Saturday, April 21, 2012

Trust



There is often an indulgent self-pity laden mentality surrounding the issue of trust. Regardless if it is surrounding an issue of spiritual relationship (with guru, mentor etc.) or regular interpersonal relationship, the issue of trust is oft emphasized as a critical requirement. It is largely an exaggeration of clinging identification which depends upon an outlook of fragility. Granted, most people are extremely fragile because identity is extremely fragile, but this is great…if it can be broken, then let it break. All that is truly required is that one trust themselves in the deepest possible way. This sort of trust is not dependent upon the whims of others, nor does it hold back for fear of being hurt in some way because one trusts in the infinitely resilient true nature. There is no shame is trusting the substantive quality even if the perceived object “betrays” that trust. In fact, this is “snatching the diamond within the muck” or as is the case for a paramahamsa (“great swan”), extracting the milk from the water. In the case of love (which is at the heart of many trust issues), ones love can never be betrayed, a person may act in ways contrary to how one would like or not appreciate the feeling, but the love (as a substantive quality) is never harmed. Certainly, attachments can be harmed/broken, and there is a certain “sting” associated when someone acts contrary to a substantive feeling, but real trust involves being willing to take or absorb that sting.

A person needs to cease feeling sorry for themselves, and it can indeed be as simple as a strongly convicted decision to cease. As soon as you decide to live in that openness, one is going to get tested. People often sense openness as weakness and are going to introduce something “sharp”. In lay terms, someone may introduce an irritant or make a jab, so that will be the test. Will you close up, divide yourself, and protect yourself, or do you have trust in yourself (and the indivisible nature that can’t be harmed). In tantric terms, one may not “just take it” when presented with such a challenge, but may act skillfully from that nature and impose something. However, if one cannot take a challenge in openness, then any action (though maybe justified in “tantric” terms of exercising victory etc.) would just be a common defense. So to act skillfully, one has to trust themselves to remain open and trust action (and in a certain sense defense) to spring forth from that open ground (and the Ishta that “dwells” therein).

Trust belongs to you. Love belongs to you…in a deep sense is you (unconditionally). It is an interesting subjective experiment to see experientially if there are actually any differences in love. Feel how it feels inside to be loved…feel loved. And then feel how it feels to love someone/thing. And finally feel how it feels to just love. One who is earnest and sharp in perception will discover that there is no difference, and that the real substance does not depend upon other (or even self).

There comes a point when the idea of moving in openness (or closed etc.) becomes absolutely meaningless. Or the idea of letting the Ishta move from that openness also becomes meaningless. That is a point of a different type of trust. One really doesn't even have a choice for/after that.