Some words from John de Ruiter

[Guest guest]

For all those interested, here are two small sections taken from

dialogues with John de Ruiter at one of his meetings.

_____

 

Questioner: You were talking about the Truth and even the smallest

lie, [how] the being will step aside and allow that. Well I have a

lot of lies, and sometimes I feel that I get lost in some of them.

[i remember] reading Carlos Casteneda, the Don Juan book. He is on

the edge of a cliff with his so called " master " and they are holding

hands, and the last words in this particular book are that they jump

together. So is that possible – can I take your hand right now and

just jump? I really don't want to go back. Is there an edge that we

can go to? I don't even know where the edge is. Can we do it? I

don't want to feel pain, I don't want to feel hurt, I don't want to

feel trapped.

 

John: There is something wrong with that.

 

Questioner: With being trapped?

 

John: There is nothing wrong with being trapped.

 

Questioner: [but] I find something wrong with that. I [don't] like

the experience.

 

John: Being trapped is really okay. Wanting to not feel trapped,

that is not okay.

 

Questioner: I don't want it. It's like Krishnamurti said – you jump

out of the house when you see it on fire, you don't sit in a house

that is on fire…

 

John: Yes, you do. An outside house that is on fire, you run out

of. If your house inside is on fire, you be in it. It is just

acceptance of what truly is. There is no need to change your space

inside. What is wrong with being on fire inside, burning up your

inside house when you are in it?

 

Questioner: You're going to get burned alive, or you're going to

defend youself against the fire.

 

John: Then you get to be warmly okay with dying in your inside house.

 

Questioner: So I just lie down?

 

John: Warmly. Anything less than that, and you will still be

wishing that you were in a different space. The only kind of

acceptance that works is warm acceptance.

 

Questioner: Is there a difference between compliance and just

saying: " What the hell, I am not going to get out of here, so I might

as well just lie down and turn on the T.V.? "

 

John: That is cold acceptance.

 

Questioner: So just lie down, turn on the T.V. and…

 

John: That is just fatalism. That is non-acceptance, not being able

to get its own way. If you are not light, you cannot have any

light. You can have darkness. If you can be warmly okay in

darkness, then that is where light comes from. Light does not come

out of a place of " not okayness. " Light only comes out of a place

that is profoundly accepting. The more unconditionally okay you can

be in the dark, the more light there will be. The more light that

you want or need, the darker it will become inside in a very " not

okay " way.

While there is dryness, emptiness, darkness, lifelessness,

hopelessness or blindness, you can let that state be warmly and

unconditionally okay, forever. You can come to total rest inside:

letting go of this state ever needing to change, warmly letting go of

ever needing to alter or fix it. No one little part in it needs to

change. Everything can stay as is, and what you can do is just

simply be okay in it, really okay in it. Be so okay that if someone

with great power were to ask: " Is there anything inside that you

would like changed? " that you would not know how to answer.

That kind of " okayness " would be so complete, so whole, so

tender inside, so real, so full of life, so kind and healing inside,

that there would be nothing that you could honestly think of inside

that if it changed, would make that " okayness " better. You would not

know how to answer. And you would be awakened to what is real. And

yet nothing within that space you were in, would have changed. Only

you would be different in that space.

True awakening is when, if you were to come to a fork in the

road, and one way would be awesome bliss, total bliss, and the other

fork would be total pain and suffering inside - the kind that would

completely tear you apart, you would not know which way to go. You

would have no preference. What you would do at the head of that

fork, is go by the tiniest, tiniest little indicator that comes from

your being. If there was some slight, tiny little preference of

being, a tiny little pull one way or another... that would determine

which way you would go. And the fact that one way is bliss and the

other way is suffering would make no difference to you at all. That

is freedom.

If you are in bliss and you are happy about that, glad that

it is so, then you will suffer more. Bliss is not worth anything

unless you can be there without attachment, without preference. And

the suffering also does not mean anything unless you can be in it

without attachment and without preference. When you become awakened,

and especially when you later become enlightened, you will freely be

inside of pains that you cannot possible conceive now. So if pain is

not okay now, you really do not want awakening or enlightenment.

