2nd Question & Answer Meeting
On being conditioned
2nd Public Questions, Brockwood Park
August 30, 1979
We have so far one hundred and fifty questions! I don't think it will be possible to answer all of them this morning. Probably one needs a month to answer them, and you won't be here and I won't be here.
I think before we answer these questions, please remember that we are sharing the question as well as the answer. Your particular question may not be answered, because there are too many of them to go into each one, but I think we have more or less chosen, or gathered together representative questions out of that hundred and forty. So I hope you will not mind if your particular question is not answered. Most of us I'm afraid, ask questions and try to find an answer from others. When we do put a question, one must find out why we put them. Is it a genuine, serious applicable question? Or just a fanciful question and therefore no answer that can be properly correct and true? But as we said, we are going to share together the questions and the answers. And I hope that we can do that this morning. I hope you are not too hot.
1st QUESTION: The speaker has said that going to an office everyday from nine to five is an intolerable imprisonment. But in any society all kinds of jobs have to be done. Is K's teaching therefore only for the few?
You have understood? Shall I read it again? The speaker has said that human society is so constructed throughout the world that most people are occupied with jobs, pleasant or unpleasant, from nine to five everyday of their life. And he said also that it is an intolerable imprisonment. I don't know how you feel about it. Probably you like being in prison, probably you like your jobs from nine o'clock to five o'clock, rushing, rushing back and all the rest of it. What shall we do? To the speaker he wouldn't tolerate it for a single minute - for the speaker. I would rather do something which would be pleasant, helpful and necessary to earn enough money and so on. But most of us accept this prison, this routine - right? You understand? We accept it. So what shall we do? Nobody, as far as one is capable of sufficient, efficient observation, nobody has questioned this. We say it is normal, it is the way of society, it is the way of our life, it is the way we must live. But if we all see together that such an imprisonment, which it is actually, that we all feel it is intolerable, not just verbally, but actually do something about it, we will create a new society - right? We will, if all of us say we will not tolerate for a single day this routine, this monstrous activity of nine to five, however necessary, however good and pleasant, then we will bring about not only psychological revolution but also outwardly. Right? We may agree about this, but will we do it? You might say, 'No, I can't do it because I have responsibility, I have children, I have a house and mortgage, insurance' - thank god I haven't got any of those! And so you might say, 'It is easy for you to talk about all this.' But it is easy for the speaker to talk about it because he refuses to go in that pattern. From boyhood he refused it.
Now if we all consider that such a psychological as well as physical revolution of this kind is necessary, not bloody and all the rest of it, then we'll create quite a different society, won't we? You want others to create the society and you can then slip into it. That's what we are all waiting for. A few struggle, work, create, and refuse to enter into this rat race and the others say, 'Yes, after you have constructed what you think is right society, then we'll join you' - but we don't do it together. That is the whole problem. Right? If we all had this, not idea but the fact, that to spend our life from nine o'clock to five o'clock probably before that, every day of our life for sixty years and more, we would do something about it. As if you refuse to have wars - you understand - wars, killing other people in the name of your country, your god, whatever the ideal is, if you all refused to kill another there would be no wars - right? But we have constructed a society, built a society, based on violence, armaments, each nation protecting itself against other nations, and so we are perpetuating wars, killing your sons, your daughters, everything. And we support it. In the same way we support, maintain this imprisonment. It may be pleasant for those who have an agreeable job, but those who refuse to enter this game they will act, they will do something.
So the problem is, do we see the importance, or the necessity of this change? After all, the human mind is not merely occupied with a particular job, pleasant or unpleasant. The human mind has the quality of other things, which we disregard. We are concerned with the whole of life - not just a career, nine to five - how we live, what we do, what our thinking is, whether there is affection, care, love, compassion. All that is part of life. But we are so conditioned to this idea that we must work and create a structure of a society that demands that you work from morning till night. The speaker refuses to enter that rat race. It isn't that he has got certain gifts or that somebody will look after him, but he refuses to enter that. I wouldn't go for a single day from nine to five for anybody, for anything. I might die, but I wouldn't do that. In the same way, I wouldn't kill another human being whatever the circumstances. I know what you are going to say - 'What if your sister is attacked?'- you know all that game. Because violence produces more violence. You are seeing that in Ireland. But we are all so timid, we are all so nervous, frightened, anxious, we want security which we think we have, which we haven't got.
