Amigo_2_2001preface march, 2002
When I was preparing this issue I involuntarily remembered a book
that I read with fascination around twenty years ago: 'The Dice
Man' by Luke Rhinehart, in which the writer ( a bored psychiatrist)
lets his life be determined by the throw of dice. Consistently, at
every moment when a decision has to be made, he chooses a number of
the dice for every possible option. He actually literally does
whatever the result of the throw of the dice calls for, leading to
all kinds of crazy scenes and many hilarious moments. One never
comes to know whether the book is fiction or not.
However, what does remain is a consideration of whether from the
personal perspective it makes any difference if you assume free
will or not. Could this perhaps be what is meant by self
investigation?
There appear to be a variety of approaches to throw light on the
subject of 'free will'. It seems to be a subject that can only be
spoken about indirectly and everyone handles it their own way as
far as language is concerned. It is up to you, the readers, to
discover the language that appeals to you and throws light on the
subject for you. The subjects free will and surrender ('Your will
be done') seems to be inextricably intertwined, but this remark
will mean more to the jnani's among us than to the bhaktis.
Wolter approaches the subject effectively by translating your
wishes and desires into the question: 'What do I actually want?'.
Jan van Delden relates how Odysseus discovered free will. Douglas
Harding explains how you can always get what your heart longs for.
Hans Laurentius establishes that 'free will' is a contradiction:
how can a will ever be free?, he asks himself. Justus Kramer
Schipper writes on the subject of how we, dancing like trained
bears on a hot plate, make lists of wishes. Jan Kersschot asks
himself: 'How can a mirage discover itself?' Jan Koehoorn and his
discovery while 'leaning back'. Tony Parsons says: 'You need not be
sorry about anything anymore.' Ramesh Balsekar: are you the doer of
what you think are your actions? And, a first, from 1988, an
interview with Alexander Smit about his realization. In the
section, more free will, a collection of texts that we could not
exclude. Finally I try to show you how a spoke sticks into a
wheel.
Did we as editors have the choice of whether to choose this subject
or not?Finally there is no one who chooses, at most there is a
thought about a person who wishes to make a choice.
Summarizing: 'You don't have to accept your destiny, you have to
choose it.' [Paulo Coelho in 'The fifth mountain']
[Kees Schreuders]
Actually Conversation with Wolter Keers in Gent, April 25,
1973..
If we look at the old classic texts, we see again and again that
the great leaders of mankind concern themselves with emphasizing
the abc's of life and seldom with the xyz's. I also think that if
we want to have a chance for a happy life, we have to keep coming
back to abc and ask ourselves regularly: not what do I want, but,
what do I really want? It is better to look at what is happening
now, at this moment, than to get lost in all kinds of complicated
theories.
If we want to become happy, we have to look again and again at what
is happening now at this instant: now, if we are here; now, when we
get home later; now, when we are working; now, when we are on
vacation, and so on. If we pay close attention, a picture emerges
ever more clearly of the dimensions of the prison that we build or
have built around ourselves: something happens that pleases us and
immediately we run off in that direction; we invest an immense
amount of energy to acquire what pleases us. Something happens, or
there is a threat that something will happen that we find
disagreeable, resistance arises, a reaction, and at once we invest
all our energy in blowing up what was in the first place an
impersonal reaction into ; 'I' am afraid, 'I' am furious, and so
on. In this way, we are slaves, lackeys, marionettes of all kinds
of reactions that were planted in us in the past. We remain chained
to the past, and as long as we keep on feeding these reactions, we
remain unhappy.
In general we refuse to see that. If we are unhappy, it is our
parent's fault, or our marital partner, our children, our boss; it
is not our fault, we mean well. And we totally miss the fact that
we make ourselves vulnerable by investing in the body's reactions
and the psychic automatism that, served one or another useful
function long ago, maybe when we were still very young, but that
now fit us like our old baby clothes would.
(animation: Foekje Detmar) What do I actually want? Maybe I'll
reach the age of 70, or 80, or 90; if I look back then, what do I
want to be able to say? I have wasted and thrown away my life,
spent in fear, spent in quarreling, spent in running after all
kinds of things that actually were not important. I read a book
recently about a new form of therapy developed in America in which
one of the people who received this therapy says: 'Neurosis is to
do everything you can to hang on to something that you definitely
don't want to have.' This is an important part of our lives, we
fight, sometimes with tooth and nail, for what we actually don't
want to have, for our egoism, for maintaining our
personality.
What do I actually want? Actually, I want to be happy. Actually I
want love. Actually I always want to return to the state I have
known in which I was warmth itself, where all limitations
disappeared and the world was a good place to live. But we have
changed - we have returned to our old egoism. When we had let go of
everything for love, the world was a paradise. But we have come
back to the cage, to the prison, out of habit, to what the Germans
call; 'du sollst und du sollst nicht', the categorical imperative;
this you must, that you may not. We have come back to: this I want,
and this I don't want. You can only do one thing at a time, you
cannot be love and the ego at the same time. We have to choose.
Egoistic love can only be found in dry water and in the squared
circle.
What do I actually want? Actually I want Freedom Itself. That is
really different from being free of attachments. Freedom is the
absence of limits that was there when Love was there, when I put
everything aside, when everything dissolved in that one experience.
Why didn't I stay there? Why did I come back again to my fears, to
my holding on to situations, to persons, to my bank account, my
work, my this and that? There is only one possible answer: because
I'm crazy. We have to realize very clearly that we are that. We
have to realize very clearly , that as long as we search for
happiness in a way that we know with absolute certainty, not 99.9%
but 100%, will fail, we are crazy. We have to see very clearly that
if we try to find Freedom while living in a cage we are crazy. It
is not so bad being crazy, but it is really dumb to stay that way.
This craziness arises out of the upbringing that we all had in
which we were told: you are this, you are that, you are thousand
and one things, while the people who told us this knew perfectly
well that they were ONE. But also they looked too far away from
themselves. They looked at the prison bars, at the semblance of
safety. They ignored themselves and clung hard to all kinds of
false I's. The life we were brought up to live is often made up of
duties, and these are no substitute for love. It is all duty: God
demanded a whole lot of duties, and the fatherland demanded a whole
lot of duties, and what was left was more duties, for the school,
for the family, the neighbors, the church, etc. It is a good way to
die slowly. 'Yes, but', says someone who has a similar viewpoint,
'yes, but. you can't just go sit in your chair with folded arms.'
No, but that is where you will land if you live that way! And
that's what you prepare your children for if you live like that.
Because living without love is crippling. Children - (and just
between us, grownups) — who are well brought up, that is to say,
who are repeatedly brought to the deepest warmth within them,
discover that in the ground of their being lies the only real
safety that can never be taken from them and they are ready to let
go of the prison bars, to let go of their defensiveness. When this
happens they become spontaneous. Someone who is happy does not
lazily sit in their chair with their arms folded, but is someone
who is happy, is full of energy, works with pleasure .. enjoys the
company of others with pleasure; shines.
Love and happiness are centrifugal qualities, radiating qualities.
Fear, egoism, greed, defensiveness, clinging are centripetal
qualities. They are the source of the cramps in our bodies; of all
fears and defensiveness. And no matter how we get there either
philosophically or via the heart, when in one way or another we are
ready to let go of our defenses, only then can the cramp in the
body also disappear. Then the centripetal, the cramping, the
pulling in becomes centrifugal again. Then we feel that we are no
longer lumbering and heavy, but that we are becoming light. 'He
danced with pleasure on the street,' a sentence like that can be
found in many books. He danced, he was light. But in order to get
that happiness every day — and all our activities strive for that —
we use all the means that make that happiness impossible, as sure
as the night follows the day and the day again follows the night.
Egoism is by definition a means, a course of action, a perspective
that always misses its target. But in order to see that you have to
learn to see well.
Maybe you once had a heavy quarrel with your husband or wife, and
maybe you were both right; that often happens in a quarrel, or
maybe both were wrong, but you were the stronger and you
overpowered the other, you got good and even. And when it was
finished you felt like a tough guy. At that moment, you know if you
look deeper in yourself, that the victory was only a hollow
victory. If you tell someone the unadorned truth, at that very
moment you suffer a defeat yourself, at that moment the best in you
is covered with a layer of concrete. In other words, at that moment
you betray the deepest in yourself. This is just one example out of
many that everyone knows from their own lives. Again and again, if
we invest energy in feeding disharmony, if we hold on to things and
make demands, we build a wall between ourselves and the other.
