. But maybe someone else doesn't know that. Then I can

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 31 explain it and I can let it be tasted, then it makes sense. 'What is water then? What do you feel?' 'It is flowing and damp.' OK, thanks very much. But if you already know that...

Does that ever irritate you?

No, no otherwise I would have stopped a long time ago. No, that is not possible; the principle that is called guru can only exist in the now. Nothing precedes that. I can say with my understanding that I have been doing this for seven years already but when I am in action there is o one who has been doing it for seven years. There is only this principle, this life that lives and nothing of it can be found there. Sometimes I can find something beforehand; maybe there is a mood that I don't feel like doing something for example. But that is all just blah, blah. It is not an actuality. Afterwards I may have some opinion about something, but it is not relevant, it is more like a passing scent.

You like explaining don't you?

I have a lot of pleasure in it, yes...

Hans' website in Dutch: www.hanslaurentius.nl

[interview: Ilse Beumer]

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 32 Already Awake - Nathan Gill

If you have had enough of searching for spiritual gold then you must read Nathan Gill's book 'Already Awake'.

For Gill the totality is made of the knowing and the known. The knowing is the film-screen and the content of consciousness is the film. Together they form an indivisible unity or knowingness.

'I speak of consciousness, oneness, wholeness, with its two simultaneous aspects of awareness and content of awareness. The two aspects – awareness and content of awareness – are not separate: they are one. Awareness is the registering or cognizing of all that presently appears as the content of awareness.'

Usually the knowing as part of the unity not noticed.

'Awareness is devoid of all qualities, and so it gets overlooked.'

According to Gill the content aspect of knowingness has a hypnotic effect – in the sense that it makes us forget the whole.

'Oneness is already Your true nature. 'You' oneness, are only ever seeing Yourself as all forms, but this fact is overlooked in the mesmerisation with the thought story.'

It is namely the I-thought that makes us lose sight of the unity and causes us to feel separate.

'With the identification as 'I', all of the other thought images become 'my' thoughts, and this seeming succession of thoughts is what is referred to as 'mind' or the psychological self-sense.'

In reality there is only seeing and not someone who sees.

'There is actually only ever seeing, but at times there is the play of identification as the character –so it seems as though the character is seeing, doing, all the rest of it.'

The tension between separation and our intuitive knowing of our true nature makes seeking arise.

'When there is identification as a character, there is a sense of separation from everything else. With this sense of separation, there is simultaneously an intuition of our true nature as oneness, and this disparity is what appears in the play of life as the motivation for the search for oneness.'

However, the seeking is also only a thought that arises in consciousness,

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 33 'In the thought story there is a search for meaning and a looking for a way out of it all – whereas when it's seen to be simply a story arising presently, an extension into past and future existing merely in thought, then the seriousness goes out of the quest for oneness. There is simply the registering of the present content of awareness. This is already presence, already oneness.'

Gill discusses a number of ideas around the theme of seeking. For example, he discusses the idea that searching for unity is a special kind of seeking.

'Seeking takes many forms. It can be the search for being able to play the best game of football or for a new car or to get over a feeling of anxiety or whatever.'

He also talks about the idea that we should go outside the content.

'This idea that the content of awareness is unimportant is a misconception. It stems from the traditional idea of spirituality, which is to try to escape from the material – or the content, and that's why the material is often negated. But if there is only Consciousness – which is awareness and content of awareness – then the content is completely and equally as important as awareness. There is nothing outside of the movie. There is only the movie and the present registering of it from 'within' the movie.'

Gill also warns about waiting for realization as a special moment in the future.

'There's a subtle waiting game for something to appear differently, for some kind of 'event' or experience as confirmation. But what confirmation is needed for presence? If it is projected as an awakening that's going to happen in the future, then something is being overlooked. There is only already awakeness, which may or may not be recognised. Without awakeness, none of this could appear.'

Searching for something special only disturbs the peace that is already there.

'The peace which is sought is covered up by the seeking for peace.' As far as Gill is concerned very little has to be changed. Therefore, the 'I' need not go. 'It's not necessary for the 'I' to completely disappear. If there is knowing as our true nature, then it doesn't matter what appears, whether there is the appearance of 'I' or the absence of it. There is this appearance as the character, but the story of this character is no longer taken seriously. There is no longer the same investment. When it is simply recognised that 'I' is just another thought, it's not required that 'I' completely or permanently disappears, and it's perfectly OK for this 'I' to come and go.'

Separation continues to exist as a function of the game.

'There is still however, the appearance of separation, distance, perspective, as a functional aspect of the play. Although there is still appearance as this character, there's the recognition that this isn't all we are. We are not only the person but also the registering of the person – awareness and also the content of awareness. Oneness is the whole thing – including the seeming separation. It's not as though anything has to change – there is already awareness right now, presently viewing the content.'

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 34 Problems remain but without a 'someone' who assigns the problems to themselves.

'All the 'problems' are still there, but there is no longer identification with them. There is no longer the movement to escape from them. They are no longer 'my' emotions, 'my' thoughts etc. The story is no longer 'my' story. It's seen through. Agitation may still arise, but there's a tendency for it to subside fairly quickly. There is no longer the story of this 'I' that it can 'stick to'. There is presently 'what is', whether we stick a 'great' label on it or a 'mediocre' label'.

According to Gill you can't do anything to become conscious.

'The play is on automatic pilot, it's all happening automatically: apparent identification as the character, involvement with the seeking - and then maybe the permeation into the play of the recognition of oneness. 'You' can't surrender. What is going to surrender? An apparent surrender happens, but there is no one that surrenders.'

Further Gill has this to say about it:

'There is this mesmerisation whereby a story arises that 'I' need to be aware of awareness. But as the mesmerisation is seen through, the struggle to be aware as the 'I' becomes obsolete. The 'I' can't do anything about any of this; it cannot 'de-mesmerize' itself because it's part of the mesmerisation.'

Thoughts that can't be reached are also part of the game.

'The play is on autopilot, including all of these arising fears and anxiety about it not being seen. There's only already awakeness, only already oneness, and maybe a story about not getting it. With this seeing, the tension disappears from it all.'

If it is seen that there is nothing to reach then relaxation can happen.

'When the mesmerisation with the story is seen through, the contraction of tension and seeking is released. There is ease – no desire for escape. The ease is always the case: it's simply covered up by tension arising with the mesmerisation. And so, in the absence of that tension, there is still this apparent life as the character, but it's no longer 'my' life.' Once again in other words: 'When there is recognition of this being a play, then the desire no longer appears for any of it to change at all. That agitation that is the seeking dies. The play continues but without the tension of seeking. The mesmerisation is seen through. The 'I' that would do something is seen through. An ordinary life is lived in this innate knowing. So it's not that there's necessarily bliss, but there is an ease with it all.' website Nathan Gill: www.nathangill.com 'Already Awake' is sold by: www.non-dualitybooks.com

[Herman Snijders]

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 35 A tale told by an idiot

Charlie Hayes (68, California) is an openhearted and colorful man. After our interview he is reminded of a line from Amadeus (the film) in which Mozart says: 'I am a vulgar man, but I assure you, my music is not'. He states, 'I too have been a vulgar man. But hopefully, my sharing is not.'

When it comes to searching, he knows all the tricks. That is: 'I don't care how, if only I'll get to where you can't get' (because I was already always there. Duh)_

Talking to us about 'nothing' he thinks is great fun.

Charlie is a Reiki Master/Teacher and a writer, and does marketing sponsorship coaching for people who do car racing, once his great passion (as a race driver he used to be in the world top 10.)

To quote you, after your introductory lines of Awakening To The Eternal (on your website): 'Lies! Lies! Truth cannot be languaged. It is hopeless. It is an impossible task. Only a fool like me would try'. There are quite a few communicators who would, as we all know..?

Yes. They are all like me ... fakes. I've noticed that authentic pointing usually includes a disclaimer of some sort, to avoid the confusion, which I now include for this apparent Charlie: Nothing I say is the truth.

And 'I' am not an enlightened person. That would be a gross contradiction in terms, a true 'Oxymoron.' (Emphasis on the Moron part.) I had a marvelous conversation on New Years Day with my Beloved Friend Tony Parsons. I said: 'First off, I have to tell you, I am a fake.' Tony laughed and said, 'Me too!' (Tony points constantly to the non-existence of a 'person;' reiterating that the so-called person is a phantom, a fake.)

Remember our friend Lao Tsu? 'The Tao that can be told is NOT the Eternal Tao.' Of course, he went on to apparently 'tell' the Tao for another eighty plus verses of beautiful, really sublime, poetic pointing toward the Eternal.

All that is happening here is that there is a body-mind called Charlie pecking away on a keyboard with two fingers. What sees this going on? There is a simple sense, I am, I exist. NOT the thought I am. The thought 'I am' is NOT the I that I am. That I is impersonal. It is you and the world and everything and nothing. And This is all simply... happening, In the Space of That I.

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 36 You have been on 'the pathless path' quite a while, you spoke to many people, studied the sages. Can you tell us about that ('knowing that you are not your story')?

Ah yes. The story. We love our stories. The story of ME. I am the star of my story. And it is SO interesting, to me! To anyone else it is Boring. They love THEIR story. In which THEY are the stars. Of course, there really IS NO One so the whole exercise is, as Shakespeare noted, 'A tale told by an idiot, filled with sound and fury, signifying ...NOTHING, a poor player who struts about on the stage and then is heard from no more.