So will you go into this and find out if you can free yourself from that rat race and to find out one must exercise capacity, intelligence, not say, 'I won't do it'. You don't do it because you are intelligent, not because you are told, or you have read in some book, or some philosopher. I think it is very clear.
And also the questioner asks: are K's teachings therefore only for the few? This is one of the questions that is asked over and over again. What do you think? If it is for the few, it's not worth it. Wait a minute, just go slowly. The speaker says it is for everyone. But everyone is not serious, has not got the energy, because he is dissipating it in various ways. And so gradually there are very few - you follow? So observing it, you say it is only for the few. Whereas actually if you apply, go into it seriously with the spirit of investigation and wanting to live a different kind of life, it is for everyone. There is nothing secret about it. But there is great mystery if you go beyond the limitation of thought. But we don't do any of these things, we don't test it out, we don't apply, we don't eat the food that is put before us. And the few that eat it say, 'We are the elite'. They actually are not the elite, they are only the serious people that have applied, thought about it, gone into it, seeing that it affects their daily life. It is only then one can create a different kind of society.
2nd QUESTION: Isn't insight intuition? (You have heard these two words, I am sure.) Would you discuss this sudden clarity some of us have. What do you mean by insight and is it a momentary thing or can it be continuous?
In the various talks the speaker has given he has used the word 'insight'. That is, to see into things, into the whole movement of thought, into the whole movement, for example, of jealousy. To perceive the nature of greed, to see the whole content of sorrow. Not analysis, not exercise of intellectual capacity, nor is it the result of knowledge, knowledge being that which has been accumulated through the past as experience, stored up in the brain, therefore knowledge always goes with ignorance. There is no complete knowledge, therefore there is always knowledge and ignorance, like two horses tethered.
So then what is insight? You understand my question? You are following this? Please it is a hot morning, but it doesn't matter a little bit. If the observation is not based on knowledge, or on intellectual capacity of reasoning, exploring, analysing, then what is it? That is the whole question.
And the questioner asks also: is it intuition? That word 'intuition' is rather a tricky word because many of us use that word. The actuality of intuition may be the result of desire. One may desire something and then a few days later you have an intuition about it. And you think that intuition is most extraordinarily important. But if you go into it rather deeply you may find that it is based on desire, on fear, on various forms of pleasure. So one is rather doubtful about that word, specially used by those people who are rather romantic, who are rather imaginative, sentimental and wanting something. And they would certainly have intuitions, but it may be based on some obvious self-deceptive desire. So for the moment we can put aside intuition, that word. I hope I am not hurting anybody who is caught in intuitions.
And if that is not so, then what is insight? That is, to perceive something instantly which must be true, logical, sane, rational. You understand? And that insight must act instantly. It isn't that I have an insight and do nothing about it. If I have an insight, if one has an insight into the whole nature of thinking - you understand? - that is, I will explain a little bit about thinking. Thinking is the response of memory. Memory is the result of experience, knowledge, stored up in the brain. And the memory responds. Where do you live? You answer. What is your name? There's immediate response. And so on. Thought is the result or the response of the accumulated experience, knowledge as memory. That is simple. So, that thought based upon, or the outcome of knowledge, that thought is limited, because knowledge is limited. So thought can never be all inclusive. It must always be partial, limited, based on knowledge and ignorance. Therefore it is everlastingly confined, limited, narrow - right? Now to have an insight into that, which means, is there an action which is not merely the repetition of thought - you're following all this? - to have an insight into say organisations, let's take that. Right? To have an insight into it, which means that you are observing without memory, remembrances, without argumentation, pros and cons, just to see the whole movement and the demand for organisation. Then you have an insight into it, and from that insight you act. And that action is logical, is sane, healthy. It is not you have an insight and then you act the opposite, then it is not insight. I wonder if you are getting all this? Sorry to be so emphatic. That's my way of doing it.