Whoever returns to the deep Experience of this unlimited warmth
that we call love, knows that no walls are possible. The
experience, the 'state' if you will, becomes manifest when at least
for a moment all walls are gone. A person is capable of love with
an intensity determined by the thickness of their walls. The higher
the walls, the stronger the defensiveness, the less I can love. If
we look really penetratingly and ask ourselves 'what do I actually
want?', I believe that there in the depth we will find only one
desire: to give all that we have, to give everything we have
without any holding back. Only when I have given all, all that I
have and I am, is the happiness complete. There is a classic image,
from the New Testament that says: 'If the seed does not die it
brings forth no fruit.'. If I am really honest, and look deep
inside myself that is what I want: to die; that is to say to give
all that I am, all. In giving you discover even more to give and
then you say take that also, that I also renounce. That is indeed a
sort of dying. Love is a kind of suicide. It is not just a surface
phenomenon. People who flit from the one to the other, and go like
butterflies from one flower to another seldom come to this
experience.
When I first came to India I met Ramana Maharshi. And there, for
the first time in my life, I saw Love sitting there on a chair,
literally shining almost like the sun. Through this Presence, for
days, I could do nothing else than to say to whatever overcame me
take this; take everything from me. The love of this man went
through you like a laser beam and everything that was not in
complete harmony with it stood out. Then you said inwardly; please
take this away from me also. I remember that Jean Klein once made
the following comparison: most people go to a guru to get
something. They have the feeling that they, spiritually speaking,
are going to a three star restaurant and will get a really good
meal. But they are really surprised when instead of getting a tasty
meal, the chef comes out with a great big knife and cuts their
stomach out, empties their pockets, undresses them and goes on
until there is nothing left. That's how it is with a guru. Is this
not the standard? Do I give, do I let go, do I dissolve everything
in Love, or am I collecting, standing at the till, am I being
calculating, am I keeping the cage closed? There you don't have to
be a great psychologist, or a great philosopher. A maid we had
before the war who had absolutely no education beyond primary
school explained these things to me when I was around 14 or 15
years old. You understand, there is no need to study these things,
you don't have to be old or wise, a child can understand it. Well,
that's the choice, this way or that way? Building up a wall, or
dismantling the wall. The choice is very simple.
'Yes but, …', as soon the words 'yes but' come, we are building the
wall up, these words belong to fear. One should count to at least
ten each evening and ask: have I become at least a gram lighter
today? Have I let something go today? Is there a fear that I dared
to examine? A possession that I have left behind? Or did I become
heavier today? Are my pockets fuller? Have I fed my reactions? Did
I defend my personality? Have I taken distance from my fears,
demands and longings, or have I nourished my fears, longings and
demands?
What do I actually want? That is the a of abc. These are the
questions that it comes down to: what do I actually want, and who
am I actually? What do I actually know? Love may be the most
beautiful path. I do not say that it is the easiest. I don't know
if there is an easiest path? But, it is the most beautiful path to
the extent that you don't have to go through a crisis because if
you allow love again, your heart bursts and love penetrates your
entire being, your head, your whole being and then your home and
workplace. That letting go is a celebration; it is a path to
Freedom that goes with a smooth accelerated motion. If you let
things dissolve in the One Love that you are actually are, in the
depth of your being, then the first time is the most difficult
because you are not used to it; the second time it is already
easier.
What do I actually want? Do I want to remain in a cage, or do I
want to live under the blue sky? To do as if this is too difficult,
or too dangerous, or to say that this can't be dome in society, and
'what will the neighbors think' is not intelligent. Not daring to
look at problems is simply lack of intelligence. Because if I live
as if I am different from what I actually am, I can never be
myself, then I am punishing myself in the most awful way. What have
I done to deserve that? When you are with very good friends, who
you really love, you say; here I can be myself, in love and harmony
with myself. If I want to be myself that can only happen if I begin
with accepting. To accept that there are innumerable possibilities
in me, good and bad, beautiful and evil, just as in every person.
As long as I do not accept that I cannot become happy. As long as I
only want to see the things that flatter my ego and refuse to see
the things that my ego finds humiliating, I do not become free. As
long as we do 'as if'' we are dumb, we demonstrate a lack of
intelligence. Maybe a certain amount of courage is needed, but what
requires more courage; to be brave a few hours now and then, or to
drag on for 40 or 50 or 60 years more like a cart horse? Again, it
says in the bible: the truth shall make you free. As long as we
live as if we are someone else than what we are, we are heavily
chained. As long as I do as if I am a pretty picture, with this and
that principally good qualities, I am chained. Then I will defend
this picture; I become angry with everything that does not flatter
the picture; I only accept what flatters the picture. In other
words, I am completely dependent on my surroundings. I am a
marionette of my surroundings and a slave of all kinds of reactions
that were planted in me in the past and have taken root.
What do I actually want? I believe that being someone else's slave
can also be a path. But then you have to be a total slave. If you
can be a perfect slave, by which you say; this body is yours,
everything, I possess nothing more, then you come to the same
situation as in Love; then you also no longer possess anything. But
it is not simple to be such a perfect slave. I believe it is easier
to follow the path of Love. Then you also possess nothing. But we
must never become the slave of, and allow ourselves to be bullied
by, the feelings that just come up in us. If I look sharply, I see
that when things happen that are disagreeable to my ego, or things
that flatter my ego a reaction arises. This reaction in and of
itself is not yet a chain, but the moment the reaction is seen as
an 'I' : 'I' am afraid, 'I' demand, long for or run after something
— then we are sitting in the cage. If instead of that we simply
establish; there, this and that is the reaction, then it is not
even necessary to attribute, as in psychology, that the reaction is
due to the fact that grandmother let me fall when I was a baby. No:
there, this instant, is the reaction. And, I am not a reaction, a
reaction is something that comes and goes, and I am something that
lasts. Thus, 'I' am not a reaction. To say that 'I' am scared is a
pure lie. To say that 'I' am angry is thus a pure lie. I am the
perceiver of a reaction that is fear or anger, is longing, is being
flattered and so on. It is only by attaching an I-feeling and
clinging to it that we remain dependent on what ever happens to
come up. If our 'neighbor' is a little refined, then he knows
exactly how he can chat us up in order to bring out the right
reactions; then he can do whatever he wants with us. So we follow
all kinds of banners, against capitalism, or against communism, or
for or against Vietnam or whatever you like; not because we
actually know what we are doing, but because we are being
manipulated, or can be manipulated because we are afraid.
As long as we are afraid, the society can do what it wants with us,
our surroundings can do what it likes with us. So we are not only
the puppets of our reactions, but moreover we are also the puppets
of our surroundings and the society. This is in glaring opposition
to the state that we know; the state of Light that is limited by
nothing, warmth limited by nothing, in which we can actually hug
every tree in the woods. If we put it that way can we speak of a
choice between love and egoism? Arriving at Freedom is nothing else
then letting go again and again, of seeing that my safety does not
lie in my bank account, or in power or in anything else. In the
world there is nothing that is actually safe. The only actual
Security is finally what can not be taken away from me, and that is
myself. Freedom is naturally freedom from the personality. I have
already said: Freedom is not the same as lawlessness. Freedom is
not chasing after whatever you like because everything is possible,
that's exactly the cage I think. Freedom is: being independent of
all things. Again freedom is not freedom for, but freedom from
egoism, freedom from the personality. I believe that it is
absolutely necessary , even if it is only for a moment per day to
look at the deepest depth in myself, to see what I actually am,
what 'I' actually want. Because: what I actually want is what I
actually am. What do you love the most, yourself or Love? If I look
deep in myself, it seems to be an impossible choice, because my
deepest self is Love. Only in this Love I am myself. Love and I
myself, there in the depths, at the source of Life, are two words
that indicate the same thing, and is therefore actual, living from
the source, only living from the Source, and not from all kinds of
entrenchments, or seeking for compensation. Of course, the word
says it all. Whenever I abandon the Source, when I live from a
personality, from an image, from feelings, from fear, from
frustration, then I never reach it. There is an English expression:
'More never ends'. After every compensation we start running
immediately, looking for something else. But when we allow the
deepest in ourselves to get warm, as it were, and if we, if I may
say so, become awake again in the depth, using all means available:
by remembering more or less what it was like when Love was there;
by seeing that 'I' am not all the things that I defend and by
seeing that the defensiveness keeps the wall in place instead of
letting the warmth run free, then it must happen that the wall
begins to waver.
There was once a giant In the Hindu mythology, every time the giant
chopped someone's head off the power of his defeated enemy was
added to his power. Finally he became so strong that no man could
defeat him and little by little he dared to challenge the gods. The
rest of the story is not so interesting, but what is symbolically
meant is that every victory, every insight, every letting go of
fear, or of greed strengthens the side of the Source, adds to it
the energy that was first invested in resistance. In this way the
side of Source becomes steadily stronger and the side of resistance
steadily weaker, until at a certain moment the entire wall is wiped
away. Then we come into the state that we have all experienced and
about which we all immediately say: yes, this is what I actually
want.