 

 

________

 

 

 

Questioner: I wouldn't [want to] say I spent all those years

doing " A, B, C " and found out that it was all unnecessary. [i am

referring to] the discipline, the meditation, the prostration, gurus

and certain kinds of learning. I just can't discount all that.

 

John: So you are going to continue to do it all?

 

Questioner: No, I was just referring to what I have done in the

past. And then to hear that, for instance, books really don't help

and learning doesn't help – I can't warmly embrace it…

 

John: Because you have already put an investment into it?

 

Questioner: That's certainly part of it.

 

John: But if you are about to put tremendous investment into that,

and it is possible that you do not have to do any of that, would it

bother you?

 

Questioner: You mean if I [were] just starting out on the spiritual

path? That's hard to say. [i have been] so entrenched… the

discipline part is really part of my life. That's what I mean by

entrenchment.

 

John: What has this entrenchment done for you?

 

Questioner: It kept me on the spiritual path.

 

John: What has the spiritual path done for you?

 

Questioner: Well, I am here.

 

John: Before now, what has it done for you? All those years, what

has the spiritual path done for you?

 

Questioner: I was able to recognize my being.

 

John: And what was it like?

 

Questioner: I know that there is a deeper part of me than just the

mundane aspects of life.

 

John: But even before you embarked on a path… the moment you were

quiet inside, you knew the same thing: There is a much deeper part

of you than the life you are acquainted with on the surface.

 

Questioner: Yes, I think I knew that, but I still wanted to connect

more or be in that [deeper part] more.

 

John: When people are on a path, particularly if they are serious

about it, they do open up to greater depths within consciousness, and

they do soften. And there is also something else that happens.

There is this very fine, intricate, sophisticated internal structure

that forms: a structure concerning them getting more… more

sophisticated, more knowledge, knowing how to move, knowing how to

be, knowing how to flow. And there is something in it for them. It

is not just free. It matters that they are like that. It matters

that they are seen like that. And anyone who is not like that is

seen as… less.

 

Questioner: So there is a certain spiritual superiority. I… have

been like that.

 

John: That will always happen in being on a path. If you are on a

path, you are not on a path for what is true, you are on a path for

yourself. So anything that happens on that path is acquired by you.

That path is taken so that the coarse " somebody " can turn into a

sophisticated, spiritually refined " somebody " .

If you are interested in Truth, then there will not be a path

at all. If Truth is all you really want, just so that you can give

yourself to it, then there is an immediate surrender within: a total

surrender of all that you are doing and all that you have acquired

for yourself in being a " somebody, " and there is a simple resting in

consciousness within. That rest from striving and doing for self-

created agendas is you as consciousness finally residing in a way of

being that is true. It is you as consciousness finally

returning " home. "

You will recognize and you will know the Truth of that way of

being the moment you let yourself be in it. That openness and

softness of consciousness within is the true way of being that

everybody actually knows about. It requires honesty of consciousness

to see it. And it requires a love of true seeing to let yourself

surrender to it. Then you become less of a " somebody. " Then there

is a losing of everything that in reality is already dead inside.

Individuals who go on a path are not on a path to lose

something, to give something up to what they know is true. They are

on a path to get. Being on a path, they end up acquiring. Instead

of being on a path, there can be a complete surrender to what they as

consciousness actually knows is true, regardless of how tiny that may

seem to be.

You could surrender everything that you are, surrender your

entire existence, just because that is true, not because it does

something for you. With that kind of surrender, whatever kind

of " somebody " you are, all is given up. You do not get anything out

of it. It is what you know is true, that actually gets you. When

there is the use of techniques, exertion, discipline and focus, it is

always done for oneself.

 

Questioner: And to develop compassion.

 

John: For whom? Why would you try to develop compassion?

 

Questioner: To help other people… to connect with others, to be

loving toward others…, because it is an aspiration. I don't see

compassion as being totally self-centered. I see it as going out,

like there is a stream, then becoming the ocean of compassion. It's

not just focused on myself.

 

John: Then what is it focused on?

 

Questioner: Others…, because I want to.

 

John: As soon as you are interested in loving people, you become

a " somebody. " You become much more of a sophisticated " somebody " : a

very loving " somebody, " a very kind " somebody, " a compassionate and

gentle " somebody. " And people easily aspire to that, because when

they are being loving and kind and compassionate and gentle, that

really feels good. But it is not good, because it is done for

themselves. It is not really done for others.