To have an insight, for example, into the wounds, hurts that one has received from childhood. You understand my question? We are all people who are hurt for various reasons, from childhood till we die there is this wound in us, psychologically. Now to have an insight into the whole nature and structure of that hurt. Do you understand what I'm saying? Are you following all this? You are hurt, aren't you, sirs? - wounded psychologically? Play the game with me will you also. The ball is in your court. You are hurt obviously. You may go to a psychologist, analyst, psychotherapist, and they trace why you are hurt, from childhood, your mother was this and your father was that, or you are put on the wrong pot or the right pot and so on and so on. (Laughter) Don't please. Go into it. And by merely looking, or seeking out the cause the hurt is not going to be resolved. Right? It is there. And the consequences of that hurt is isolation, fear, resistance, and not to be hurt more, therefore self-enclosure. You know all this. That's the whole movement of being hurt. The hurt is the image that you have created for yourself about yourself. right? So as long as that image remains you will be hurt, obviously. Now to have an insight into all that, without analysis, to see it instantly and the very perception of that insight, which demands all your attention and energy, the hurt is dissolved. And therefore when it is dissolved there is no further hurt. I wonder if you get all this?
If one may ask most politely, you have heard this, have you got that insight that will dissolve your hurt completely, leaving no mark, and therefore no more hurt, nobody can hurt you. You understand? Because the image that you have created about yourself is non-existent. Are you following all this? Are you doing it? Or are you just merely verbally paying attention to the words?
Questioner: I don’t really understand what you mean when you say we have created this hurt.
K: First of all, who is hurt? What do you mean by being hurt? Sir, what do you mean by being hurt? You say, 'I am hurt' - consciously you are aware of it or not. One is hurt. Now what is that which is being hurt? Do you understand my question? Do you understand sir? What is that which is hurt? You say, 'It's me'. What is that 'me'? It is the image you have about yourself. If I have an image about myself as a marvellous, spiritual, blah, blah - eh? - and you come along and say, 'No, you are a silly ass' - I get hurt. (Laughter) That is, thought - please follow this - thought has created an image about oneself and that image is always comparing: my image is better than your image, and so on and so on and so on. So as long as one has this image about oneself it is going to be trodden on by somebody. And that is called hurt, wounds, psychologically.
To have an insight into that means to see the whole movement, the cause and the image and therefore the very perception of it ends the image. Do you understand this? No? No?
3rd QUESTION: You say that organisations will not help man to find what we Christians call salvation. So why do you have your own organisation?
In 1925 - perhaps some of you weren't born even - in 1925 the speaker was the head of a very big vast organisation. He was the head of it, and they looked up to him with devotion - you know, all that stuff, candles and all that! (Laughter) Please don't laugh, we are just stating facts. And it was considered a spiritual organisation, a religious organisation. And in 1925 - or was it 28 or 29, I have forgotten, it is not important - that organisation called 'The Order of the Star' was dissolved by the speaker, because he said that any spiritual organisation of any kind is not spiritual. And he dissolved that organisation, returned the properties, the whole works of it.
Now he has - not he has - there are several Foundations, one in India, one in this country, America and Canada. In India there are five schools, in different parts of that country, with a great deal of land. And they are schools, they are operated under the K Foundation, which is responsible for the land, to see that the schools are more or less in the right direction - less perhaps than more! And here also there is a Foundation with a school and we are hoping the school will keep in the right direction. And the Foundation is responsible to gather all these talks, tapes, publish and so on and so on. And it is the same in America and in Canada. There is nothing spiritual about it. Right? They merely act as function. They are necessary, the law demands it. And to publish the books - you know, all the rest of it. And to see that the teachings are kept fairly pure. That is the only function of these Foundations - right? It has no other function. They are not spiritual bodies which you can join and attain Nirvana, or Heaven or whatever. It is very simple, very clear. Is that all right? So don't please next time ask about why do you have organisations. It is very simple: there are schools, they publish, tapes, arrange talks wherever I go and some of them look after the speaker physically, because the speaker has no money. When the speaker is in India they look after him, here they look after him, when the speaker is in America they do the same. Full stop. Is that over? That is finished, isn't it? Shall we go on to the next question?
4th QUESTION: Is sex incompatible with a religious life? What place has human relationship in spiritual endeavour?
First of all, why have human beings, right throughout the world, made sex so important in their life? Do you understand my question? Why? Now in the west it's permissive, boys or girls of twelve, thirteen, have already sex. And one asks why have human beings throughout their activities, throughout their lives made this thing of such colossal importance? Go on, sirs, answer it. Put the question. We are sharing the question together - right? You are not just listening to a Delphic Oracle, but together we are investigating. It's your life we are looking at.