What do I actually want? If I go just a bit deeper into, it becomes
completely clear. Every time I do not hold to that, if I build up
my walls, if I stick my claws out, if I run after some
compensation, if I win a hollow victory, maybe , I betray someone
else, but the worst is that I betray my deepest Self, that which I
actually want, and that which I actually am. Somewhere in Hamlet
Shakespeare says: 'This above all, to your own Self be true, then
it shall follow as the night the day, you can not then be false to
any man.' That is the proper order. If we live from the Love that
we actually are, if we are just ourselves, in the deepest meaning
of the word and live from the Source, then the rest is as it should
be. Every time that we don't do that we stick a knife into our own
ribs — even if we think that it is someone else's ribs. When we are
searching for our deepest self we cannot accept anything as given
by an authority. We have to verify everything that : is it true or
not? It is just like eating; no one else can eat for you. And also
in this case: if it is all theory that you have learned just
mentally, then that is completely useless, then it is better to
learn to play chess or study the violin, or do something else. That
does not help us. Everything that you see for yourself, and what
you recognize yourself liberates. A theory is only excess
baggage.
A few questions have been asked during the pause, one in response
to a sentence in 'Yoga and Vedanta': 'Something that comes out of
something can not be different from the something it comes from.' I
believe that it has become clear to you in the meanwhile, is that
so?
Questioner: Yes.
The illusion is a thought!
If you can see the illusion as wrongly seen truth, as Light wrongly
interpreted, but nevertheless Light, then the illusion disappears.
It happens sometimes that someone discovers that hate is distorted
love: 'I wanted so much to love you, but somehow it has gone wrong
and now I hate you.' But, this hate is actually distorted love.
Discovering that can cause the hate to disappear and then the love
comes back. So is it also with this: if you see that the illusion
is nothing other that Light itself, the illusion disappears. And
that is the intent of this text.
What I find to be strange, is that you see in the long run that
everything is going to love everything. Then there is simply no
more difference whether come across a person, or an animal, or
nature; there is simply nothing more to say. But there are other
people who find that to be annoying, who feel disturbed by
that.
There are people who think that you want to misuse them if you love
them. Sometimes it happens that children are strongly warned
against sexuality. Girls like that think all men are beasts,
because they see a connection between the men and beastlike
sexuality in themselves. Boys are often malformed in precisely the
same way. If a normal boy begins to love such a girl, then she
feels: 'he' wants to take advantage of me. That's what happens. In
that way love is seen to be like something that has nothing to do
with love. You see things at your own level all the time, you do
not see what is actually happening, in this case you do not se that
someone loves you. You interpret something that is actually love as
beastliness. So if someone feels disturbed because you have a big
heart, then that person has problems! But we can not do anything
about that. What we could do is to explain to the person that
indeed we love them, but that does not mean that we want to possess
them or dominate them or lure them into a trap. Just the opposite,
I want exactly nothing, But we have to understand what love
is.
The great confusion arises because people mean two or even more,
three or four things with the word love. With the word we mean:
certain feelings, feelings of warmth that we connect with a person
or a situation, with music: I love Schubert, I love my brother, I
love someone in a love relation, in a sexual relation, and so on.
But in these case we are talking primarily about a feeling. Love,
that is complete Freedom, it is not about any feeling. The love
that tries to lose itself in a marriage partner for example ,
begins as a feeling, but as a feeling that rises above itself: it
is a feeling that grows into space, into warmth and there the
partner disappears, everything dissolves, only Love itself remains.
There, there is no A who loves B and no B who loves A: A and B have
completely disappeared and there is only the one unlimited. This
love brings with it the vision that this thing (this body) and that
thing (another body), and that thing and that other thing are all
manifestations of what I am myself. In this sense there is not a
trace of preference; in this sense no one is closer to you than
another.
Love, finally, is something that never leaves you. It is a another
word for knowing, for being eternally present. It is not something
that has a beginning and an end. The feeling 'love' is one of the
doors towards this Love itself. It is therefore clear, that this
unlimited Love can never possess or want to possess anything or
anyone. How could it be possible, it would be as if my right hand
wanted to possess my left hand, that makes no sense. In love there
is no owner. If love could possess anything it would be the
Universe; everything or nothing, you could say either, but not a
piece, you can not split yourself up in pieces. You are the love in
the other. The Guru that brigs you to the Truth, to Freedom, to
Love is Love itself and speaks to the Love itself that you are. In
the beginning you see him or her as a man or a woman, because you
see yourself as a man or a woman.
You discover that in everyone, but if you no longer react to
other's attacks, then they probably think that you are arrogant, or
indifferent or even crazy.
They think: this person has become indifferent. But that is
absolutely not the case. Indifference is being closed, resistant.
This is precisely the opposite. But we are so used to fighting for
our interests, for our wall, for our cage, that when someone is
happy we become angry and say that they are egotistic. But, the one
who says that, what does he do himself? He is looking for exactly
the same, only he does not know how to find it. He thinks that he
can be free by strengthening the cage. The moment he discovers that
an ego can never be happy, he stops fighting and then he gets into
exactly the same problem with his surroundings. I believe we all
have a period in which the others say: 'Losing your ego is very
egotistic, you only work on yourself.' But at a certain moment it
must happen that they discover that something new has happened,
something that they can not exactly pinpoint, but something that
has more worth then there was before, something that attracts them
more than what happened before. Then sometimes you see that
understanding begins to dawn.
We are afraid of Freedom. We are brought up to be slaves. First by
our parents; we had to become what papa and mama thought that we
had to become; they had some imagination that a neat child should
be like this or that.. and you had to become that. So we learned to
play a role, not to be what we are. That is the beginning of every
neurosis. That is how we grew up one layer of armor on top of
another. And now suddenly Freedom is offered to us. That scares us
— we are afraid that we have to encounter the unknown completely
alone. Fear of Freedom: we have to have a papa. There is a very
interesting book by Fromm, you should read it sometime: 'Fear of
Freedom'. It is mostly about the problem of various countries, all
kinds of peoples choose dictatorial presidents. One wants to have a
father, one thinks in terms of the family in which father gives the
leadership, who thinks for you, decides for you and watches over
you. And so it is with us, we do not want freedom, we are afraid of
it. We have to realize that we find freedom scary. What should I
do? We even find, if we are a bit neurotic, scary to lose our
problems, because what should I do without my problems? There is a
psychiatric joke in Holland: 'I am so glad that I do not like
spinach, because if I liked spinach then I would have to eat
spinach and I don't like spinach'. That is the main knot: fear of
healing, because if I heal I have to do all kinds of things that I
don't feel like doing. The patient does not see that if he is
healed these things are not at all so bad, that they practically do
themselves; that they are altogether not mountains but molehills.
We are all acquainted with that because we all have some of that in
common. At a certain moment you become afraid of being healed,
afraid to break down your walls because you feel so safe behind
them. Who feels safe behind the wall? The wall feels safe. In fact
there is no one behind the wall. Naturally it is the other way
around: the wall is the insecurity. Why are you insecure? Because
you have put up a wall against the environment. If you are one with
your surroundings then insecurity does not exist.
Do you want a definite example? Fear itself. What is fear? A fear
is mechanism that is suppose to hinder our becoming unhappy. When a
small child approaches the heater you say: Look out, that hurts! So
you plant a fear to prevent the child from touching the heater.
Thus, this is a useful fear. But now let me that transplant that. I
am afraid of you, I am afraid that something will be taken from me,
I am afraid that I must do something and so on. The fear whose only
purpose is that I do not become unhappy, that I do not burn my
fingers is now used as a medicine. But that is worse then the
complaint. Fear itself is the sickness. It can go very far. Someone
I knew tried to explain to me what he had: that he was not only
afraid of fear, but that he was afraid of fear of the fear, for the
fear of the fear! Let us not try to understand that. There is fear,
let us stop there. The fear disappears if I again and again
establish: there is a feeling of fear. And that is what we all
want: the disappearance of the fear — not to cultivate fear of the
fear. I believe that if you have looked with me this evening then
it has become completely clear what we actually want. Every person
knows deep in their heart what they actually want. Well, let us
then throw all these fences that we sit behind into the fire of the
love that we are and that we actually want.
I believe that the thought 'now' is the biggest problem for me; I
keep seeing that as a sort of knower.
Yes, that is very important, we have to avoid projecting a knower
on the thinking. There is a thinker in your head, and if that
disappears then there is a knower in your head, but that is not the
real knower. Rather than projecting a personality on the Knower,
try to see that a thought is nothing else than Consciousness, since
that does not have the aroma of a personality, see it as nothing
other than Consciousness, Knowingness.