What is happening is more like using someone to have

something to love, because if you have nothing to love, then you have

nothing inside. Then you are empty. So then the individuals who are

being " loved " are being used. And that love is not an unconditional

love.

What if the person you were loving were to make it their

life's purpose to hurt you and destroy you and tear you down, and

never stop until they die? Would you hesitate in loving that

person? All you would have to do is just simply not love that person

and everything would be fine. Would you hesitate? Would you skip

that person and go onto a different one?

If a person is being loving and that love is real, then it

would not matter how deeply you went inside of that person as

consciousness. You would never find a line. There would be

no " button " to be pushed. You could push and abuse and take

advantage. You could do absolutely anything as deeply as you could

possibly reach inside of that person to hurt them. The deeper you

reached, the greater the depth of love there would be, and there

would be no faltering, no failing...

 

 

I'm getting sore wrists from all the typing now guys. I feel like I

want to share it all. Hope everyone enjoyed.

 

Toby

[Guest guest]

Thanks toby,

Great Stuff!

 

 

on 2/24/03 1:29 AM, toby20042004 <toby.wilson at

toby.wilson wrote:

 

> For all those interested, here are two small sections taken from

> dialogues with John de Ruiter at one of his meetings.

> _____

>

> Questioner: You were talking about the Truth and even the smallest

> lie, [how] the being will step aside and allow that. Well I have a

> lot of lies, and sometimes I feel that I get lost in some of them.

> [i remember] reading Carlos Casteneda, the Don Juan book. He is on

> the edge of a cliff with his so called " master " and they are holding

> hands, and the last words in this particular book are that they jump

> together. So is that possible – can I take your hand right now and

> just jump? I really don't want to go back. Is there an edge that we

> can go to? I don't even know where the edge is. Can we do it? I

> don't want to feel pain, I don't want to feel hurt, I don't want to

> feel trapped.

>

> John: There is something wrong with that.

>

> Questioner: With being trapped?

>

> John: There is nothing wrong with being trapped.

>

> Questioner: [but] I find something wrong with that. I [don't] like

> the experience.

>

> John: Being trapped is really okay. Wanting to not feel trapped,

> that is not okay.

>

> Questioner: I don't want it. It's like Krishnamurti said – you jump

> out of the house when you see it on fire, you don't sit in a house

> that is on fire…

>

> John: Yes, you do. An outside house that is on fire, you run out

> of. If your house inside is on fire, you be in it. It is just

> acceptance of what truly is. There is no need to change your space

> inside. What is wrong with being on fire inside, burning up your

> inside house when you are in it?

>

> Questioner: You're going to get burned alive, or you're going to

> defend youself against the fire.

>

> John: Then you get to be warmly okay with dying in your inside house.

>

> Questioner: So I just lie down?

>

> John: Warmly. Anything less than that, and you will still be

> wishing that you were in a different space. The only kind of

> acceptance that works is warm acceptance.

>

> Questioner: Is there a difference between compliance and just

> saying: " What the hell, I am not going to get out of here, so I might

> as well just lie down and turn on the T.V.? "

>

> John: That is cold acceptance.

>

> Questioner: So just lie down, turn on the T.V. and…

>

> John: That is just fatalism. That is non-acceptance, not being able

> to get its own way. If you are not light, you cannot have any

> light. You can have darkness. If you can be warmly okay in

> darkness, then that is where light comes from. Light does not come

> out of a place of " not okayness. " Light only comes out of a place

> that is profoundly accepting. The more unconditionally okay you can

> be in the dark, the more light there will be. The more light that

> you want or need, the darker it will become inside in a very " not

> okay " way.

> While there is dryness, emptiness, darkness, lifelessness,

> hopelessness or blindness, you can let that state be warmly and

> unconditionally okay, forever. You can come to total rest inside:

> letting go of this state ever needing to change, warmly letting go of

> ever needing to alter or fix it. No one little part in it needs to

> change. Everything can stay as is, and what you can do is just

> simply be okay in it, really okay in it. Be so okay that if someone

> with great power were to ask: " Is there anything inside that you

> would like changed? " that you would not know how to answer.