There are those gurus, and there is a whole philosophy called Tantra - part of it - is based on sex. That through sex you can reach god - whatever that god be. And that's very popular. And there are those, like the monks, the Indian sanyasis, and the Buddhist priests, have denied sex, because they have all maintained that it's a waste of energy, and to serve god you must come with all your energy. Therefore deny, suppress, burn inside yourself with all the demands, but suppress it, control it. So you have the permissive, and the so-called religious suppression. And those in between who enjoy everything, both sides, they have one foot in this and one foot in the other! Then they can talk about both things and see if they cannot harmonise the two together and find god - or whatever you want to find. Probably you will find at the end of it a lot of nonsense!
So we are asking: why has man, woman, made this sex business of such importance? Right? Why don't you give the same importance to love - do you understand? To compassion? To not kill? Why do you give only such immense value to sex? You are following what I am saying? Your wars, terrors, national divisions, the whole immoral society in which we live, why don't you give equal importance to all that and not only to this? You are following my question? Why? Is it because sex is your greatest pleasure in life? The rest of your life is a bore, a travail, a struggle, a conflict, meaningless existence? And this at least gives you a certain sense of great pleasure, a sense of well being, a sense of - you know - what you call relationship, and what you also call love - right? Is that the reason why we are so sexually crazy? Go on, sirs, answer yourselves. Because we are not free in any other direction. We have to go to the office from nine to five, where you are bullied, where there are bosses over you - you know all that happens in an office, or in a factory, or in another job where there is somebody dominating you. And our minds have become mechanical - are you following all this? - we repeat, repeat, repeat, we fall into a tradition, into a groove, into a rut. Our thinking is that: I am a Christian, I am a Buddhist, I am a Hindu, I am a Catholic, I worship the Pope - you know, the whole thing is clearly marked and you follow that. Or you reject all that and form your own routine.
So our minds have become slaves to various patterns of existence - right? So it has become mechanical. And sex may be pleasurable and gradually that too becomes mechanical. So one asks, if you want to go very deeply into it, one asks: is love sex? Go on, ask it. Is love pleasure? Is love desire? Is love a remembrance of an incidence, which you call sex, with all the imagination, the pictures, the thinking about it, is that love? Oh, for god's sake! Is love a remembrance?
And the questioner asks: (Oh, lord, I have forgotten where is it? Here it is.) what place has human relationship in spiritual endeavour? You see what it's reduced to? Human relationship is pleasure, sex, conflict, quarrels, divisions, you go your way, I'll go my way - you follow? That is our relationship, actual relationship in our daily life. And what place has human relationship in spiritual endeavour? Obviously the present relationship has no place whatsoever, obviously. We are jealous of each other, we want to possess each other, we want to dominate each other and so there is antagonism between each other, one is sexually unsatisfied therefore you go to somebody else, and in that sexual relationship there is loneliness - right? All this sir. And always seeking your own pleasure. Is that all love?
So you disregard, put aside that thing called love, perhaps that is the most wonderful thing if one has it, and are so caught up in this vortex of one's own desire, of one's own pleasure - right? So we are always wanting not only sexual satisfaction, but gratification in every direction, which is based on pleasure. And that we call love. For that love we'll kill each other - right? Love of the country. Oh, please.
So, when you're at the end of this, you say why has man, woman, given this one thing such extraordinary importance? All the magazines, you know all that is happening. Why? Is it man, woman, have lost their creative capacity? - not sexual capacity, you understand? - creative capacity. To be able to see, to be a light to themselves, not to follow anybody, not to worship any image, illusion, belief. When you put aside all that and you have understood your own petty little desires, which is your own sexual demands, gratifications, then when you see all that, have an insight into all that, then out of that comes creation. It doesn't mean painting a picture, or writing a poem. That sense of ever freshness - you understand? Having a mind that is fresh, young, innocent all the time, not clouded, burdened with all kinds of memories, dissatisfactions, fears and anxieties, you know, when you have lost all that there is a totally different kind of mind. Then sex has its own place. But when sex becomes a means of religious endeavour - you understand what I am saying? - then we get completely bogged down.
Apparently we don't have that quality of scepticism - you understand? To be sceptical about one's own demands, to question, doubt these innumerable gurus. And doubt also becomes rather dangerous, because if you don't hold it then you doubt everything and then there's no end. It is like having a dog on a leash, you must let it go occasionally, or often, so that the dog enjoys himself, runs about. In the same way doubt must be kept on a leash and also allowed, take away the leash, so the mind is - you know, the mind being your heart, your brain, your emotions, everything active, not just directed in one direction which is sex, sex, sex.