But OK, here it is anyway:

I appeared as Charles David Hayes Jr. on 14 December 1936. I have been a spoiled brat, a jazz musician, and a professional racing driver once rated in the top ten in the world. I raced for Ferrari in the 1960's and later owned a Ferrari agency. I won a number of races, which 'Made me feel whole and complete. For about an hour.' I had many friends, amongst them movie stars, Indy winners and Formula One racers. In 1968 I appeared briefly in a major motion picture, 'Winning,' with Paul Newman, who drove my then current Can-Am car in the film.

Despite having wealth, fame, marvelous friends, a loving family and huge successes, there was always something missing. There was a deep fundamental sense that 'something is wrong' and 'I am not a good person.' And as my life unfolded there was a deep feeling that 'I don't belong', and that 'I am on my own in a hostile world.' Despite all the successes, there was quiet (and sometimes quite LOUD) desperation!' When I was not racing I drank and did drugs to dull the pain. life strikes

I became intensely interested in spiritual disciplines after the devastating loss of most of my possessions, my business, my home and even my beloved wife. This was accompanied by a complete 'nervous breakdown,' for which I was hospitalized for a month in June 1974.

While I was in the hospital a sort of strange awakening occurred (although I did not see it as such, I just thought I was crazy.) Sitting in a group, another patient began to speak and I had the clear and unmistakable experience of being not me any more but rather being HIM. Knocked me for a loop. It was 'me' speaking through that body-mind apparatus over there; I knew what he was about to say a split second before the sound was heard. I had disappeared and there was nothing, a space, in which thinking arose and sound arose _ for no one!

I later learned that this was what was referred to in the East as Jnana or pure knowing without a 'knower', or in some Christian mystical literature, the 'Impersonal Life' at the heart of creation.

After that moment I saw quite often that what I had thought was 'me' was actually a machine, running on endlessly, producing one furball of thought after another. Its favorite thing to think up was this apparent 'me!'

But not having the least idea of what this might be I dismissed it as a Looney Toons Moment and went right back to being 'someone, a person, separate and alone', a thing with no awareness of the Nothing I had glimpsed.

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 37 My Sweet Lord! Then, while still in that mental ward, I found a record by George Harrison singing this great 'Love Song to God' it sent me straight into ecstasy! My Sweet Lord!! That was another kind of awakening. It was what I later learned was a taste of the unconditional, pure love of God, or Oneness called Bhakti in the East, Agape in the West. I listened to it over and over. 'enlightenment'

At this point some new Energy surged up. I lost weight, exercised, and quit smoking, much to the amazement of the doctors and staff. They thought I was miraculously cured.

Well, it did seem that way. But I was about to crash big time from this 'enlightenment' after leaving the cocoon of the hospital.

After being discharged, while still on heavy medication for depression, I was exposed first to the book 'Be Here Now' by Ram Dass, and then to the teachings of the Great Sage of India, Sri Ramana Maharshi.

Ramana's teaching germinated for 27 years, while I searched through many teachings, seminars, gurus, books, tapes, meditations and other 'spiritual practices.' Gurumayi Chidvilasanda initiated the life saving heart surgery I received in the year 2000.

In 2001 I received initiation as a Reiki Master Teacher. Becoming a Reiki Master was a breakthrough into a healing, freedom and joy that I had sought since 1974. But it seemed a piece was still missing. Then in 2002 I met the Indian Saint Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. We quickly became quite close and, there was tremendous Love and profound 'Resonance' between us. And lo and behold, Charlie-Ishan became 'enlightened.'

So he thought. WOW! Bliss, at last...

I was in love with everything and everyone. I saw NO lack or limitation and I saw that EVERYTHING was perfect, just as it is. There was NOTHING wrong any more, for me. ('For me.' Uh Oh!)

(Right now as this is being typed, there is the thought, wow, this is FUN, accompanied by a feeling of great joy and enthusiasm. I guess that is as good an explanation of why this communication is happening as any! If any explanation is wanted by a mind out there this will do nicely!)

OK, Back to the Tale Told By The Idiot: After a few weeks the apparent 'Oneness' began to fade of course, and I got real worried! I can see now that there was a deep and profound EXPERIENCE of oneness... but it was for a 'me.' And as we know ALL experience is temporary. After a few weeks it was (apparently) gone, and that 'me' was left with the same endless despair that I knew as my 'default state'. So, it seemed that something was STILL 'wrong' with 'me.' A piece was still missing.

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 38 That missing piece turned out to be authentic Non-Dual Spirituality, known as 'Advaita.' The Non-Dual 'Teachings' point out that, as I mentioned before, NO PERSON becomes enlightened! The 'one' who wants it is GONE when it 'happens.' There are no enlightened body-mind machines! Something had led me to the Sage Wayne Liquorman, and from 2002 through 2004 I finally became inalterably convinced through the words of Wayne, Ramesh Balsekar, Nisargadatta Maharaj and others that this enlightenment that 'I' was seeking all those years is utterly IMPERSONAL and is NOT something a 'person' can 'attain.'

In a way this was VERY bad news. I realized that for thirty years I had been looking under the streetlight for a key that was lost by the door, but you see, there was no light by the door so I kept looking for 'it' where it WASN'T.

Then I tried a new meditation 'Practice' called the Ishayas Ascension. That was quite profound. As I began the second day of the three-day Course, suddenly there was this very deep realization that The Eternal (also called 'The Ascendant') was NOT some THING or 'State' to 'Attain.' It was the absolute NATURAL always-present Presence that is at the core of everything. It is clean, clear and profound in its timeless beauty. Seeing this over and over, as an experience, rather than a 'dry' concept, was MOST welcome! However, that was still an 'experience' for a 'me' at that stage.

Finally in late 2004 after a retreat in Sedona with Wayne Liquorman I got fed up, frustrated, and exhausted. In my despair, I got rude and nasty with my friend Wayne, who is not one to suffer ignorant fools and who summarily kicked me out of his Satsang. That was PERFECT as it turned out because that led me to Tony Parsons.

Listening to Tony there was immediate and deep love. It was amazing, palpable. In September 2004 I heard a tape of a talk he gave in California that just left me in awe. And now the light was seen as definitely NOT the train. Tony was pointing toward Home from EXPERIENCE, sharing that Experience with me. And the message Tony was delivering was.. is _ delightfully, utterly devoid of the usual spiritual concepts. Over the next few weeks I heard many talks by Tony, which resonated deeply. There was a beautiful unfolding of that which had been missing. It is a Pure and Simple IMPERSONAL Affinity, Friends sharing with Friends, rather than some 'Sage' sitting in a big chair looking down from his high attainment at some 'miserable seekers.'

'There was No 'Enlightened person!' There never was, is, or could be. This was the beginning of Liberation For No One.

These insights led 'me' to read books by and/or chat with other nice people like Leo Hartong, Nathan Gill, Jan Kerschot, John Wheeler, 'Sailor' Bob Adamson, Joan Tollifson, Wei Wu Wei and Gilbert Schultz. After an intense period of interaction with John Wheeler, spiced up by Leo, John Greven (John Wheeler's friend) and Gilbert, there came a settling in that awareness that is all there is, and there is no me except as an appearance of thought in the space of that awareness. And an appearance is a ghost, a fake. No more real than the shadow of the tree is the tree.

And in the now there is no person. Just This. Typing at a keyboard. Looking out of the window. Noticing thought and feeling appearing in the Space that is the I am. Drinking Coffee. Watching a crow fly across the empty sky. Hearing the hum of the computer and the clack of the keys.

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 39 Noticing the thinking that there is someone thinking, seeing through that ... aware of the light that lights the mind like the light that shines through the prism splitting itself apparently from One into Many.

'I saw the light at the end of the tunnel -and it wasn't the train-', you mentioned that a few times.

I once thought that The Light that was seen was the Source teasing me with glimpses of the experience of the Self. Later I came to see (a seeing occurred/occurs) that that too is nonsense. The experience is NOT the Real. Not The Eternal. The Eternal is absolutely nothing! No Thing. Neti Neti as the Hindus say. Total negation. Not Not Not! And this cannot be known or understood.

As I said only a fool would try to speak the unspeakable. 'The Tao that can be told is NOT the Eternal Tao.' The moment we think or speak there is something thinking or speaking ABOUT That which can NOT be represented in language. That can NOT be RE- presented. IT is always present, shining right now as the light of Awareness, a Naked Presence, BEFORE the mind. A Priori.

Gilbert Schultz points to it simply as 'One moment endlessly unfolding.' 'Sailor' Bob uses the concept 'Presence-Awareness, just this, nothing else. Full stop.' All point endlessly to That which cannot be pointed to. Because That does not exist AS AN OBJECT! One-Without-A-Second means NO separation, doesn't it?

'What kept you going on exploring, was there an innate confidence somehow?'

More like an innate desperation. But truly, this is not anything the seeker can control, nothing that happens can be controlled by any appearing 'me. This 'Awakening' stuff is a bit like having a spin-out at 180 MPH in a race car. After the ride is over people say, 'Wow, you did a great job controlling the car!' Nope, 'I' was just along for the ride.

The shadow does not control that which casts the shadow. The shadow appears real but in fact without the Source, the shadow cannot exist at all. And even further out, without the Light that shines as the Source of the Source there could be no shadow.