> That kind of " okayness " would be so complete, so whole, so

> tender inside, so real, so full of life, so kind and healing inside,

> that there would be nothing that you could honestly think of inside

> that if it changed, would make that " okayness " better. You would not

> know how to answer. And you would be awakened to what is real. And

> yet nothing within that space you were in, would have changed. Only

> you would be different in that space.

> True awakening is when, if you were to come to a fork in the

> road, and one way would be awesome bliss, total bliss, and the other

> fork would be total pain and suffering inside - the kind that would

> completely tear you apart, you would not know which way to go. You

> would have no preference. What you would do at the head of that

> fork, is go by the tiniest, tiniest little indicator that comes from

> your being. If there was some slight, tiny little preference of

> being, a tiny little pull one way or another... that would determine

> which way you would go. And the fact that one way is bliss and the

> other way is suffering would make no difference to you at all. That

> is freedom.

> If you are in bliss and you are happy about that, glad that

> it is so, then you will suffer more. Bliss is not worth anything

> unless you can be there without attachment, without preference. And

> the suffering also does not mean anything unless you can be in it

> without attachment and without preference. When you become awakened,

> and especially when you later become enlightened, you will freely be

> inside of pains that you cannot possible conceive now. So if pain is

> not okay now, you really do not want awakening or enlightenment.

>

>

> ________

>

>

>

> Questioner: I wouldn't [want to] say I spent all those years

> doing " A, B, C " and found out that it was all unnecessary. [i am

> referring to] the discipline, the meditation, the prostration, gurus

> and certain kinds of learning. I just can't discount all that.

>

> John: So you are going to continue to do it all?

>

> Questioner: No, I was just referring to what I have done in the

> past. And then to hear that, for instance, books really don't help

> and learning doesn't help – I can't warmly embrace it…

>

> John: Because you have already put an investment into it?

>

> Questioner: That's certainly part of it.

>

> John: But if you are about to put tremendous investment into that,

> and it is possible that you do not have to do any of that, would it

> bother you?

>

> Questioner: You mean if I [were] just starting out on the spiritual

> path? That's hard to say. [i have been] so entrenched… the

> discipline part is really part of my life. That's what I mean by

> entrenchment.

>

> John: What has this entrenchment done for you?

>

> Questioner: It kept me on the spiritual path.

>

> John: What has the spiritual path done for you?

>

> Questioner: Well, I am here.

>

> John: Before now, what has it done for you? All those years, what

> has the spiritual path done for you?

>

> Questioner: I was able to recognize my being.

>

> John: And what was it like?

>

> Questioner: I know that there is a deeper part of me than just the

> mundane aspects of life.

>

> John: But even before you embarked on a path… the moment you were

> quiet inside, you knew the same thing: There is a much deeper part

> of you than the life you are acquainted with on the surface.

>

> Questioner: Yes, I think I knew that, but I still wanted to connect

> more or be in that [deeper part] more.

>

> John: When people are on a path, particularly if they are serious

> about it, they do open up to greater depths within consciousness, and

> they do soften. And there is also something else that happens.

> There is this very fine, intricate, sophisticated internal structure

> that forms: a structure concerning them getting more… more

> sophisticated, more knowledge, knowing how to move, knowing how to

> be, knowing how to flow. And there is something in it for them. It

> is not just free. It matters that they are like that. It matters

> that they are seen like that. And anyone who is not like that is

> seen as… less.

>

> Questioner: So there is a certain spiritual superiority. I… have

> been like that.

>

> John: That will always happen in being on a path. If you are on a

> path, you are not on a path for what is true, you are on a path for

> yourself. So anything that happens on that path is acquired by you.

> That path is taken so that the coarse " somebody " can turn into a

> sophisticated, spiritually refined " somebody " .