5th QUESTION: Can thought be aware of itself as it is taking place? Or does the awareness come after the thought? Can consciousness be aware of its whole content?
Most of us are aware after the happening - right? - after the incident, after an action. Then we say, 'I should have done', 'I shouldn't have done'. The questioner asks: can thought be aware of itself as it arises? - not after, which is fairly simple, which is what most of us do. But the question is: can there be awareness of thought as it arises? Do you understand the question? You understand the question at least? Can you be aware - please listen to this - of your thought? That is, can thought be aware of itself, as it arises? You understand the question? That is, one's whole life is based on thought, thought recognising the emotion, the sentiment, the romantic feelings, the imagination and so on, thought is recognising all this - right? 'Oh, I am very emotional' and so on. Now thought is our instrument of all action - right? Therefore there is no spontaneity. If you look into yourself seriously, spontaneity can only exist when there is complete, total freedom, psychologically.
So can your mind be aware of itself as thought arises? That is, is there an awareness when you begin to be angry? You follow all this? Can there be an awareness as jealousy arises? Can there be an awareness as greed comes - be aware of that? Can there be? Or you are aware that you have been jealous, or that you have been greedy or that you have been angry? That is fairly simple, most of us do that. But to be aware so attentively you can see for yourself the anger coming in, the adrenaline and all the processes, the whole movement of anger. You can see greed come into being: you see something you want and - you follow? - the reaction. To be aware of that. Of course one can as it arises.
Now the question is a little more difficult, more deep. Can thought - please listen to this - which is, you can be aware as anger arises, that is fairly simple, but is there an awareness of thought itself? You understand what I am saying? You are thinking now, aren't you? Or are you all absent minded? You are thinking now, aren't you? Now as you are thinking find out if that thinking can be aware of itself. Not you aware of thinking - do you understand the problem? I wonder if you see this. This is really great fun if you go into it. Not only fun, it is very, very serious, because we can go very, very deeply into all this. That is, you are thinking about something, about your dress, how you look, what people have said, what you are going to meet, and this and that - thinking is there. Now take one thought and see if that thought can know itself. Ah, yes, sir, this requires tremendous attention which you are not used to. You are thinking about the dress you have had or you are going to buy. The thought that arises, can that thought say, 'Yes, I am awake' - you understand? I see myself, itself, not you observe the thought, because you are also thought. Do you understand? So you are not aware as thought arises, but thought itself is aware as it comes into being. I wonder if you see this. No. Right? That is one question.
The other is: can consciousness be aware of its whole content? Do you understand? Consciousness, to put it very quickly and briefly, is its content, isn't it? Your belief, your name, your nationality, your prejudices, your opinions, your conclusions, your hopes, your despairs, your depression, your concern about yourself, you believe and you don't believe, you believe in being a British and not British - you follow - god or no god. All that - your anxieties, your fears, all that is the content of you - right? Your sexual demands, your urges, your pleasures - all that is your consciousness, and can that consciousness - please listen to it - be aware of its own content, as a whole, not just a part? You get the point? No? You can't. You don't do it.
This is real meditation, you understand? Not all the nonsense that goes on. Because to see the whole of your being, not just your sexual demands because sex isn't your only life, there are fears, death, anxiety, guilt, despair, depression - you follow? - sorrow, all that's part of your life. So all that is your consciousness. Now the questioner asks: can your consciousness be aware of its whole content? That means can you observe - not you observe - is there an observation of the whole thing? One has to go very deeply into this. We haven't time, but we will go briefly into it.
That consciousness is put together by time, through time, through what we call evolution. You have had incidents, accidents, remembrances, racial, national and so on, family, all that is a movement contained in consciousness - right? And is it ever possible to be completely free of that content? Do you understand? No, you are not interested in all this. This is really very important, because otherwise we are always acting in the field of the known, the known being the unknown also, the ignorance. There is never freedom. That's, a man always living in the past, as you do. You may project that past into the future as an ideal, as a hope and so on, but it is still the movement of the past, modified through the present - right? So, a man who is completely, more or less, living in the past, what is his mind - you understand? He may have new techniques, new opportunities to learn other forms of skills, but it is essentially, in himself, his consciousness is the movement of the past. Right? So a man who is living in the past - or a woman - what happens to his brain, mind? It can never be free.