If you actually have no more problems, but are still living in
illusion.. what would that be?
In your case it seems to me to be the beginning of the emptiness
that we often spoke about. Every person knows: I am One. That is a
central unavoidable intuitive knowing. Around this middle point I
have planted all kinds of little I's, from I as child to I as old
man, I-as-this, I-as-that, entire walls of resistance. I do not
live as the true center, 'I Am that I Am', but I live as one who is
temporarily projected in a role. On a given day I will see that,
and I will see that these I's are not really I, that they are all
roles that appear and disappear, a number in the waking state, and
a number in the dreaming state; but I am not an 'I' that comes and
goes. I am always present.
Now slowly, all those little I feelings are disappearing. The there
comes a period when we are almost problem free: there are no great
difficulties. You live in a sort of waiting state. That is the
Emptiness of the Not-Knowing announcing itself. As long as there is
any trace that I am a person who … and you can fill in the rest —
the emptiness is not yet complete. But at a certain moment we come
to a completely perfect Not-Knowing: the personality knows
absolutely nothing, just as little as that chair knows.
Is that what Jean Klein meant with: Je ne sais pas?
Yes, exactly the same, 'I' as a personality knows no more than this
table; 'I' as a personality am an object of Knowingness, precisely
as this table is an object of Knowingness. The moment the emptiness
is perfect in all sorts of ways, the Light manifests itself, the
Knowing. But this is speaking very schematically. What I say is
completely true, from one moment to the next, the Emptiness changes
into Fullness. But it is also true if I say that it happens little
by little.. Ignorance, misunderstandings, seeing wrongly, disappear
bit by bit. My fears must disappear, one by one, and each time I
become lighter. I become more sensitive than before, my body
becomes more sensitive, I am no longer blocked and so on. It goes
like this gradually further until every becomes transparent and the
emptiness is perfect.
(published with permission from 'uitgeverij De Driehoek')
If it happens, it is grace Jan van Delden
We are sitting with a very small group of people in the mild
October sun in the Dordogne (France) and ask Jan 'the shirt off his
back' about 'free will'- do we have that or don't we have
that?
Jan: You have to come to the conclusion yourself that you can only
say something about 'free will' after everything has become clear.
I always use Odysseus as an example to talk about these things.
When the story of Odysseus begins, he has just won the Trojan war
with his Trojan horse stratagem. Odysseus insists that he thought
it up and did it. He finds that he did that out of his free will,
and everyone around him confirm that. As far as 'the world' is
concerned it is clear that everyone has a 'free will'. You can't
meddle with that. As long as you are only looking from the level of
'Johnny' (the personality) there is free will. That is how you
experience it, and that is how you have to be with others,
otherwise you are cast out. Meanwhile I can say to seekers: 'If you
had free will, you would stop wanting anything and be happy NOW.'
You would after all have become happy long ago! Then you have to
admit, after all, that you have never succeeded in making yourself
happy. Looking back you will see that it is therefore not in your
hands, that it is not by means of a 'you' that you are happy. For a
long time I wanted to stop smoking, but you can say that you want
to stop smoking, but that does not mean that you also can DO it. I
have since stopped, but not because I wanted it at the moment that
I wanted it.
Question: That happens suddenly? Therefore you cannot DO anything?
It is either there or not? Jan: The head says: I want to stop
smoking/greed/ sexual desire/gluttony or whatever, but the DOING is
not in your hands. That can also be an eye opener to let you see
that free will does not exist. If I have to choose between two
cookies, and I know that almond cookies are not as tasty as those
chocolate cookies, then my hand goes automatically to the chocolate
cookies, mmm. There is no need to carry on a discussion at that
level. I choose that cookie, Period. I can prove that
intellectually, then it seems to be true: I choose, therefore, Free
will. Just like the Trojan Horse — the whole world agrees. There
are no difficulties with that. The difficulty comes when you say
that it was not Odysseus, but Consciousness itself that thought of
the Trojan Horse. 'If God doesn't do it, then Johnny tries it in
vain' Then everybody is ready to jump on you. All the Mothers
Teresa and Presidents Bush become angry. Then you are taking away
their little successes or actions. And that is what the world is
all about.
It is easy to say that in a welfare state, but how do the poor
people in Africa or Afghanistan, for example react? If that is
'imposed' on them then you can ask that. What do millionaires say:
I was at the right place just at that moment, or at the Exchange,
or born in a good nest or whatever. People often do not see that
everything is grace. You might have been born in poverty this
morning. For the rest, most poor people are in India or such, and
if there is no direct war they are very happy. In India there are
also many people who are conscious of the fact that it is
Consciousness that arranges everything. When Americans can't make
do with what they have, they always begin to talk about God,
because they have no social safety nets such as we do. Everyone in
American has learned to believe. Much more than is the case with
us. Actually 'Free will' makes no sense. You are either happy or
not. You are either thankful or not. You can give as much as you
like, a person can always misunderstand what they are given.
So we actually have nothing to want? I would think of 'free will'
as an abstraction, and once you understand that 'free will' does
not exist, then you are comfortable in your skin, then you have
understood the story well. Before that time there exist no 'will'
at all, The whole idea of 'willing' is based on having, having,
having. And there are always conditions to getting anything.
'Please, in the future I want to have.. a family, two children, a
nice house'. Everyone 'wants' and is unhappy later. 'If I do not
have this or that I am unhappy' That is inherent in life. That
belief in what is not there brings us a lot of grief. It is better
not to want something.
There are people who purposefully make something, they create what
they say they want. What about that? I used to walk with my ex
along the beach dreaming and fantasizing for hours about everything
that we were going to do: living in the woods, finding mushrooms,
making cheese, growing vegetables. We dreamed like that for years.
Now, I could say: look, it succeeded, I live in the woods now, but
that is nonsense. Afterwards you can say that it is so, but that is
only true for a few people, not for everyone and if it does not
apply to everyone, then it is a belief and has nothing to do with
the truth. I always tell the story of the shark and the pilot fish
who swim around him and think they know which way the shark is
going to swim: he is going left, no, right, oh no he is turning
around, see, I was right. All that drivel is in our heads all day
long while the shark just swims along and the pilot fish's bullshit
has nothing to do with whether he swims right or left, under or
over. But that is where we live all the time, that is what we
believe and that is what we suffer from. If you just look at what
happens, then that whole 'I did it' business stops, and you don't
listen to it anymore. Simply let the little fishes bullshit. Don't
listen to the little fishes anymore. They only talk about what
might happen and how it could happen…. If I had not done that, then
.. if I actually had done that… then … if he or she had or had not
said this or that, then … The shark has nothing to do with all
that. He is just living completely spontaneously.
How is it possible then that it does seem to succeed for some
people? If the idea helps you, then it is okay. But you are
naturally creating an artificial situation. You have no influence
on the NOW! Sooner or later you will get a kick in the ass, because
Consciousness has somethig to tell you sometime that you
overlooked. That HAS to happen sometime if you are fated to come
Home.
Is that the spiritual master's 'job'? You need a spiritual master
to teach you how to handle what the Nothing is like. Before you are
ready for the Void you must be finished with your spiritual master!
Odysseus also experienced that. He tried to attack Troy for ten
years and finally he succeeded. The whole world says: 'Fantastic
Odysseus!' But, Poseidon, ruler of the sea, does everything
possible to thwart Odysseys, because Odysseus has burned out the
eye of Poseidon's son Polyphemos, the one-eyed Cyclops (the truth),
and Poseidon wants to teach him a lesson. Poseidon says: 'Yes, yes,
conceited, irritating little man we'll let you know who is really
in charge…' Odysseus has to wander all these years until he becomes
suspicions and begins to understand that the gods and not him do
everything. He has to travel that long path to discover what 'free
will' actually is.
Thus, everything in its own time. There is a season for everything.
Yes, therefore it says in the Odyssey': 'You have to begin
somewhere.' One person might have a Rambo in himself who has to
live itself out at the last moment, another might belong to the
'Phalaken', another can not pass by the Sirens and cannot cope with
the 'Bag full of wind' (that is with 'Nothing') yet.. Sooner or
later you meet all these facets, but at the moment that it is
needed the only thing that works is 'grace', and there are people
who need the strength of the word or of belief, and sometimes they
also arrive completely Home. But finally they will see that the
strength was not in Johnny/Odysseus/personality/ideas, but in the
realization itself; the wave was made of water, but the wave
imagines that it has discovered water. At a certain moment you have
to see how ridiculous that is.