What kept 'me' exploring was that there was no one choosing. If there had been a 'me' to choose that me would have stopped the seeking long ago! Seeking is misery for the apparent seeker. Finding never happens, it Never has for any 'one' and never will. It is a hopeless case, chasing one's tail. Do you know the play 'Waiting for Godot?' I don't know the whole text, but I was struck by the premise, as I understand it: 'Waiting for Godot. It is horrible. He NEVER comes. All there is is waiting.'

The whole idea of a 'me' seeking that can choose to seek or not, to keep going or not, is straight out of the ignorance of the split mind. As Wei Wu Wei points out so elegantly, the whole problem is that we have our attention on 'me' and there ISN'T one! You see there is no one. It is not, there is no choice. There is no chooser. Choosing appears and happens as a part of a story of 'me.' But there is no such person as 'me.' Just a body-mind typing away this morning ... this

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 40 apparent entity I call myself is but an idea in the split mind that thinks itself to be real and believes itself to exist separately from all else that is.

So who can choose to continue exploring if there is no one?

We have a theme in this Amigo issue that is 'no regrets'. Please comment.

I regret that I have no comment: --- Just kidding!

Regrets can arise. The difference is, that regret, like happiness or any other emotion or thought, is simply seen as a natural expression of Oneness arising in the Space of that which we are ... the Eternal.

I had a conversation last night with someone that ended 'badly.' She was being stubbornly right about all that she 'knew' about everything. Finally I ran out of patience and said, you, my dear, are being both arrogant and ignorant.' You can imagine how well THAT went over!

Mind you, in order to see that I had to recognize that IN the 'me' that thinks it is a person. So it was seen that, yes, that 'me' that thinks it is who I am IS arrogant and ignorant! That is what's so in the play.

But it is also, so what? So this morning there is regret. I would prefer that there be affinity in all my relationships. But there is no GUILT. Guilt can only arise for a 'me' that thinks 'it' did 'something wrong.' Nothing is right or wrong unless there is a thinker thinking that there is something wrong or right. And if you and I look for that 'Thinker' we find beyond doubt that 'It' does not exist. As 'Sailor' Bob says: 'What's wrong with right now, unless you think about it?'

So regret can arise. As can fear, anger, joy, peace, depression, happiness, all of the spectrum. But it simply arises in the space, the pure naked awareness, and then dissolves back into that. And when this is seen by no one, it is seen that the seeing, the seen and the apparent process of seeing are NOT separate.

All there is is Consciousness. No thing. Happening.

Charlie's website: www.AwakeningToTheEternal.Net

PS Days after the ending of out email conversation we received another e-mail from Charlie wherein he communicates in all honesty:

[...] There is sometimes still a deep, abiding sadness near the core of 'me' and a sense that I am not 'done' ... though I sometimes try to claim that I am. So the unfolding into Light goes ... and the inquiry into who, and what, that 'me' is, continues. I have been deeply touched by a great many people who have shared their experiences of 'awakening' on the spiritual path on the Internet. And so I am moved to share my process. [...]

[Josée Zwaferink]

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 41 Synthesis between spirituality and psychology - Almaas -

The first books that I read on the theme of self-realization were books by Almaas from the Inner-diamond Series. As far as insight and depth there are probably very few standard works that provide such a broad view of this subject. When Almaas was in Holland last year I found that to be a good opportunity to finally see and hear him in person. As far as I know Almaas never talks about Advaita. Nevertheless many knowers of advaita will recognize much in his work as far as the subject self-realization is concerned. I want to write something about Almaas and his work in this short article. The amount of information about him and the breadth of his works is so great that those who have more interest in Almaas will have not trouble finding their way. Almaas

Almaas means diamond in Arabic. This name was adopted by the now 60 (probably) year old A. Hameed Ali. He comes from Kuwait and has been living in Berkeley, California since his 18th year. He received a PhD in Psychology with a specialization in Reiki, among other things, from the University of the same name. His mother was religious in traditional Islam that according to him contains tolerance, friendliness, humanity, generosity and freedom among other qualities.

He was in Holland last year on June 9, 2004 and spoke to approximately 1000 people in the auditorium of the Free University in Amsterdam on the occasion of the publication of his book 'The Inner Journey Home' (The soul's realization of the unity of reality). In this book Almaas says he present a synthesis between the insights from various spiritual traditions and scientific psychology.

Almaas writes in the preface to this book: 'As a human individual I am the author of this book, but not the source of the teaching presented in it. The real source of the teaching is the true nature of Reality, the essence of our soul and what we ultimately are, the elixir that alone can transform our consciousness and life. By writing and publishing this book and the others before it, I am fulfilling a facet of my personal function as a discriminating and expressive organ, and an appreciative servant of this wonderful and magnificent truth of reality'

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 42 Sitting on the podium of the overfull auditorium and continually 'playing' with his prayer beads Almaas talks about his new book. But he talks especially about love, which according to him is the source of existence. Love is pure and has nothing to do with wanting to have. Love is the revelation of the truth. He also talks often about 'unfoldment', 'bubbling- and popping up'. Everything is a manifestation of the truth and everything can come up in that.

In the press information (in which for that matter it is also stated that the Free University takes absolutely no responsibility for the content of the lecture and only rented the hall) there is a summary of the new book. Almaas tries to present a synthesis between spirituality from different traditions and psychology: '... the vision needed for a new psychology must hold the ancient way of understanding the soul while at the same time embracing and employing modern understanding and methods of research. Our vision must not separate psychology from spirituality or from science. As we will see, the view that recognizes the true connection of the soul to the universe can and must embrace scientific knowledge'. He indicates that psychology presents a self without a soul, whereas spirituality is about a soul without a self. He develops here a meta-psychology that is based on knowledge of the soul and not only on the knowledge of the self with its ego and subsystems.

Almaas is the founder of the Rhidwan School where the so-called 'Diamond Approach' is taught. Various branches are spread over the United States as well as other countries. Students participate in 'The Work': this should lead to liberating of the soul from conditioned patterns and finally to the realization of the True Nature. According to experts the work of Almaas is strongly based on Sufism. In an interview Almaas indicates that the most important motivation in his life is his interest in the truth.

Almaas has written many books precisely describing what The Work is about. These books are known in Holland as the series 'The Inner Diamond', which has in the meantime reached to four volumes. These books are reproductions of lectures by Almaas and are directed to orient and direct the individual on the way to realization. Apparently this is in contrast to the direct way, the immediate seeing of advaita. Nevertheless Almaas always returns to that One What Is or Essence. Another well-known book of his is 'The Pearl of the Essence'. Trust

In the first part of The Inner Diamond there is chapter dedicated to Trust, the subject of this edition of Amigo.

The chapter begins with a conversation with his students about trust. He builds up his argument very carefully. According to him there are a number of different kinds of trust, for example the trust that you are in good hands, wherever you may be – alone or with someone else. A deeper kind of trust is the trust that a person cannot injure you, that he has the best intentions for you. Then there is another level in which you trust someone because of what he is, because you know or feel that they have a certain kind of integrity that has nothing to do with you, you know that you can rely on it.

Finally he arrives at a working definition of trust: trust is that which gives you certainty and safety to let yourself be open in a certain situation, to allow everything to happen without

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 43 resistance, without needing to protect or defend yourself. On a deeper level he talks about the capacity to surrender, to be there, to go along with the situation.

Almaas's diamond- approach could be seen as a process of deepening. In the English version of the Diamond Heart book he further writes about trust: 'Trust in the process? You allow yourself to be open. Usually when you feel you don't know, you want to do something right away. But you don't have to do anything: you just need to be there. When something happens, you're there for it. Ultimately, trust is really trusting your Essence. That trust will develop. The trust is not something you have right away. The more you know yourself and the more you see the rightness of your own process as it happens, the more you'll trust it... finally, you see that there is nothing you can trust, nobody, no authority, except the process itself. Finally the trust does not trust anybody; it does not trust any theory; it does not trust any authority; it is trusting reality. It is just trust – confidence in the Essence itself. It will take time for the trust to mature and deepen.'

It is beautiful to see that this 'method' only appears in Availability.

I close this article with a short poem by Almaas:

Beyond ambition Beyond attachment Is home Without content Peace Uncaused

A good site to come to know a lot about Almaas is www.ahalmaas.com

[Dick de Boom]

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 44 The elevenfold liberation by Douglas Harding

Whatever our background, we have all been blunted and shrunk by society into small, limited, perishable things called human beings, separate, lonely, full of all sorts of fear, locked up in the prison of our conditioning. It seems that various escape routes lie ahead of us, such as hard work, entertainment, shopping, sex, drugs, spirituality. We imagine there's no simple and straightforward release from our prison, but in fact it offers no fewer than eleven wide-open doors to freedom, as we are about to see.

What I need is liberation from guilt and every kind of selfishness and delinquency.

The overriding aim and passion of my adult life has been conscious union with its Source. Yet I seem to get worse all the time instead of better! (Probably what's really happening is that I'm becoming more aware of the ingenious tricks the ego is playing in order secretly to survive and flourish.) Anyway I'm increasingly appalled at Harding's nastiness, if that's the word for it. He'll take some saving! No ordinary rescue bid will do.

What I get is eleven lifelines, eleven distinct liberations, any one of which would be sufficient to haul me to safety.

Such is the loving kindness, the overflowing generosity, the sense of humor, the thoroughness, the sheer prowess of my Source and Centre. It's impossible to exaggerate the combined force of the Eleven, as I find, to my utter astonishment, that already I already am.