> If you are interested in Truth, then there will not be a path

> at all. If Truth is all you really want, just so that you can give

> yourself to it, then there is an immediate surrender within: a total

> surrender of all that you are doing and all that you have acquired

> for yourself in being a " somebody, " and there is a simple resting in

> consciousness within. That rest from striving and doing for self-

> created agendas is you as consciousness finally residing in a way of

> being that is true. It is you as consciousness finally

> returning " home. "

> You will recognize and you will know the Truth of that way of

> being the moment you let yourself be in it. That openness and

> softness of consciousness within is the true way of being that

> everybody actually knows about. It requires honesty of consciousness

> to see it. And it requires a love of true seeing to let yourself

> surrender to it. Then you become less of a " somebody. " Then there

> is a losing of everything that in reality is already dead inside.

> Individuals who go on a path are not on a path to lose

> something, to give something up to what they know is true. They are

> on a path to get. Being on a path, they end up acquiring. Instead

> of being on a path, there can be a complete surrender to what they as

> consciousness actually knows is true, regardless of how tiny that may

> seem to be.

> You could surrender everything that you are, surrender your

> entire existence, just because that is true, not because it does

> something for you. With that kind of surrender, whatever kind

> of " somebody " you are, all is given up. You do not get anything out

> of it. It is what you know is true, that actually gets you. When

> there is the use of techniques, exertion, discipline and focus, it is

> always done for oneself.

>

> Questioner: And to develop compassion.

>

> John: For whom? Why would you try to develop compassion?

>

> Questioner: To help other people… to connect with others, to be

> loving toward others…, because it is an aspiration. I don't see

> compassion as being totally self-centered. I see it as going out,

> like there is a stream, then becoming the ocean of compassion. It's

> not just focused on myself.

>

> John: Then what is it focused on?

>

> Questioner: Others…, because I want to.

>

> John: As soon as you are interested in loving people, you become

> a " somebody. " You become much more of a sophisticated " somebody " : a

> very loving " somebody, " a very kind " somebody, " a compassionate and

> gentle " somebody. " And people easily aspire to that, because when

> they are being loving and kind and compassionate and gentle, that

> really feels good. But it is not good, because it is done for

> themselves. It is not really done for others.

> What is happening is more like using someone to have

> something to love, because if you have nothing to love, then you have

> nothing inside. Then you are empty. So then the individuals who are

> being " loved " are being used. And that love is not an unconditional

> love.

> What if the person you were loving were to make it their

> life's purpose to hurt you and destroy you and tear you down, and

> never stop until they die? Would you hesitate in loving that

> person? All you would have to do is just simply not love that person

> and everything would be fine. Would you hesitate? Would you skip

> that person and go onto a different one?

> If a person is being loving and that love is real, then it

> would not matter how deeply you went inside of that person as

> consciousness. You would never find a line. There would be

> no " button " to be pushed. You could push and abuse and take

> advantage. You could do absolutely anything as deeply as you could

> possibly reach inside of that person to hurt them. The deeper you

> reached, the greater the depth of love there would be, and there

> would be no faltering, no failing...

>

>

> I'm getting sore wrists from all the typing now guys. I feel like I

> want to share it all. Hope everyone enjoyed.

>

> Toby

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

If a person is being loving and that love is real, then it

> would not matter how deeply you went inside of that person as

> consciousness. You would never find a line. There would be

> no " button " to be pushed. You could push and abuse and take

> advantage. You could do absolutely anything as deeply as you could

> possibly reach inside of that person to hurt them. The deeper you

> reached, the greater the depth of love there would be, and there

> would be no faltering, no failing...

> ___________

 

> I'm getting sore wrists from all the typing now guys. I feel like I

> want to share it all. Hope everyone enjoyed.

>

> Toby

 

thank you Toby,

 

iam in synchronicity and in a cathartic

LEARNING with you all

 

----love, Karta

[Guest guest]

Cathartic or catharsis... I like that word... I had to look it up in

the dictionary...

 

 

>

> thank you Toby,

>

> iam in synchronicity and in a cathartic

> LEARNING with you all

>

> ----love, Karta

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " toby20042004 <toby.wilson@t...> "

<toby.wilson@t...> wrote:

> Cathartic or catharsis... I like that word... I had to look it up in

> the dictionary...

>

>

> >

> > thank you Toby,

> >

> > iam in synchronicity and in a cathartic

> > LEARNING with you all

> >

> > ----love, Karta

 

 

Toby, so what do you think now?

 

do i need a laxative, or a no bars

held cathartic shift in my psyche: a

deep understanidg of what you ALL

suggest to me in syncronicity through

the LOVE-wave-of-cyber-good-wilL?