So, if I think my free will is at work that is actually a signal to
take a better look. Yes! At first you go in search of the water and
that seems to be an investigation of the wave (the person). When
the wave realizes that it is made of water, and that all the other
waves are also made of water, and that there is nothing else than
water, then it sees the ridiculousness of the whole search, because
there has never been anything else except water. Then the whole
structure collapses. Until then you have to stay where you are at.
You must therefore not just believe what I say. It is not about
belief, it is about your seeing it! But there are many bhaktis who
derive much from the strength of the word and who also can see
wonders therein — who do not use their thinking, but their trust in
God and that always works, but if you use your trust in God for
your personal preferences then sooner or later you will see that it
turns around. If I think, 'God is for America', then I am making a
real mistake. Then sooner or later he comes to be on the side of
the terrorists because there are always two sides to every case.
The Americans have been to church, but so have the Germans, just to
name another country, And both boast about their own God —
sometimes it is true, but in the totality it is not true.
If free will does not exist, is then everything predestined,
including realization? Yes, that's correct. But what is
predestined? That the wave discovers that it is made of water? Even
though he is made totally of water? That's neither here nor there!
If you have seen it all, that makes no difference either. The most
you can say is: there was a self image in the Self in which a dream
played itself out and it really looked as if there were something,
but finally it was all rubbish. Water has the same wetness
everywhere. And nothing has ever happened except the imagination of
a self. There is only the knowing of a dream: there is no dream,
there is the knowing of a dream; in the dream there are no objects,
no material, thus only the knowing was. Therefore nothing is the
matter. But, you must not say that when you are watching TV and you
see all the distress happening now! That's not right. Then you are
making a mistake. But you do have to see how it actually is inside
yourself. That does not mean that you don't sympathize, or make no
contributions or anything in situations where support and help are
needed now!
Do you still dream? Yes, I sometimes dream. Never about anything
that has to do with the teaching. I dream when I have eaten
something bad, or have the flu. Then I wake up in the night and
have difficulty in falling asleep again, and when I do fall asleep
it is early in the morning and those are the moments when we dream.
I often have the same dream, mostly about a squat that I always
come back to, and I have conversations with people whom I don't
know at all in the waking state. Strangers to me, but in the dream
I know that I have said the words a thousand times. The dream comes
back again and again. So you can see that dreams, just like the
waking state also have continuity. So you can not say that a dream
is more abstract than the waking state or anything like that. It is
absolutely the same. The more you see, the better you know that the
dream state is the same as the waking state; all sort of things
happen in both and the same way in both. In the dream the
experiencing is exactly the same. The waking state has more
so-called continuity, while the dream state is more chaotic and
varied. If I am full of worries, then I am also full of worries in
the dream state. That does not say that this (the waking state) is
real! … In the beginning it is a way of finding the reality, but
you can also try to distinguish between the knowing and the known
by using the faculty of differentiation. Later on you don't have to
do that anymore, then you know it.
If you actually examine it from all angles then I understand that
it makes no sense to still talk about 'free will'. That actually
becomes laughable, because that is the level of the person. And
yet, I still have the stubborn idea that I can for example choose
to I identify or not. I can after all know that I am in an identity
and I can either leave it like that or change it. Is that so? Do
you really have this choice? If it happens it is grace, it is
always grace. No matter how you look at it. There is no other way.
When the time is ripe it happens. So, if you think that there is
something like subject-object and that you are on the subjective
side you can pay attention there. That moment is indeed very
important; that is what determines it. Then it becomes a fact, but
if you can direct your attention there, then that is also grace.
Thus, there is grace if that happens and not because there is an
'I' that can do something. It is always consciousness that does it.
In and of itself it is always an opening if you can direct your
attention, but that is pure grace…
Directing your attention is a fantastic opening, because it is
exactly like the NOW, and you see more and more clearly that the
whole free will is an empty word, but that this empty word brings
you to the fact that consciousness arranges everything. The more
you go into it, the more you see that Consciousness arranges
everything. Then you stop explaining things to people and trying to
improve them if they do not want it themselves. If I see more and
more that Consciousness does everything then I have no job.
Moreover, I have no job.
Then you can also no longer be vexed by other people. No. nothing.
There is annoyance sometimes, that is possible, but that does not
happen because of the people; it is no more than a passing
thought.
So you can actually not do anything wrong. No. And you can also do
nothing right.
Actually I wanted to do this or that. Is that all nonsense? Yes,
that is pilot fish bullshit. I see a little tree, I am mowing
around it, I fail to pay attention for a moment, little tree gone.
I should have paid more attention! That is neither here nor there.
And the next thought says: you see, you are not paying attention.
Then the pilot fishes go to work. And if you allow it, then you are
even going to believe them! You do your best, you know that. And,
if you don't do your best you know that too.
That does not mean that you have to restrain yourself if the kids
are bawling, or count to ten before sinking into a pool of self
pity. It does no harm to pull your self together then. But you need
not exaggerate that; in general there is no need to do anything.
Let it be. At most you can say 'Johnny' was a bit dumb, but at
eventually it means nothing more than that.
At least then you have a certain distance. That is what I used
'Johnny ' for, for a long time; if that appeals to you use
'Johnny', but as a third person, because that way you see that it
is Johnny's problem and not yours. Because you are not Johnny, You
are that in which Johnny appears. That way you continually make the
subtle distance between John and his world, and You. Until it
becomes definite that you can not be any part of that John and that
only the knowing of John exists. Then there comes a definite break.
In the beginning you have to yo-yo with it a bit.
Like a film in which Johnny does this and that? Yes.
It has nothing to do with me? No. Even if Johnny falls like a ton
of bricks for all the stories and opens all the e-mails, sob songs
and all, as soon as you come around again, you see that it was all
nonsense. And thus you need not fall into 'you see, it is not for
me because I have opened the e-mails again, I got fooled again, so
again I have not understood it, etc. etc.' Then you have to pass
through that also. And as soon as you can do that, then it no
longer matters if you fell again, or you identified again, because
how can the water fall into something? And once you know that
everything is water, then it makes no sense to think that one
'wave' could have done it better than another 'wave' if you are
talking about water. But, if we are talking about skills, or
capacities, or talents, then yes, that is something else, but then
we are talking about a totally different level. Then I say: 'Render
unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's '. You just
have to know what your strong and weak points are, as a person. My
strong points are such and so, my weaknesses are so and so. That is
what makes life so nice.
Do you have any more advice? The best thing is to know ahead of
time that twaddle comes into your mind at difficult moments. Thus,
you have to anticipate that at moments when there are not yet any
problems. You must know that. Don't go 'searching' just when there
is a rotten situation, because then you are going to call up rotten
situations just so that you can go 'seeking'. Many people only
begin to search, or to look at themselves seriously when they feel
rotten or have fallen into a crisis situation. Then 'seeking' is
going to intertwine itself with rotten situations and will create
rotten situations in order to keep 'seeking'. If you regularly
'seek' and then just at the moments when you feel good, when
apparently you have no need to look at 'yourself', then that is
much better, because then that associates a good feeling with
'seeking' and you can slowly 'train' that better, whatever that
might be…
In my case I got a lot from the 'humming of the silence'*. If that
appeals to you, you can apply it during washing the dishes, or
drinking coffee, then you can do it also when there is a crisis
situation, or you are crying because all your things have been
stolen, or in processing all kinds of traumatic things. By
directing the attention to the humming, which as it happens seemed
to be a good natural method for me, you can go on doing things and
simultaneously see how things are and at the same time see that you
are completely powerless and that there is also absolutely nothing
in which you had, or ever had any say. Then you no longer judge the
results of your actions because you see that nothing has ever been
asked of you…
And hopefully you may even succeed in avoiding the WHY-question! As
soon as you have a why-question, stop immediately. Delete the
e-mail immediately without opening it. Delete. WHY? Delete. WHY?
Delete. It becomes easier and easier.
Alexander always said about the 'why this or that' or 'this wanting
or not wanting': 'You want what is not there, and you don't want
what is there', it's that simple, he said, and according to you
Wolter was also not so eager to go into that 'wanting', or into
'free will' and so forth. No, because 'wanting' always implies
'wanting something' and that implies that you are not in agreement
with what there is NOW. You want to change something in reality!
Wolter did not like to speak about it because it does not make
things clearer but actually complicates them. You can simplify
instead of complicate. He said: 'You do have a free choice, but you
can not choose the choice itself,' or: you can choose between right
or left, but you can't know WHY you have the choice between right
and left.