1 - I'm boundless

When I point to what I'm looking out of, to my 'Original Face', I find it goes on and on and on endlessly, in all directions - up and down, left and right, in front and behind, with undiminishing energy. Almost as astonishing is the fact I can be this big, this burst-asunder without ever noticing it, let alone valuing it.

To be the super benevolent sub nuclear explosion that's forever would have been liberation enough and to spare. But for good measure there are at least ten more in the pipeline, each eagerly awaiting its turn to pop up! 2 - I'm pure

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 45 'Though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow. Though they be red like crimson they shall be as wool.' So sings the prophet Isaiah in the Old Testament. The forgiveness of sins is, of course, one of the chief themes of the New Testament. What it's all about, you could say.

In his book Intuitive Awareness, Ajahn Sumedo, who heads Theravada Buddhism in the UK, writes: 'Consciousness is already pure. You don't have to purify it, you don't have to do anything... Our true nature is pure. When we begin to realize and fully trust and appreciate this, we see that this is real. It's not theoretical, abstract or an idea - it's reality... You've always been pure.' As for myself, I have only to turn my attention round 1800, and look in at What's looking out, to see that it's absolutely uncontaminated and un-contaminatable. 3 - I'm Free

By which I mean spontaneous, unpredictable, at liberty. I don't know - no one knows - what I'll get up to next. Furthermore there are clear signs that creatures of all kinds are as free-range as I am, whether they realize it or not.

For example, I watch the zigzagging flight of the butterfly as it flits from flower to flower, the erratic behavior of the housefly as it darts back and forth on the windowpane or the tabletop, the random gestures of this hand as it waves you welcome or goodbye. God knows what sense or nonsense this pen of mine is about to divulge. Correction: He doesn't know! If He did know He would have shackled me hand and foot. He would have turned the free spirit that I am into a robot, a cybernetic automaton vastly inferior to a housefly.

'You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free,' says Jesus of Nazareth. And the Tao Te Ching - that ancient Chinese classic - attributes to the enlightened sage the spontaneity of a newborn babe.

But apart from such clarion calls to freedom all the great religions, each in its peculiar tone of voice, teach that true piety is submission to the all-powerful will of God. If slaves and slave drivers have a religion; this is it, this is it. No wonder our churches are empty!

To put the matter crudely, God has changed his mind. And instead of surrounding Himself with servants, He's looking for friends - dear friends who have freely chosen that superb relationship. 4 - I'm One

Not fragmented, all-of-a-piece, whole. 'Tell the mind there is but One', says the Katha Upanishad, 'He who divides the One wanders from death to death.' And the message of all the great Upanishads - those ancient scriptures of India - is that you and I are none other than that strictly indivisible One, the One who heals and wholes us. How can I make quite sure of this? Well, I have a wonderful teacher who confirms it absolutely and unceasingly.

Twenty, fifty, a hundred times a day I hear myself saying I AM. 'I AM tired, I AM lonely, I AM very well thank you very much, I AM rather busy, I AM sad, I AM anxious, I AM quite tranquil

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 46 today' - and so on and on and on endlessly. And as Meister Eckhart points out, only God has the right to say I AM. Which means that essentially and at root I am Him, QED. The awesome truth is that I can't be without being BEING, without being the Only One Who IS. 5 - I'm Here

When I say that something is located here, what do I mean? How close is it, how handy, how intimate? When I describe something as this something, what are its limits? Where does it start and stop?

It all depends. In the very same breath I can speak of this lung, this country, this group of galaxies. In fact, my this and my here are limitless in their bigness and smallness. I'm infinitely elastic.

And I take this fact seriously. I ask myself WHO it is that at will expands and contracts so effortlessly and smoothly and naturally. What is the true identity of this miracle-worker?

I realize there is only one who fits the bill, and that is the One who is my Source and Centre. This realization isn't an idea for entertaining occasionally: it's an experience for getting the feel of throughout my life. 6 - I'm Now

Similarly, when I say that an event is happening now, what do I mean? How much time (if any) does the present moment bite off and masticate?

Again, it all depends. I hear myself talking so glibly of this lightning flash, this week, this decade, this millennium. The truth is that I'm as capacious of time as from time to time I need to be. And the paradox is that this capaciousness is my mastery of time, and I can enthusiastically endorse the words of Ludwig Wittgenstein 'Death is not an event in life; we do not live to experience death... Our life has no end in just the way in which our visual field has no limits'.

Let me sum up the whole matter this way: I am the consciousness that observes that it has no beginning, no interruption, no ending, and I shall never die. 7 - I'm Self-Originating

This is the big one, the crux and climax of the Eleven. All the rest is anticlimax: necessary anticlimax no doubt, but downstream of the Source.

Let me outline the Earthly history of the One who 'impossibly', with no help and for no reason, gives birth to Himself before He is, before even Nothing gets going.

(a) In December 1945 an earthenware jar containing 13 leather- bound Gnostic books was accidentally unearthed in Upper Egypt. These books comprised 52 'secret' texts written in Coptic. Probably the monks of a nearby monastery who feared their discovery by the Catholic Church had buried them some fifteen centuries ago. Among these 'heretical' texts was one attributed to the Barbelo Gnostics. All honor and praise to their anonymous teacher who, not many decades after Jesus' crucifixion, was the first to

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 47 speak of the Self-originating One. Quite a number of the later Gnostic texts tell the same story. For instance: The Gospel of the Egyptians: 'This great name of Thine is upon me, O Self-begotten One who art not outside me'. In general, the Gnostics addressed such questions as the meaning of life, where we come from and what we are and where we're going, and the origin and nature of the universe. Though most of them were Christians, they were virtually exterminated by the Catholics well before A.D. 500.

(b) Around 8OO A.D., in the court of the Emperor Charlemagne, the Irish philosopher John Scotus Erigena taught that it isn't WHAT God is that's crucial, but THAT He is.

(c) The famous German philosopher, Leibniz (1646-1716), with his doctrine of the Monad, was of the same opinion.

(d) In 1935 another German philosopher - Martin Heidegger - wrote: 'Why is there anything at all rather than nothing? Obviously this is the first of all questions... Each of us is grazed at least once, perhaps more than once, by the hidden power of this question, even if he is not aware of what is happening.' And he goes on to tell of the Ground of Being that gives rise to this fundamental question. (Introduction to Metaphysics, Yale University Press)

(e) Around the same time Ludwig Wittgenstein, the Austrian philosopher who I've already quoted, wrote that it's not WHAT the universe is that is mystical, but THAT it exists.

(f) Over the last half-century I've shared with many people the wonder of the Self-originating One. Their number runs into at least three figures. No surprise! It's a small part of the realization that's springing up in the most unlikely places and a reason for abounding joy in a world that's short of joy. It's also my end - which means my purpose and my ceasing, my deliberate vanishing in your favor. 8 - I'm Baffled

I'm the One who has no idea of how He gives rise to Himself. Not that his abysmal ignorance worries Him. On the contrary, it's heavenly bliss for sharing with his friends. To know the secret of Self-origination would be to strip it of all its fascination and charm and power, and plunge us headfirst into a hell of everlasting boredom. 9 - I'm All Seers

What is the scorpion, the octopus, the chimp and the young child looking out of, in its own experience?

Certainly not out of a scorpion's face, or an octopus's face (if it has one), or a chimp's face, or my own face as a young child and a grown-up. All creatures who see are looking out of One and the Same Empty Space. Not out of empty-for-empty space but out of empty-for-filling space, space that's vacant accommodation for other faces. This primordial and self-denying Capaciousness is the bright and charming Original Face that Zen Buddhism is all about. 10 - I'm All Sentient Beings

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 48 Am I then denied entry into and union with the deaf and dumb, the blind, the creature who's in any way handicapped? Of course not. No sentient being can be without being me, without being BEING ITSELF. In fact it's impossible to overrate the cumulative power of this elevenfold and all-embracing rescue bid. 11 - I'm You

What I'm looking AT is my problem, and What I'm looking OUT OF is its solution. And - paradox of paradoxes! - the real solution is that you, along with all the others, and certainly not myself, are my Cure, the Antidote for my ingrained self-centeredness. Right Here, I Am You!

In the beginning I promised you no fewer than eleven wide-open doors out of the prison of our conditioning, and I've kept my promise. So let's step out into the Open!

More on Douglas Harding: www.headless.org. N.B. Some nice movies with Douglas' exercises can be found on: movies.

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 49 Trust

Trust is a specific subject that can be approached from many directions. For example, one can speak about blind trust but there's also misuse of trust. Something that you have trusted for years can suddenly collapse. The word 'credit' comes directly from the Greek word 'credere' which means trust. A banker would probably want to do a bit of research before granting you credit. Trust can also be seen as a kind of a fundamental condition in order to properly function in daily life. Mutual trust is a good basis for getting along with each other. But, as soon as you talk about trusting yourself advaita raises the question immediately of what self is? Reason enough to have a conversation with Leo Hartong, author of the book 'Awakening to the Dream'. Not a matter of belief

Dick: As you probably know this issue of Amigo is devoted to the subject 'Trust'. I've been thinking today about how to kick off this subject. Coincidentally, I was doing the crossword puzzle in today's paper and for the question 'trust', 28 across, I had to fill in 'belief'.