 

---Karta

[Guest guest]

Well Karta, the laxitive I'm not sure of. As for your psyche, there

is nothing that needs to change. And you do not need a deeper

understanding of anything. For one who is searching, right

information is at a premium. For one who is surrendering,

information is irrelevant.

 

Toby

 

 

>

> Toby, so what do you think now?

>

> do i need a laxative, or a no bars

> held cathartic shift in my psyche: a

> deep understanidg of what you ALL

> suggest to me in syncronicity through

> the LOVE-wave-of-cyber-good-wilL?

>

> ---Karta

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " toby20042004 <toby.wilson@t...> "

<toby.wilson@t...> wrote:

> Well Karta, the laxitive I'm not sure of. As for your psyche, there

> is nothing that needs to change. And you do not need a deeper

> understanding of anything. For one who is searching, right

> information is at a premium. For one who is surrendering,

> information is irrelevant.

>

> Toby

>

 

my god Toby where have you been?

 

this is the first time this 'give

up the search' makes

sense and is palatable for me <grin>

 

thanks, Karta

 

>

>

> Toby, so what do you think now?

>

> do i need a laxative, or a no bars

> held cathartic shift in my psyche: a

> deep understanidg of what you ALL

> suggest to me in syncronicity through

> the LOVE-wave-of-cyber-good-wilL?

>

> ---Karta

[Guest guest]

In agreement with Karta and appreciation; there is much to be found

in Toby's post. If there is not an inner truth to recognize whatever

is presented it is but a trap for me. Trying to follow that which

seems alluring, but is not already in my being, ( even if

unrecogonized) leads me and possibly others in mind circles. How can

one surrender to that which is not already understood in our deepest

Self? john --- In

Nisargadatta , " satkartar7 <mi_nok> "

<mi_nok> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " toby20042004

<toby.wilson@t...> " <toby.wilson@t...> wrote:

> > Well Karta, the laxitive I'm not sure of. As for your psyche,

there

> > is nothing that needs to change. And you do not need a deeper

> > understanding of anything. For one who is searching, right

> > information is at a premium. For one who is surrendering,

> > information is irrelevant.

> >

> > Toby

> >

>

> my god Toby where have you been?

>

> this is the first time this 'give

> up the search' makes

> sense and is palatable for me <grin>

>

> thanks, Karta

>

> >

> >

> > Toby, so what do you think now?

> >

> > do i need a laxative, or a no bars

> > held cathartic shift in my psyche: a

> > deep understanidg of what you ALL

> > suggest to me in syncronicity through

> > the LOVE-wave-of-cyber-good-wilL?

> >

> > ---Karta

[Guest guest]

Thanks Karta and John for your comments... Toby

 

Nisargadatta , " jcoxco <jcoxco> "

<jcoxco> wrote:

> In agreement with Karta and appreciation; there is much to be found

> in Toby's post. If there is not an inner truth to recognize

whatever

> is presented it is but a trap for me. Trying to follow that which

> seems alluring, but is not already in my being, ( even if

> unrecogonized) leads me and possibly others in mind circles. How

can

> one surrender to that which is not already understood in our

deepest

> Self? john --- In

> Nisargadatta , " satkartar7 <mi_nok> "

> <mi_nok> wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , " toby20042004

> <toby.wilson@t...> " <toby.wilson@t...> wrote:

> > > Well Karta, the laxitive I'm not sure of. As for your psyche,

> there

> > > is nothing that needs to change. And you do not need a deeper

> > > understanding of anything. For one who is searching, right

> > > information is at a premium. For one who is surrendering,

> > > information is irrelevant.

> > >

> > > Toby

> > >

> >

> > my god Toby where have you been?

> >

> > this is the first time this 'give

> > up the search' makes

> > sense and is palatable for me <grin>

> >

> > thanks, Karta

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > Toby, so what do you think now?

> > >

> > > do i need a laxative, or a no bars

> > > held cathartic shift in my psyche: a

> > > deep understanidg of what you ALL

> > > suggest to me in syncronicity through

> > > the LOVE-wave-of-cyber-good-wilL?

> > >

> > > ---Karta