That happens spontaneously. He saw of course, that you have to be
careful, as I do and as do all the others that know it, that you
have to be careful because things are always intertwined and most
people who are on the first level want answers on the second level;
grade school children who come on with Einstein's relativity
theory, that leads nowhere. We must not be impolite, so we say as
much as we can about it. And in reality it is so simple. Everything
was so intellectual in the past. All those philosophy books… yeah..
I looked into them for three hours.. I could not say a word about
them! And this is all so simple, so concrete, so unimaginably
simple .. that you can't even understand that there are so many
books written about it.
And that you even can talk about it! It will stay that way. I can
always talk about it.
Nisargadatta said that too, even when he was dying and could still
speak. Yes, it is surprising. It is the only thing you can wake me
up for.
I decide now to go read, or to go listen to a tape. So I am after
all making a choice. Yes, but you can't make the choice itself. The
moment that you indeed make the choice is not in your control. 'I
now choose to stop this lousy mood'. That you can not do. No one
can do that!
Or you say: 'I'm going to stop smoking now' and the next minute you
light a cigarette. Or I am going to decide now not to have anymore
bad thoughts.
So what it's about is that we should not mix levels. Yes. Give
Caesar what is Caesar's and give God what is God's. And is some
cases you must not let the left hand know what the right hand is
doing.
Another piece of advice is to investigate 'free will' by for
example, going to buy a house and asking yourself why you prefer
one house to another. You can ask yourself why you want to drink
coffee with one of the owners and not with another. You can ask
yourself why you find something beautiful; you can ask yourself why
you buy one auto and not another. Investigate it. Look to se if YOU
do it. The you will discover that the answer is 'I don't know' and
that therefore you don't know why you 'do' something. When I stood
here then I knew, 'I want this house'. When that moment comes it
comes by itself, but then the head immediately says: 'I decided
it'. That is not at all true. It came spontaneously. But most
people don't want to hear that, because most people are busy trying
to make things concrete — I want a job, a family, a child, money in
the bank, a car — and I say that at that level 'free will exists'.
If you want a better job, then do as if free will exists, create
your job, create your house, bring your life in order, learn to
choose, see to it that you have skills to enable you to live — but
that is all at a different level than we are here discussing.
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. You
should not mix up these two levels.
Otherwise, you might say 'I do not need any more education' and
such. No, you do need an education. You must be able to function in
this world. Keep on voting, participate, develop yourself, try to
get a balanced ego, only then can you be free of it. A frustrated
ego can not let go of itself. It can only damage itself and kill
itself, but not see through itself. It would be beautiful if you
could create balance in your personality to a certain extent. An
inferior feeling little ego such as I had, needs a diploma to know
who he is. The moment I got my diploma it became clear to me. It
was my last diploma, If my ego had then said that Johnny must still
become a professor … then I would have had a problem. The moment
when Johnny had achieved something I could let Johnny go.
Did that happen the very same day? Yes.
When was that? June 3, 1983. The day that I had to defend my
thesis. Then I refused to play that little game any longer. And
then in the train on the way to Wolter in France, there was a
friendly homosexual who did everything for me, as if he understood
that something had happened with me. I observed everything, but I
was only directed inwards. I mean by that; I did not go 'outside' I
remained sitting calmly. He went for the sandwiches and cared for
me without being asked. I always say: if you still have a longing
then go for it first, at least if it is realistic. You have to
examine it continuously. 'Who am I'? or 'Where does that appear'?
You have to examine that constantly. Preferably when you have no
problems.
What is the difference between the search for truth and the
psychological route? Those are certainly different tracks? That
depends on your tendencies. If I have a frustrated little ego and I
do hatha yoga, stand on my head, meditate and get some peace out of
that, I might have perhaps gotten the same rest from a good
encounter group as they were then called. It doesn't matter. It is
about the moment when you seriously ask yourself, 'who am I?'. From
that moment on you really begin to seek. Previous to that it is
just tinkering with yourself, with your personality, on the
outside. I went searching because I couldn't get along in the
world. I was unhappy. I did not know what love was and such. There
is often a whole range of preconditions. If I become enlightened I
will … It doesn't work that way. If you still have plans, if there
are still some buried agenda items it is better to bring them out
into the open, and to do them. That is how you learn to look at
your longing. See clearly once what happens and then you know. Do
you still want to climb the Eiffel tower ten times? Do you want to
have that feeling? Do it then and see what happens to your longing.
If a new longing arises immediately then you recognize what has
happened. Keep going in this way until you can see that movement
arising in you. If you realize that the previous longing didn't
mean anything, and that it didn't mean anything this time, then you
perceive that your new longing will also not bring what you
actually seek. And then you know that longings belong to the person
and not to who you actually are.
I still want to dare to make a parachute jump. I can understand
that. I used to have that sort of thing also, but it is nonsense.
First there has to be a little challenge.. and then only.. are you
happy? Are you only then going to live? A Johnny that has to first
dare before he as a wave can see that he is made of water? … First
dare and then only can the realization complete itself? Yes yes,
that is what we call 'creating preconditions.'
*See Amigo #1 'Hummology '; Jan over attention to the
attention.
Every escape is bound to fail
The following interview with Alexander took place in 1988. It seems
like an eternity ago. For me it was a time of the after effects of
a spiritual search in which people of the same generation from all
parts of the world searched en masse for new ways and dimensions of
religious experience and came into contact with the contrasts
between West and East. We had learned new concepts and ideals,
values and norms. 'Spiritual' communes sprung up everywhere; we
were building a 'new world' that collapsed again, as always and yet
again. In written or translated texts, words such as Guru or
Spiritual Master or Him and Her were written in capital letters and
He or She were treated as deities as is still the case in India and
its surrounding countries.
It seems to me now, in 2002, that my interview with Alexander
reflects the spirit of that time. 'It seems old fashioned' writes
Sietske Roegholt in reaction to a letter I wrote, 'to think that
way about teachers who after all nowadays would rather be a friend
or are still so young in thei r 'complete or not complete'
realization…' We both find that a new time has arrived , that of
the complete demythologizing of the teacher. Some people cheer that
on, others are holding their breath. Are we throwing out the baby
with the bathwater? Are there probably not enough people of the
caliber of Nisargadatta among us at this moment? Questions without
answers. Whoever knows can say it.
One of the reasons that this interview has never been made public
before, is that Alexander always taught me that disciples should
never know how their spiritual master came to clearness; it would
lead them to make ideas about how 'it ought' to happen to them.
Now, 3 years after his death I notice two things: a. almost every
day a new spiritual master, man or woman, appears, and b. they
speak openly about their realization. And the seekers? Slowly it
has penetrated them that 'it' is only a 'happening' that moreover
has as many forms as there are people.
What Alexander had foreseen, has long become 'reality', no matter
how much he would have found that to be bad; the West has made much
of the Eastern religious experience its own. It is in the nature of
things that this new flower has come, because that's the way it
must happen, that's how it is and that's how it always will be in
the Play of Consciousness.
b.b., 21.10.2001
In conversation with Alexander Smit.
Alexander at the age of 25. September 1988. Location: the kitchen
of his house on the Prinsengracht in Amsterdam. We were busy going
over the translation of THE NECTAR OF THE LORD'S FEET (Dutch title
SELF-REALIZATION) by his Spiritual master Nisargadatta Maharaj and
he wanted to do an 'interview 'for a change, as a sort of practice.
The interview has survived a computer crash, break-in and theft,
because luckily I had typed it out and printed the tape previously.
I have preserved this as a treasure for years. Until now.
Alexander met Nisargadatta in September of 1978. In the beginning
of September of that year Jacques Lewenstein had been in India and
come back with the book I AM THAT and tapes of Nisargadatta.
Alexander: That book came into the hands of Wolter Keers. He was
very happy with it, because after the death of Krishna Menon
(Wolter's spiritual master) he had not heard anything so purely
advaita. After Wolter had read the book he decided to translate and
publish it 'because this is so extremely good'. Wolter gave me the
book immediately and I was very moved by it. Then there was an
article in Panorama or The New Revue: GOD HAS NO TEETH. A poorly
written story by the young man who did Showroom (TV). There was a
life-sized photo of Nisargadatta's head in it. That was actually my
first acquaintance with Nisargadatta. By then Wolter had already
told me: 'I can not do anything more for you. You need someone. But
I wouldn't know who.' But, when he had read I AM THAT he said: 'If
I can give you a piece of advice, go there immediately.' And that I
did.
What were you seeking? I was seeking nothing more. I knew
everything. But, if you had asked me what I had learned I would
have said; I don't actually know it. There is something essential
that I don't know. There was a sort of blind spot in me that no one
knew what do with. Krishnamurti knew nothing that he could say
about it. Bhagwan was for us at that time not someone that you
would go to, at least for this sort of thing. Da Free John was also
not it. Those were the known people at that time. I had a blind
spot. And what typifies a blind spot is that you don't know what it
is. You only knew that if you were really honest with yourself, if
you really went to the bottom of yourself, that you had not yet
solved the riddle.