This seemed like a good thought to start with. Apparently this puzzle sees trust as a synonym for belief. Trusting in something is then the same as believing in something and to some extent I can go along with this idea. How do you see trust or belief in the context of advaita? Would you say that trust/belief is a minimum requirement to experience oneness?

Leo: Advaita seems to be more for the doubter, the Jnana yoga-adept who searches for answers in thinking and understanding. As such, trust and belief seem better suited for Bhakti yoga and religion. The final 'conclusion' of both – the 'way' of knowing and the way of devotion – is trust and surrender. When this happens it's clear that there are absolutely no conditions, which have to be met, for insight to occur. This deals with the unconditional. The story of Paul on the way to Damascus is the story of an unbeliever who suddenly sees the light. When unity is recognized it's no longer a matter of trust but of certainty. One cannot, nor needs to, reach That-What-Is. Oneness, as you call it here, is not an experience for someone; there is experiencing but no one who does it. If there was some one doing it we could not call it Oneness.

D: Nevertheless it seems that for the seeker there has to be at least a certain belief or trust in order to set off on the path to self realization. Many realized people can give the exact

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 50 date of their realization. Doesn't that imply a beginning that arose out of a certain trust or a certain belief?

L: If seeking appears there is seeking and there is no one who can do anything about it. When the search is over, we may point to trust/belief as an apparent origin or reason for that seeking. Others may ascribe their seeking to doubts about what they had believed or trusted up to that moment. It's simply a matter of how the impulse to seek gets recognized and translated into concepts. Actually there is no real reason or choice. Trusting the teacher

D: I read the following from Nisargadatta:

When I met my Guru, he told me: 'You are not what you take yourself to be. Find out what you are. Watch the sense 'I am', find your real Self.' I obeyed him, because I trusted him. I did as he told me. All my spare time I would spend looking at myself in silence. And what a difference it made, and how soon! My teacher told me to hold on to the sense 'I am' tenaciously and not to swerve from it even for a moment. I did my best to follow his advice and in a comparatively short time I realized within myself the truth of his teaching. All I did was to remember his teaching, his face, his words constantly. This brought an end to the mind; in the stillness of the mind I saw myself as I am - unbound. I simply followed (my teacher's) instruction, which was to focus the mind on pure being 'I am', and stay in it. I used to sit for hours together, with nothing but the 'I am' in my mind and soon peace and joy and a deep all-embracing love became my normal state. In it all disappeared - myself, my Guru, the life I lived, the world around me. Only peace remained and unfathomable silence.' (from: I AM THAT, Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, Published by Acorn Press)

Naturally one could say that this story appears as a concept in us. But from Nisargadatta's words it seems crystal clear to me that his path to awakening began with an unlimited trust in his teacher. Seeking the truth in the manifest appears to be a precarious undertaking, but could we say that, through his words, a beautiful 'recipe' for realization has been handed to us?

L: This is indeed a clear example of trust, but Nisargadatta's story is more a 'description' than a 'prescription'. It is the way it emerged and unfolded for Nisargadatta. For Ramana it was an experience of dying, for Tony Parsons a walk in the park, for me a simple 'aha'. We just don't know which straw will break the camel's back. There simply are no fixed formulas for certain things. A few examples: winning in the casino, writing a hit song, or falling in love. After we succeeded at such things we can say how it happened, but more often then not we can't repeat such feats on demand.

D: Leo, I believe this question has been asked on countless occasions: What exactly can you say about 'trust' in your teacher? Some answer that they're not a teacher, because there is no one (Tony Parsons), others (like Nisargadatta) had a blind trust in their teacher, others say you have to see a teacher at least once to see what it's all about (Jan Koehoorn).

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 51 You write a book because apparently there are some things to explain. In the end you have to experience it al for yourself, but without a trusted teacher, would the way to self- realization be at all possible? What is your view on this?

L: In my book I don't claim that it was written to explain something, instead I quoted an old Dutch saying, which translates to 'The mouth has no choice but to speak of that which fills the heart.' Through such a book, just as through the smell of a rose and everything else, the One shares itself with itself. When all's said and done there actually is only one teacher; and this one is always present. No one is ever without this teacher, and it doesn't matter whether this one appears as intuition, as an event, or as a person. Trust can play an apparent role

This interview is about trust, but let's not make a dogma out of it. Earlier I gave some examples to show that putting conditions on the unconditional is not a real option; even if it is about something as beautiful as trust. Of course, trust can play an apparent role in realization, but so can sickness, adversity, despair and doubt. One could just as well assume surrender and acceptance to be key factors. Clarity can seemingly come about via trust, but it can also be seen as appearing spontaneously or via exhaustion.

When there is insight it is absolutely clear that all and nothing can 'lead to' understanding. However, That, to which the word 'insight' points, is not really a reachable point in time. It is always timelessly available and beyond the dualistic loop of cause and effect. If it were at all possible to provide a universal roadmap to enlightenment it would have been done a long time ago. If you feel that trust is essential to you, then it might just be right for you, but we can't generalize and propose that trust will open the door for everyone. It's a paradox; we're dealing here with the universal while -at the same time- it's always unique.

D: I'm glad that you introduce surrender and acceptance here: Trust, surrender, acceptance and letting go, are more or less extensions of each other. Even if one cannot achieve what one already is, it nevertheless seems to be what is hidden in these concepts, as that what is required to see that there is no ego.

L: Essentially nothing is needed. Everything -and I mean everything- can be the last little push to the recognition (and acknowledgement) that it is NOW already As-It-Is. Not in a while, not later on and not only when certain conditions have been met.

I don't say that there is no ego, but that the ego is not what you exclusively are. The ego is an object appearing in the limitless consciousness that IS. This 'is-ness' is not 'your' identity, but THAT which appears AS identity. It is THAT what you really are as the impersonal and True Self.

The ego can be seen as non-existent or it can be seen through. It can also be seen as a side effect of the natural functioning of the body/mind complex. After it has been seen through, it can simply remain in the picture, just like an optical illusion does not disappear after it's been seen through.

The persistent idea that there is something needed to see what you actually are is itself an obstacle. Again, it amounts to placing conditions on the unconditional. We could say that

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 52 dropping this idea is the same as insight. The problem with saying this is that it is often seen as a method; 'Okay, I'm going to drop it, I 'm going to let go, right, that's what I'll do!'

This is not about doing or becoming something, but about being; about what you truly and always already are. Seeing this is not so much a result of letting go, but letting go and 'seeing' are two ways to point to the same insight. It happens simultaneously. It can be trusted to happen by it-Self, and that there is no 'I' that can do anything about it. This trust blossoms by itself. Real trust can't be a resolution or act of an 'I'. Trust, just trust

D: So one could see trust simply as something that is perceived without any judgment; just like such feelings as security, hope, joy, or possibly sadness? Is trust something that, from the ego's perspective, tries to make the ego pay attention to what's happening presently? In this case, trust could also be a pitfall, because it might suggest that trust leads to something. One might almost say that one should doubt trust.

L: Yes, all that's possible. It is one of the infinite possibilities, which the mind can conjure up. Seeking with the mind in the mind will only find mind. This way the mind can make it all seemingly very complex, while it is in fact about something clear and simple. This simplicity is just like space; visible and invisible at the same time. And just like space it is easily dismissed as 'nothing' while it is actually that in which everything appears. Like space it is both, indescribable and utterly simple; an open secret and a clear mystery.

Lots could be said or thought about trust; to the ego it might seem a refuge, or it may seem a necessary condition for finding clarity, but when all is said and done, trust is simply trust. It's there, or it isn't, and when the penny drops it will be clear that there is no underlying connection between the ego's attempts and self-realization. Except that, possibly, the ego's continuing fruitless attempts finally lead to the realization that making an effort is not necessary. At that moment there is surrender without someone surrendering. Good grace?

D: In your book 'Awaking in the dream' you say about this 'dropping of the penny': 'Although this realization comes by itself—it is often referred to as grace—it is not something one has to wait for.'

Can you say something about this grace? It seems as if grace is a gift or a reward. I once read that someone compared self-realization with a balloon that you get when you buy a new pair of shoes.

L: Grace seems more like a gift than a reward, but it's neither. If it were a gift to someone, or a reward for something, we would be back in the duality of cause and effect. Unsurprisingly the intellect approaches it dualistically. It can only work by dividing everything into the pairs of opposites such as good and bad, cause and effect, performance and reward. In the end grace is also just a pointer to something that can only be recognized directly. Perhaps all this sounds a bit abstract, but it is in fact as simple as the word 'sweet' which has itself no taste. In this context the word grace points to That-which- Is; to That which expresses itself via the mind as

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 53 the though 'I Am'. It points to essence and at the same time to the recognition/acknowledgement of this core, as that what you already and truly are not the known, but the Knowing Self. Not 'your' business

D: If 'I' understand you correctly then there is only Self or Being and everything emanates from that. The so-called, non-existent seeker tries to find the way in all this by means of words such as trust, grace or whatever. In this way it all seems like a game; but what about the 'tasks' that 'we' have in the manifestation?

L: There is only the One Self appearing as everything; including the seeker and the sought. Endless variations appear within a single substance, which- just like clay – can assume every shape or form, from a demon to an angel, without changing its essence.

You could indeed see this as a game. The Hindus called it Leela; the game in which the Self is the only actor playing all the roles. This is a beautiful metaphor but, just as all metaphors, it's simply a pointer. No concept whatsoever can contain this, but sometimes such a concept can hit its mark, thereby making itself superfluous. As Alan Watts used to say: 'When you've gotten the message, hang up the phone.' This is obviously a metaphor from before mobile phones, but it's still crystal clear.