For the first time in Bombay? A little staircase going up to an
attic room. First came my head, and the first thing that I saw was
Mrs. Satprem and Nisargadatta. There were maybe three or four
people there. 'Here I am', I said. And he said: 'So, finally you
came.' Yeah, that is what they all say, that I heard later, but for
me it was the first time that I heard it. I did have the feeling
when I went in that now it was really serious. Now there is no
escape possible, Here something is really going to happen.
Naturally I had already met many of these people: Krishnamurti,
Jean Klein, Wolter, Swami Ranganathananda, Douglas Harding, and
also some less well known Indians. I was naturally too young for
Ramana Maharshi and Krishna Menon. They died in the fifties. I was
7 or 8 years old then. That is not the age to be busy with these
sorts of things. It held also true for us at that time, 'wait' for
a living master. And I had a very strong feeling that this was the
man that I had been looking for. He asked if I were married, what I
did, and why I had come to India.
What precisely did you want from him? Self-realization. I wanted to
know how I was put together. I said: 'I have heard that your are
the greatest ego killer who exists. And that is what I want.' He
said: 'I am not a killer. I am a diamond cutter. You are also a
diamond. But you are a raw diamond and you can only be cut by a
pure diamond. And that is very precise work, because if that is not
done properly then you fall apart into a hundred pieces, and then
there is nothing left for you. Do you have any questions?' I told
him that Maurice Frydman was the decisive reason for my coming.
Frydman was a friend of Krishnamurti and Frydman was planning to
publish all of the earlier work of Krishnamurti at Chetana
Publishers in Bombay, And that he had heard from Mr. Dikshit , the
publisher, that there was someone in Bombay who he had to meet. (I
AM THAT was of course not yet published at that time because
Frydman had yet to meet Nisargadatta). Frydman went there with his
usual skeptical ideas. He came in there, and within two weeks
things became clear to him that had never become clear with
Krishnamurti. And I thought then: if it all became clear to Frydman
within two weeks, how will it go with me? I told all this to
Nisargadatta and he said: 'That says nothing about me, but
everything about Frydman.' And he also said: 'People who don't
understand Krishnamurti don't understand themselves.' I thought
that was beautiful, because all the gurus I knew always ran
everyone down. It seemed as if he wanted to help me relax. He
didn't launch any provocations. I was able to relax, because as you
can understand it was of course a rather tense situation there. He
said; 'Do you have any questions?' I said; 'No.' 'When are you
going to come?' 'Every day if you allow me.' 'That's good. Come
just two times every day, mornings and afternoons, for the
lectures, and we'll see how it goes.' I said: 'Yes, and I am not
leaving until it has become clear.' He said; 'That's good.'
Was that true? Yes, without a doubt. Because what he did — within
two minutes he made it clear, whatever you brought up, that the
knowledge you presented was not yours. That it was from a book, or
that you had borrowed or stolen it, or that it was fantasy, but
that you were actually not capable of having a direct observation,
a direct perception, seeing directly, immediately, without a
mediator, without self consciousness. And that frightened me
terribly, because everything you said was cut down in a brutal
way.
What happened with you exactly? The second day he asked if I had
any questions. Then I began to ask a question about reincarnation
in a more or less romanticized way. I told that I had always had a
connection with India, that when I heard the word 'India' for the
first time it was shock for me, and that the word 'yoga' was like
being hit by a bomb when I first heard it on TV, and that the word
'British India' was like a dog hearing his boss whistle. And I
asked, could it mean that I had lived in India in previous lives?
And then he began to curse in Marathi, and to get unbelievably
agitated, and that lasted for at least ten minutes. I thought, my
god, what's happening here? The translator was apparently used to
it, because he just sat calmly by, and when Maharaj was finished he
summarized it all together; 'Maharaj is asking himself if you are
really serious. Yesterday you came and you wanted self-realization,
but now you begin with questions that belong in kindergarten'… In
this way you were forced to be unbelievably alert. Everything
counted heavily. It became clear to me within a few days that I
knew absolutely nothing, that all that I knew, all the knowledge
that I had gathered was book knowledge, second hand, learned, but
that out of myself I knew nothing. I can assure you that this put
what was needed into motion. And that's how it went every day!
Whatever I came up with, whether I asked an intelligent question or
a dumb question, made absolutely no difference. And one day he
asserted this, and the following day he asserted precisely the
opposite and the following day he twisted it around one more time
even though that was not actually possible. And so it went, until
by observation I understood why that was, and that was a really
wonderful realization. Why do I try all the time to cram everything
into concepts, to try to understand everything in terms of thinking
or in the feelings sphere? And, he gave me tips about how I could
look at things in another way, thus really looking. And then it
became clear to me that it just made no sense to regard yourself —
whatever you call yourself, or don't call yourself — in that way.
That was an absolute undermining of the self-consciousness, like a
termite eating a chair. At a certain moment it becomes sawdust. It
still looks like a chair, but it isn't a chair anymore.
Did that lead to self realization? He kept going on like this, and
then there came a moment that I just plain had enough of it. Really
just so much … I would not say that I became angry, but a shift
took place in me, a shift of the accent on all authorities outside
of myself, including Nisargadatta, to an authority inside myself.
He was talking, and at a given moment he said 'nobody'. He said :
'Naturally there is nobody here who talks.' That was too much for
me. And I said: 'If you don't talk then why don't you shut up then?
Why say anything then?' And it seemed as if that is what had been
waiting for. He said: 'Do you want that I should not talk anymore?
That's good, then I won't talk anymore and if people want to know
something then they can just go to Alexander. From now on there are
no more translations, translators don't have to come anymore, there
is no more English spoken. Only Marathi will be spoken, and if
people have any problems then they can go to Alexander because he
seems to know everything.' And then began all the trouble with the
others, the bootlickers and toadies who insisted that I had to
offer my apologies! Not on my life. Yeah, you can't offer excuses
to a nobody, eh?! And to me he said; 'And you, you can't come here
anymore.' And I said: 'What do you mean I can't come here anymore.
Try and stop me. Have you gone completely crazy? ' And the
translators were naturally completely upset. They said nothing like
this had ever been seen before. And he was angry! Unbelievably
angry!. And he threw the presents that I had brought for him at my
feet and said: 'I want nothing from you, Nothing from you I want.'
And that was the breakthrough, because something happened, there
was no thinking because I was.. the shift in authority had
happened. As I experienced it everything came to me from all sides:
logic, understanding, on the one hand the intellect and on the
other hand at the same time the heart, feelings and all phenomena,
the entire manifest came directly to me from all sides to an
absolute center where the whole thing exploded. Bang. After that
everything became clear to me… The next day I went there as usual.
There was a lecture, but indeed no English was spoken. I can assure
you that the tension could be cut with a knife, because I was the
guilty party of course. He wanted to push that down my throat and
the translators just went along quietly. There was not even any
talking. And the next day, there was not even a lecture. He arrived
in a car, and drove away when he saw me and went to a movie… Then I
wrote him a letter. Twelve pages. In perfect English. I had someone
bring the letter to him. Everything was running over. I wrote
everything. And his answer was: let him come tomorrow at 10
o'clock. And he read my letter and said: ´You understood. This
confrontation was needed to eliminate that self-consciousness. But
you understood completely and I am very happy with your letter and
nothing happened.' Naturally , that cleared the air. He asked if I
wanted to stay longer. 'From this situation that took place on
September 21, 1978, I want to be here in love .' And he said; 'that
is good.' From that day on I attended all the talks and also
translated sometimes, for example when Spaniards, or Frenchmen or
Germans came. I was a bit of a helper then.
So actually you apply the same method as he did: the cutting away
of the self-consciousness to the bone and letting people see their
identities. Was that his method? Yes. Recognizing the false as
false and thereafter letting the truth be born. But the most
wonderful thing was, MY basis dilemma, and if I say 'my' I mean
everyone in a certain sense, is that if at a certain moment you ask
yourself: what did I come here for, that seems to be something
completely different from what you thought. Everyone has ideas
about this question, and I had never suspected in the farthest
reaches of my mind that the Realization of it would be something
like this. That is the first point. The second is, it appears that
a certain point you have the choice of maintaining your
self-consciousness out of pride, arrogance, intellect. And the
function of the Guru, the skill with which he can close the escapes
from the real confrontation was in his case uncommonly great, at
least in my case. And for me that was the decisive factor. Because
if there had been a chance to 'escape', I would certainly have
taken it. Like a thief who still tries to get away.