The 'tasks' you mention and this manifestation cannot be separated from each other; just as form and substance can't be separated. If there are 'tasks', then that is how IT manifests itself. They are not actually our tasks. Everything gets done, but there is no personal doer who carries out these tasks. All activity is IT appearing AS activity. Unconditional trust

D: This is a wonderful image: the Self appearing as everything. So also as this world with innumerable people who appear to present themselves as individuals, separated from the whole, as seekers and non-seekers. In this world things appear; things such as ambition, feelings of power and powerlessness, ideas of things one has to accomplish, apparent achievements, thoughts that it all could or should be different, the feeling of trust, or the desire for enlightenment or tranquility. That's it?

L: Yes, that's it. That's not to say that we now have explained it all. You could say that Self- realization equals Self-astonishment. This wonderment is about the 'Is-ness' of Consciousness and everything that appears in it. A flower is simply a flower, but it's also the One appearing as a flower. Because we identify it with the word 'flower' we are quick to assume that we know exactly what it is. No matter what one says about it, it is never enough. If this essential indescribability is seen, then there is room for the amazement about there being anything at all. Apparently out of absolute no-thing-ness, there is some-thing-ness while the logic of cause and effect dictates that there should be even less than nothing.

The mystery of this Presence is that it cannot be made into an object of experience. It is the experiencing as well as the experienced and goes beyond both of them to that which unites

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 54 subject and object in itself. This most essential Self is extraordinarily ordinary, always -and yet timelessly- present. It is what is; it is what we are.

Of course, this Presence beyond the idea that we are merely transitory beings of flesh and blood could also be called Unconditional Trust. In that case it does not signify something that could be done by a person, but is a potential pointer to the unnamable That-What-Is.

D: It seems right to finish this interview with this 'Unconditional Trust'. Not something to reach or to understand, but simply a pointer to That-What-Is. What else could we say about it? Thank you!

[Dick de Boom]

Leo Hartong's web site : http://www.awakeningtothedream.com

Faith in God

A very religious old man lived just downhill of a big dam. One winter, after heavy rains, he got a knock at the door.

When he answered the door, there was a policeman in a raincoat. 'I'm here to tell you the dam's in danger of bursting' he said. 'If you want to leave, you have time to do so.'

'No, thank you.' said the old man. 'My Lord God will save me.'

'Okay,' said the Policeman... 'suit yourself!' and he left.

The next day, there was a knock on his door. When he answered the door, there was a Fireman dressed in flood-gear...down at the bottom of where his driveway used to be was a boat.

'I'm here to tell you that the dam has burst. It will soon take over your home. Please take some clothes and come with me!' He said.

'No, thank you' said the old man... 'I've prayed to my Lord God, and he will save me!!'

The fireman shook his head and said 'Suit yourself!!' and he left.

The next day the floodwaters had taken over his home and he was stranded on the roof.

Soon, a helicopter came by, and a Rescuer shouted through the open door 'Give me your hand!! We'll get you out of here!!!'

'No!!' replied the old man... 'My faith in my Lord God will rescue me!!'

'Suit yourself!!' said the Rescuer, and he flew away.

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 55 The next day, the old man drowned.

At the pearly gates, he met up the Almighty. 'My Lord God... I have always tried to be a good Christian!!! I prayed and prayed for you to rescue me, and I died anyway!! Why!!???'

The Almighty answered in a booming voice: 'HEY!!! I SENT YOU A POLICEMAN, A BOAT AND A HELICOPTER!!! WHAT MORE DID YOU WANT!!!??'

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 56 Why practice when you can celebrate?

I stood by the door of the School for Being Orientation to pick up a folder. I didn't know what the school was about but I had heard a bout it the day before and 'being orientation' sounded good. Moreover, it was only a ten-minute walk from my house. The woman from administration told me that a three-day course was beginning the next day.

This workshop would give me a picture of the training needed to become a being-orientation counselor. Being- orientation councilor? Expensive; three days for 285 euros. But I saw the fact that I was just in time as a sign of pre-destination. And, 'being-oriented councilor' sounded good as a job prospect. It would be a reasonable follow up to my study of psychology. I had been without work for a few years and I viewed looking for work like climbing a mountain. Could I actually do something? I got the shivers just looking at job vacancies. I would rather lose myself in computer games. I could be the boss there. In addition I did some volunteer work just to feel a bit useful.

Luckily I could rationalize all this from the advaita point of view; consciousness doesn't worry about a job. This rest was not destined to last very long because my advaita teacher warned me about the advaita-shuffle. That means the removing a troublesome subject to the 'level' of Consciousness where it appears to be solved; a spiriting away trick. Why follow a way of becoming?

The possibility of beginning on a six year training to become a being-oriented guide gave me courage again. It was certainly very expensive, but that would only serve to motivate to seek work. The next day I sat in a circle with thirty other participants. Many stories from people who felt that there had to be more between heaven and earth; they had read the books by Hans Knibbe, the founder of the school. For some of them it was 'the joy of recognition'. Another lost advaita person was walking around. He spoiled my party immediately with the question: 'Why a six year way of becoming, only to come out at being, where you already are?'

After the round of introductions it was time for bio-energetic exercises and meditation. That wasn't new for me. I had been meditating for years at the School of Philosophy before I came in contact with advaita. The meditation consisted of the repetition of a mantra that you could not disclose (thus Ram with a long a). I meditated on that mantra for six years, half hour in the morning and a half hour in the evening. And that wasn't everything. There was also the stillness practice, physical work with attention to the work surface, calligraphy of Sanskrit letters,

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 57 seeing your self in the other, and a whole lot more. All that practicing gave me a feeling of direction. You worked towards a goal. You rise to become a tutor or teacher via a hierarchy of not meditating, meditating and reflecting. Because I had no other social status I wanted to become a teacher. I didn't succeed in that but others who had been in the school for a much shorter time than myself did succeed. That didn't cause my ego to disappear, but to protest. I also missed answers that would give insight into questions while I did find wisdom in books such as 'Consciousness' by Alexander Smit. Finally I stopped with the School'. Dancing through beautiful gardens

Nevertheless I allowed myself to be seduced by a school and with a tremendous feeling of déjà vu I participated in the workshop of the School for Being Orientation, ready for the visualization exercise. With my eyes closed I allowed myself to be lead. 'Imagine you are walking through the land of being. You see a path before you. At the end of the path stands the house of Being. You open the door and there stands the figure of Being.' I saw before me the dancing Shiva. 'Make contact with the figure.' Four arms embraced me. 'Be absorbed in the figure of Being. You are the figure of Being itself.' It had always been impressed on me to never make a notion of Being. As a result it had unconsciously become something empty and neutral. Now I experienced an intense fullness of smell and color. Moved along by the current of sensual warmth I allowed myself to be danced though beautiful gardens. My skin was no longer a boundary and I melted into the whole. There was only enjoyment where the dancing arose. Suddenly my adventure appeared to be a farce

This experience pepped me up immensely. It inspired me to take another stand in life. In that I didn't need so much to reach something, but to let myself go. My euphoria suddenly disappeared during the closing address by the group leader. In the address she spoke about the training for that attitude; twenty minutes meditation every day, and in addition body work every day. One needs to remain practicing even after the six-year training. Even she was not yet finished after fifteen years. That didn't seem like anything that I wanted to get involved with and after that I only heard a sort of blah, blah, and blah. Still, at the same time I also found it attractive to get involved in the program. At least you would have a roof over your head for six years. And after that you have the status of being-oriented instructor.

When I got home I called an advaita friend for advice. My question, which was seriously intended, got a humiliating laugh as answer. 'How can you capture what precedes all images in an image? That illustrates again how people can become stuck in their practice.' Suddenly my adventure seemed like a farce. I saw before me how I stood there dancing with my arms spread like wings and I felt a certain embarrassment. Dancing the dance

In the frugal weeks after this workshop something started to bother me. It didn't feel good to be spiritually busy and not work. I suddenly thought: 'enough of that advaita; first a paying job and then we'll see further'. I used the volunteer work as spring board to get over all sorts of resistances; calling people, organizing things, bringing out ideas, receiving criticism. I let myself go in my 'ego-pursuits', but with certain playfulness. Anyway, it looked more like a Shiva dance than an advaita-shuffle. I got more and more satisfaction from my work so that I had less

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 58 time for computer games. My feeling of self worth grew again and my allergic reaction to job offers disappeared. Meanwhile it was no longer about results, but just about dancing the dance. Nevertheless a good paying job fell in my lap from an unexpected corner. Why not just celebrate?

As far as the seeking is concerned, the many exercises from the School for Philosophy had brought me no insights. It was more of a straitjacket. With an advaita teacher, not having to do anything was on the contrary relaxing. In that being relaxed the feeling of trust in already being home grew. In the visualization exercise I experienced a similar feeling of not having to reach anything, but of just letting myself go. Sometimes things happen during spiritual exercise, but the same thing can happen by not practicing. Maybe it is about the place from where you practice. In my case a lot of the spiritual practices came out of a lack of trust, or that there is something just over the horizon that you have to reach and then... That is practicing out of mistrust of yourself because you still do not accept that you are already home. However, I don't see anything wrong with practicing as a kind of 'celebration'. Enjoying listening to the sounds in the woods for example. But is that still practice? Does practice still exist? Why not celebrate at once?

[D. the Doer]

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 59 On trust

[...] Maybe people should talk to each other once more about all the 'big' issues. For a moment they could bring their fleeting lives to a stop and sit down round the table with a glass of wine and a piece of bread. They could ask each other the question of the meaning of life and whether they're happier than their cat or dog.

People can talk their lives over with each other and the lives of all other living souls. There's no need for them to deliver a monologue on the eternal truth of the soul or the universe or the nation, but they can listen to each other while endlessly talking about all those questions that Socrates and his friends discussed in Athens.

We don't need truth. We endlessly hold up our opinions so as not to have end our talk. We keep on questioning each other and giving answers. We know we can't escape from our cave, yet we may seem to control our illusions that we project onto the wall. Thus they are the self-invented shadows to dispel boredom. That's how time goes by while being unnoticed by us. However lively we talk to each other, we don't do much more than a contented pig does lying lazily in the mud. The conversation ends where it began: in ignorance. [...]

(adapted from Klaas Rozemond in 'Filosofie voor de zwijnen')*

The quotation above led us to organize a round-table-meeting. In order to explore the Amigo theme of trust in good company, knowing that we cannot know. As long as we would confine ourselves to an encyclopedic definition, we would come away unscathed. However, sparkling round the core we played the game exploring the topic: Can 'trust' be a keyword on the (apparent) way to the expression of being, which you (already) are? distrust

We can start discussing trust, but let's begin with its opposite: what is distrust?

It's a sign of distrust when you want to figure out what has to happen tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, when it makes you feel uncomfortable lacking a mental workout for the concept of tomorrow. It's also a thought of distrust when you think you can do it better yourself instead of letting things happen as they do, which they don't do right. They should happen the way you had in mind.

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 60 You can also respond to the question 'what is distrust?' going from feeling, otherwise it becomes a rather limited conceptual story. The notion of distrust touches a deeper level of feeling inside of me as well. There trust means: surrender. The words then denote something that cannot really be denoted.

Does the word 'distrust' reach for that layer of feeling sooner than 'trust'?

It begins with what is real. That is always of a positive and essential value. If that is disturbed you get the opposite. The heart of the matter here is trust. Distrust merely tells that there is no trust. And that means giving proof of trust once again. I think there's the rub in the word 'trust': is there an opposite in the first place? It seems to give access to something of which there is no opposite.

It is a tool in everyday life too. If you watch someone behaving suspiciously, it's all right to mistrust. It then functions as a warning system.

Well, actually you're saying: 'I trust my distrust', so it's a matter of trust after all. So it is still awkward.

Do you distrust only if you're afraid of something?

It is like that if it's hard for you to accept that losing is part of the game and that things you don't like are part of it all.

As I see it, it's connected to individual motives and preferences; this shouldn't happen and that should. Then you get into distrust and trust. 'I trust that...', which is followed by some thing which is alright for me.

If trust is made known, if it shows itself when there is danger, only then could you put meaning on the term of 'trust', putting it in contrast to something else. Trust isn't clear to you until you discover distrust. unconscious trust

I think a baby doesn't know distrust. It's something that is acquired. You are trustful by nature, you cannot learn it. The essence of your being is trust.

In watching a child I recognize trust within myself. A child is in total trust. That's how I would like to be and that's what trust means to me. It certainly exists naturally, until you come to know that that's not very practical everywhere and all the time.

At the same time there's a trusting that things, this house, won't collapse. Likewise there are a lot of things that you take for granted. So there is a large basic trust of which you aren't consciously aware. You aren't aware of the constant dangers that could be there. So neither are you aware of the fact that you are continually in trust. If you ask me: do you trust right now, well, I don't know. The word doesn't mean a thing to me. When I see somebody thinking up concepts for the next day, I ask myself 'why?' Why should there be a strategy and why do you panic if you don't have any? To me that's distrust. Right from there you can form the notion of

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 61 'trust' and say that you're living in trust - that is, by comparison. But you don't think: 'Gee, how I'm trusting all this', just like I don't think: 'Hey, that chair may break'.

As I learned how to ride a bike for the first time, I trusted myself, my physical ability. When I'm watching outside, whether I'm three or eighty years old, I trust that my eyes will work. I do not anyhow trust my eyes beforehand. So there's no separate perception which you could denote trust, at most it's your state of being.. If something goes wrong, you won't call it a matter of distrust. surrender and peace

To me it's also about risk. Knowing there's a risk, you run the risk, out of trust.

Then you get at surrender. For instance, if my son goes on a skiing trip, I must trust that he will be all right. I can be comfortable again when trust turns into surrender. They are quite close, but there is a subtle distinction. To trust then is trying to reassure oneself, after that surrender may occur and you pass on to the order of the day.

Can there be mere trust, without 'differently' or 'better'? Just plain trust. At Bhagwan's trusting was practiced by 'worshipping', dedicating everything you do to Bhagwan. In the VPRO documentary 'New Man'** on the Bhagwan organization, there was a woman for whom this trained trust had turned into surrender, surrender to life as it is, nothing 'more', 'different' or 'better'. Peace in what is.

Trust means the absence of thoughts that figure things out for you, amongst which there are fears. Anxiety refers to something in the future. Being trustful means the absence of those kind of thoughts. And what remains is: 'that which is'. Then there seems to be, next to 'that which is' yet another me, that may or may not accept this. Whereas 'that which is' is the sum total of what is being experienced at the moment. There is no me in it. I think that is trust.

Then you're done with the word. Being trustful then means: to live in and along with 'that which is'. Exploring the word will stop.

Of course you may start analyzing the word, as a specific perception. However, the person perceiving is completely innocent, is unaware of his 'trusting'. By definition it's somebody else that says: this person is trustful. That's how an external qualification comes about: 'Gosh, how trustful you are!'

Yet you can only say so if you recognize it within you... keywords and their counterparts

Well then what makes words such as love, grace, trust be apt to function as a 'gateway'? Some particular words make the penny drop all at once. For some it's 'love', for others it's 'trust'. Why not 'anxiety'? In such a word as love the dividing line feels to be just flimsy, as if you would tumble down the hole right away. It seems to be a keyword. The question then is: Can a word signify or produce a revelation?

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 62 Wouldn't that be possible for any notion, if taken to its extreme? You may take distrust or selfishness for that matter.

Maybe, but I rather think these are words that are able to trigger something inside of you at the right moment. However, it is possible just as well that the word is of no importance.

Could there be 'privileged' words?

I don't think so; the man at the baker's on the corner may say something unawares, which is strikingly significant.

Picking up any word you like out of a telephone book, you won't have this conversation. So there is something to that word. You can sense it. You should dare to talk from feeling, if not you won't have any real conversation any more, everything will be the same everywhere. So, if theoretically true, we don't talk like that. We see distinctions between the words. To enjoy this coffee doesn't run as deep as to say goodbye to a woman I have loved for ten years. Not taking this into account brings you right back again to the supremely abstract level of transcendental reality.

What we're doing here is to play the impotent game of forms. We know we are powerless from the start, but let's pretend we're supposed to know and wait and see what comes out. Certain words apparently evoke some magic; we can watch or explore them and find out what reaction they bring about.

Okay. Let's go back to the question. How come in duality it's always only one side of the matter that refers to oneness? Trust is doing better than distrust, love does it better than hate.

You've got to decide then from which level you watch. If I observe the animal instinct in man, it's pretty clear right away. I then see trust as a biological function. We want to survive collectively. Thinking in terms of 'aliveness' you'll always arrive at positive values. All else springs from non-aliveness, but that's of no interest to human existence.

Sure, man is a standard for all things. However, if from human existence we're defining non- duality as 'trust' moreover, it seems as if only just one side of duality refers to the one. You'll still have got the positive versus the negative, whereas the one is truly undivided altogether.

Let's see then if the other side, the negative, also refers to oneness. When looking at ancient times and their horrible battles, you'll see man is competitive, he wants to attack, by nature. In the animal world distrust is sometimes quite natural. So why do we think trust is more important than distrust, whereas the latter protects us better? Perhaps being trustful goes with nice feelings. But from a functional point of view it needn't be the best. If only people would have been a bit more mistrusting during World War II, they would have stopped Hitler at once. cake or toothache

Wolter Keers said: 'Do you choose the cake or the toothache?' You choose the cake of course. What does this preference for the positive originate from in the first place?

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 63 That too is a purely biological mechanism, a kind of innate instinct for survival. In comfortable living surroundings you increase your chances of survival.

Once having obtained something though, after a while you are back for more. Having eaten a cake, you want another one. A Volkswagen first, then a Ferrari... It's human nature wanting for more all the time.

Isn't there a hierarchy, like the Maslow pyramid of needs? First you want a house, then relationship and attention, then art, culture and finally transcendence. In the West we are at the top. If you are somewhere down in the pyramid, you are in quite a different register altogether: What I need is what you need too and if there's not enough for the two of us, we beat each other's brains out. So what remains of this transcendental trust?

I've always believed I would never be capable of killing, until my children were born. I found out a killer may appear inside of me, if my child is being hurt. So what is happening and how you will be acting cannot be judged by your image of yourself, or the image of you others have, to which you feel committed. All that appears within you is 'what is', and you can do nothing but trust that, can you?