Did he ever say anything about it? He said that unbelievable
courage is needed not to flee. And that my being there had almost
given him a heart attack, that he no longer had the strength to
tackle cases like mine as he became older. So I have the feeling
that I got there at just the right moment. Later he became sick. He
said: 'I have no strength anymore to try to convince people. If you
like it, continue to come, maybe you can get something out of it,
but I have no strength anymore to convince people like him (and
then he pointed to me). I am so grateful to him, because it only
showed how great my resistance was. There has to be a proportional
force that is just a bit stronger than your strangest and strongest
resistance. You need that. It showed how great my resistance was.
And it showed how great his strength was, and his skill. For me he
was the great Satguru. The fact that he was capable of defeating my
most cunning resistance — and I can assure you after having gone
into these things for 15 years — my resistance was extremely
refined and cunning, was difficult for him even though he knew who
he was dealing with. That's why I had to go to such a difficult
person of course. It says everything about me. Just as he said in
the beginning that it said everything about Frydman. But I have
never seen the skill he had in closing the escape routes of the
lies and falsehoods so immensely great anywhere else. Of course I
have not been everywhere, but with Ramana Maharshi you just melted.
That was another way. With Krishna Menon the intellect could just
not keep it together under the gigantic dismantling, but by
Nisargadatta, every escape was doomed to failure. People who came
to get something, or people who thought they could bring something
stood naked outside the door within five minutes. I saw a great
many people there walking away in great terror. At a certain moment
I was no longer afraid, because I felt that I had nothing more to
lose. So I can't really say that it was very courageous of me. I
can only say that in a certain sense with him I went on the attack.
And what was nice about it is that he also valued that. Because, he
sent many people away, and these really went and mostly didn't come
back. The he would say: 'They are cowards. I didn't send them away,
I sent away the part of them that was not acceptable here.' And if
they then returned, completely open, then he would say nothing
about it. But during those happenings with me, people forgot that.
There was also a doctor, a really fine man, who said; 'don't think
that he is being brutal with you; you don't have any idea how much
love there is in him to do this with you.' I said: 'Yeah, yeah,
yeah, I know that.' Because I didn't want any commentary from
anyone. After all, this is what I had come for! Only the form in
which it happened was totally different from what I had expected in
my wildest dreams. But again, that says more about me than about
Maharaj, and I still think that.
So, his method was thus to let you recognize the false as false, to
see through the lies as lies, and to come to truth in this way?
Yes, and that went deeper than I could have ever suspected. The
thinking was absolutely helpless. The intellect had no ghost of
chance. The heart was also a trap. And that is exactly what
happened there. That is everything. And I know that after that day,
September 21, 1978, there has never been even a grain of doubt
about this question, and the authority, the command, the
authenticity, has never left, has never again shifted. There is no
authority, neither in this world or in another world, that can
thrust me out of the realization. That's the way it is.
Did Maharaj say that you had to do something after this
realization? I asked: 'It is all very beautiful, but what now? What
do I do with my life? Then he said: 'You just talk and people will
take care of you.' And that's the way it has gone.
Did you go visit him often? Various times. As often as I could I
was there every year for two or three months. Until the last time.
And when I knew that I would never see him again there was entirely
no sadness or anything like that. It was just the way it was. It
was fine that way,
Did he do the same with others as he had with you? Not as intensely
and not so persistently.
You get what you give? Yes, that is so. In a certain sense he did
that with everyone, but if someone was very sensitive he approached
it in a different way. Naturally it makes difference if an old nun
is sitting in front of you, or a rebel like myself, who also looks
as if he can take quite a bit. The last time he said; 'He will be
powerful in Europe. He has the knowledge. He will be the source of
what I am teaching.' And then he directed those headlight eyes of
his towards me. That is still so wonderful… It is ten years ago
now, and it seems like a week. I have learned to value his words in
the passage of time. The things I questioned in the past I see
becoming manifest now. At first I thought; the way he has put this
into words is typical Indian conditioning after all, but the wonder
is that all the advice that he gave taught me to hang on to them. I
didn't follow them a few times and that always lead to
catastrophes.
For example? For example he said to me: 'Don't challenge the Great
Ones. Let them enjoy.' And I have to admit that I had trouble with
that. But knowing my rebellious character — and naturally he saw
that immediately — he still had to give me that. And every time
that I see that, that aspect of my character wants to express
itself, I hear his voice: 'Don't challenge the Great Ones.' He
anticipated that. I know that for sure. And in that way he also
said a number of things that suddenly made sense. Then I hear him.
And Wolter always said: 'After the realization, the only words that
remain with you are the words of your Guru. All your knowledge
disappears, but the words of the Guru remain.' And I can now
confirm that that is true, that it is like that.
Was Wolter also a disciple of Nisargadatta? No, but he was there
often.
I have understood that you find the Living Teaching very important.
Is that especially true for Advaita? The objection to books about
Advaita, including the translations of Nisargadatta's words is that
too much knowledge is given in them. That is an objection. People
can use this knowledge, and especially the knowledge at the highest
level to defend and maintain their self-consciousness. That makes
my work more difficult. Knowledge, spiritual knowledge, can, when
there is no living master be used again to maintain the 'I', the
self-consciousness. The mind is tricky, cunning. And I speak out of
my own experience! Because Advaita Vedanta, without a good living
spiritual master, I repeat, a good one, can become a perfect self
contained defense mechanism. It can be a plastic sack that leaks on
all sides, but you can't find the leak. You know that it doesn't
tally, but it looks as if it does tally. That is the danger in
Vedanta. Provided there is a good living master available, it can
do no harm. But stay away from it if there is no master available!
Provided it is well guided Advaita can be brilliant.
Do you mean that people could act from their so called 'knowing' as
if they are more than the content of their consciousness? That they
therefore assume that the content is worthless? Yes. That is why up
to now, I have never wanted to write a book. But, as long as I am
alive there are Living Teachings. When I die they can do whatever
they want to with it, but as long as I am alive I am there.
To take corrective action? Yes.
Do people have a built in defense mechanism? At the level of the
psyche there is a defense mechanism that prevents you from taking
in more than you can cope with, but at a higher level sooner or
later you have an irrevocable need for a spiritual master who can
tell you certain things, who has to explain things because other
wise you get stuck. Whoever doesn't want a living master gets
stuck.
Books could lead to people becoming interested and going on a
search. To a good spiritual master of flesh and blood.
Living!
Did Nisargadatta foresee that you would manifest as a guru? I think
guru is a rotten word, but he did say: 'Many people will seek your
blessings.'
So you couldn't do anything else. It happened by itself. He said;
'The seed is sown, the seasons do the rest.'
Isn't that true for everyone? Yes, but some seeds fall on good soil
and something grows, but other seeds don't grow. Out of million
sperms only one reaches the egg.
At Nisargadatta's bhajans were also sung and certain rituals done,
especially for the Indians. Did you also participate in that? I
participated two times. The bhajans I thought, were really
special…
What is their goal? Singing bhajans has a purifying effect on the
body, thinking, and feeling, so that the Knowledge can become
manifest and finds its place there. I don't have any need of it,
but I see that the singing offers social and emotional solace and
thus I am not against it. In addition prasad was distributed and
arati done.
What is arati? A form of ritual in which fire is swung around and
camphor is burned. Camphor is the symbol of the ego. That burns and
nothing remains of it. Just as in self-realization nothing of the
self-consciousness remains. It is a beautiful ritual. It makes you
attentive to all kinds of things. The fire is swung at your eye
level so what you see may be beautiful, at your ears so that what
you hear may be pure, and at your mouth so that what you eat may be
pure. It is Hindu symbolism that has become so common in India that
it has mostly become flattened out and routine. It has something,
as a symbol , but Westerners shouldn't try it unless they
understand the symbolism completely. I find the singing of OM good,
that works, that is a law. It works to purify the body, thinking
and feeling, so that the Knowing that it is can be manifest and
find a place in your life.
Did Nisargadatta follow a certain tradition? But of course. The
Navdath Sampradaya. The tradition of the Nine Gurus. The first was
Jnaneshwar (Jnanadeva) from the 13th century, who became realized
when he was twenty and also died at that age. Nisargadatta was the
ninth.
Are you the tenth? No. I always call Maharaj 'the last of the
Mohicans'.
Still you always talk about the tradition. I work following a
traditional background, because there lies the experience of a
thousand years of instruction. Instruction that works! I have
learned to value the Tradition. I am totally non traditional, but
in my heart I am a traditionalist. When I talk about 'the
tradition' I mean the tradition of Advaita so as that became
manifest in the Navdath Sampradaya.
What is the importance of tradition? The importance of a tradition
is just as with vio