If being trustful means: to trust that which appears inside of you, that's all right with me. Yet I may trust as well that I won't kill even in that situation. the agenda and the morrow

If tracing it then to daily proportions: when somebody wants to enter the next day after endless laborious thinking, or when somebody feels deeply sorry about something, I think: that's a shame. It is too bad if anybody should be burdened with either of these. Why panic, if you failed to plan for the next day? Why are you planning anyhow?

Well, writing things down in your agenda is functional after all, isn't it?

The question is where the functional turns into something troublesome.. And to my view that's when there's a 'me' coming in...

But then, with or without a me, to 'it' it makes no difference whether or not your agenda has been written in? If you are planning for the next week, it doesn't mean you need a 'me' to do that. It happens or doesn't happen.

It's happening of course. But still it is a fact that a lot of people are stuck with troublesome thoughts of the future and can't change that. I just don't understand why.

Planning things is nice because you can realize something. It possibly means having a nice day tomorrow. I do understand that people are building a future reality that doesn't exist and which you are projecting forward: so as to feel more comfortable. In actual fact we don't know what tomorrow will be like. Okay, it's always now, but I can't be really aware of that. We know it is so, and yet we start dealing with this future. You are moving toward something not existing, that's funny, is it? Which implies that I as a director am in control. In any case it's rather peculiar for me to be

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 64 occupied with the life that has been and is going to be, whereas in reality it's always now and can never be not-now.

Well, while at the dentist's I'd be only too glad if it were not now. trust starts from connecting

Trust seems to be connected with things that have happened to you. You must have gone through bad experiences first in order to get to know distrust. I think it's about people's relationships also.

Trust always relates to something. You may consider trust from your full human being, feelings, mind and body. Seeing trust that way, you could call it a kind of connection. For instance in 'worshipping'. This woman has managed to connect the trusting to the completeness surrounding her, a transcendental being whole.

She opened to Bhagwan, and later on to totality. Perhaps you should begin somewhere to connect yourself. You can either keep out of life's way or make life invite you. You only do so by connecting to things you come across in your life.

You should look at yourself in relation to an object. Then you are in a duality that you understand best. You can tell: I trust my mother, I trust my guru, I trust totality. At totality we've finished up. Yet, there's nothing left to say anymore. If you still want to be able to talk, you've got to stick to the ordinary objects as a consequence. Trust then is still comprehensible. For instance, I trust Rinus Michels, because of what has happened earlier on. I trust Osho. Why? Because you stake something whole of yourself, which wants to direct itself to even more of that. So we've got to find an object and have a look at trust afterwards.

Do cynicism and skepticism get in the way of trust?

I think the power of trust outweighs any cynicism by far. It always wants to increase, we always want to get absorbed into the 'greater'. That's the reason why there is this drive. It's there in order to get something, that's true, but if you look on this motive as the source of life, things become clear. Trust may come into being out of anything, from a simple intention to worshipping the highest of all. You continually add to it, until you slip into totality. increasing trust

I find it fascinating that trust may grow. It may increase more and more. So what is this? There is something to it as a consequence, which is not in the word, but is in me. You trust a number of set things and your mind watches over them. The first bit of trust is easy to come by. You can test it. And it may keep on growing bit by bit, just like the woman 'worshipping' and finally opening into complete surrender.

Isn't that because of her experience? In that she sees things work out well again and again and lets go of all her other desires...

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 65 ...or, on the contrary, has a strong desire for something. That's because without longing for something, you won't stir yourself. If you're going to see totality as a living, dynamical thing, you end up in a whirlpool. It gets more and more real to you. It will absorb ever more aspects of you. Just regard it as a metaphor for the process of realization. The realization of a word, in this case: trust. In doing so the word may enliven, otherwise you'll knock it out straight away. trust as an abstraction

Increasing trust is an image, an abstraction. The ever-fascinating thing to me is to see through abstractions so that notions lose substance of meaning and become meaningless.

So what is it that you see through in those abstractions?

That they are abstractions. The moment you see through them, what remains is what is concrete.

Which is?

'What is'. And there's nothing to tell about that, except by way of abstractions. Abstractions are structures, constructs. 'What is' is never a construct. The risk of using metaphors is that they make people really believe in them.

To me that may be right on a functional level. I go to someone like Osho and I'm skeptical. Yet, I agree more and more, transfer my bank account and leave my family. That's about increasing trust, isn't it? I can say 'it's what is', but that's not what happens to me. Emotional surrender takes place. That is an approaching route to 'what is' for that matter, is it? The power of surrender may burn off the personality as on might say. celebrate life

Is it possible to celebrate and live life without trust?

I don't remember I ever needed trust in order to understand what things are about. Trust doesn't mean anything to me. Why not just celebrate life as it presents itself?

I associate 'celebration' with the Christian community. Celebration doesn't mean that much to me. When I walk outside in a couple of minutes, will I be celebrating my life? Would that be the state of being that you've longed for all day long? It may again be a word to make another penny drop, but which is not the ultimate as it is. Even if the penny dropped, you still won't go through life celebrating all day, will you? You may be fed up with life or just don't think anything of it. Quite often there's just nothing at all just the ordinariness of life.

Then we arrive at neutrality. Just doing things nice and easy, in trust one time, out of distrust the other time. As a matter of fact you won't get away from setting targets, having desires. For a while I thought you could and should, but after some time that idea passed by all by itself. And now once more I take up all sorts of things. I've found out that once you let go of those rigid assumptions as to what life should be like; things get a lot easier. You can still feel annoyed, but you don't really believe in

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 66 it any more. On the other hand you are making use of it to satisfy desires that you sense to be there. If not I don't know what to do and I would become a 'plant'.

You can split up a man's life and analyze it to death, but there's no getting away from the fact that life must be lived.

Of course it's also about everyday life. 'To celebrate 'perhaps sounds a bit cheerful, but it is the day-to-day play, the wonder of taking everyday life for real. You aren't always aware of that. Our understanding that so-called reality is mere sensory perceptions makes a substantial hole in this reality's authenticity, as a consequence of which its weight falls down. is it a play or is it real?

I always compare it to playing tennis, trying your very best to win. You know it is a game, yet you play it the best you can, because if you don't it's no fun. In the same attitude of mind you go to the movies; it's no fun watching a movie and realizing 'it's just film' all the time. The essence of a game is to pretend it's not a game. You should play it true to life.

Do you have a choice? And first you've got to know what is real, until you know something is a play. Is this we're doing here a play? I think it's real. The difference between play and real, in my view, is quite difficult to make. Because we don't exactly know what is real. I consider my whole life to be real.

You consider it real, but it isn't real.

Who tells you? In my opinion you think you really experience things most of the time. And even then I would have to realize it's a play. That's quite serious already. Just try and play a game truly. There's always some seriousness in the background.

You've just got to take it for real, or else the play is no fun.

If you play a game, you don't take it seriously. Now what is the difference between play and real? If I'm doing badly on the job, they'll kick me out. Well, is that real or is it play? Is it different from losing a game of chess? That's a little less intense, yet gives you the same feeling. For, if not, it's no fun at all.

Ah well, it's a game of words...

...and we're playing it only too seriously...

Seated round the table: Nico Gietema, Herman Snijders, Ruud Houweling, Vincent Peeters and Kees Schreuders.

*'Filosofie voor de Zwijnen' was published in Dutch by Veen Magazines

**1984, 20 years ago, scriptwriter Frank Wiering made a film on the Bhagwan organization (New Man). He followed four of them, from a living communion in The Veluwe (The Netherlands) through to the commune in Amsterdam to Rasneeshpuram in the US, the place where the master stayed at the time. It's

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 67 the eighties: They, just like Wiering himself, were seeking after a more profound life, struggling out of the compelling consumer society, career and status.

Twenty years after the first documentary (New Man) Frank Wiering filmed the four Bhagwan devotees he had followed in 1984, once again. The result: New Man 2. What happened to these four people who entirely dedicated themselves to their ideals? Where did they end up? And how have the master's lessons determined their lives? Evidently they spread all over the world, from Australia to Denmark. It's about seeking a different way of looking at life. An amazing, enviable and touching confrontation with existence.

[edited by Kees Schreuders & Vincent Peeters, Utrecht, February 2005. Translated in English by José Zwaferink]

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 68 The interview with Susan Frank is still in preparation at the time of publication of this issue of Amigo and will be published later.

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 69 c o l o p h o n

c o n t r i b u t o r s . t o . t h i s . e d i t i o n :

Jan van Delden Susan Frank Douwe Tiemersma Charlie Hayes Hans Laurentius Douglas Harding Leo Hartong

Belle Bruins (editor ) Johan van der Kooij (editor) Dick de Boom (editor) Ilse Beumer (editor) Herman Snijders (editor) Josée Zwaferink (editor) Sam Pasiencier (translations from the Dutch)

Erik Boot (design of this edition) Pia de Blok Jaap Poetsma Vincent Peeters Peter van Steenwijk Marian Zuurveld Robbert Bloemendaal

editorial statutes

AMIGO, a periodically appearing web-magazine, is a platform for texts about diverse Non- dualistic approaches. Said more poetically: Amigo wants to show 'you' in that empty chair, that you see at the head of this magazine, that you have found unconditional friendship. Every issue will in any case contain texts by Wolter Keers and be in the spirit, which he gave to the magazine 'Yoga Advaita' founded by him.

www.ods.nl/amigo

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 70 e-mail: [email protected]

Amigo 9 - june 2005 www.ods.nl/am1gos 71

Load more

  71

Copy Link