So a man who enquires into this very seriously has to find out whether this whole consciousness with its content can be seen at once, which is to have total insight into this. I don't know if you have ever considered looking at anything wholly: to look at your wife, or your girl, or your husband, whatever it is, wholly, not just her face, her this or that, but the whole quality of another human being. And you can only do that when the you is not - do you understand? When you are not centred here, me. The 'me' is very small, very petty, because the 'me' is the accumulation of all this.
So when you begin to enquire into this, whether it is possible to see the whole content, the movement of consciousness, which means the whole structure of the 'me'. That requires pure observation - do you understand? Not your direction, prejudice, like and dislike and all the rest of it, but just purely to observe the vast structure, very complex. Because of its very complexity, you must come to it very simply. Right?
Shall I go on with one more question?
6th QUESTION: I have tried all kinds of meditation, fasting and a voluntary solitary life, but it has come to nothing. Is there one thing, or one quality that will end my seeking and my confusion, and if there is what am I to do?
You understand this question? Are you in that position? You understand the question? That is, one goes to Japan, Zen Buddhism, Zen meditation, the various forms of Tibetan, Hindu, the Christian, and all the innumerable meditations man has invented. And the questioner says, 'I have been through all that. I have done yoga of various kinds, fasted, led a solitary life trying to find out what is truth. And at the end of it all I have found nothing'. Do you understand this? You people don't understand. It isn't a tragedy to you, is it?
Is there one thing, one quality that will end my seeking and my confusion? If there is, tell me what to do? You understand the full meaning of this question?
I met a man once, he was a very old man - I was quite young - grey hair, almost dying. And he heard one of the talks and came to see me afterwards and he said, 'I have spent twenty five years of my life in solitude, in meditation. I have been married and so on, but I left all that, and for twenty five years I have meditated. And I see now that I have heard you that I have lived in an illusion.' - you understand? Twenty five years - you people don't know a thing. And to say to oneself, 'I have lived an illusion, I have deceived myself.' - you understand? At the end of twenty five years to say that. Which means a wasted life, which you are doing anyhow, without meditating for twenty five years.
And he asks what is the one thing, one action, one step that will dissolve my confusion, the end to my search. You understand the question? Are you in that position, any of you? Except the questioner? You understand, you have come to the end of your tether. You have read, you have walked, you have heard, you have cried, you have meditated, you have longed, you have sacrificed - you understand? Probably you haven't done any of those things. And if you have, then what is the one thing that will resolve all this?
First of all, don't seek? Do you understand what it means? Because if you seek you will find, what you find you have already sought. I wonder if you see all this? What you will find in your search is what you have projected - you being your priests, your gods, your professor, your guru, your philosophy, your experience. That projected in the future, you will find, therefore a wise man doesn't seek. And the questioner says, what is the one thing? For that one thing there must be total freedom from all attachment, to your body, to your exercises, to your yoga, to your own opinion, judgements, and persons, and beliefs, complete freedom from all attachment - right? Don't make it a sorrowful thing, it isn't. There must be no fear - wait, this is not one thing - absolutely no psychological fear, and therefore when there is physical fear you deal with it - you understand what I am saying? When somebody is attacking you, you deal with it, but psychologically there is no fear, that means no time as tomorrow. Oh, you don't get all this.
And the mind having understood the nature of sorrow and therefore freedom from sorrow, which doesn't mean that you are indifferent and all the rest of it - freedom from sorrow. Right? These are only indications, not the final thing. If these don't exist, the other final thing cannot be. You understand the point? I don't think you do. Look, sir, a man or a woman, a man has spent years and years searching, seeking, asking, demanding, so-called sacrificing, taking vows of celibacy, poverty - you follow? - and at the end of it all he says, 'My god, I have nothing. I have ashes in my hand'. Even though they think they have in their hands Christ or Jesus or the Buddha, it is still ashes. I wonder if you see all this? And such a man asks: what is the right action in my life, the right action which will be right under all circumstances? It doesn't vary from time to time according to culture, according to nation, according to education - right, precise, actual.
When all this is clear, that your mind is totally unattached to itself - do you understand? - to its own body and no fear, and the ending of sorrow, then if that is clear the one thing is compassion. You understand? Out of all this comes compassion, then compassion is not ashes in your hand. It isn't the compassion that does social reforms, social work, the saints, it isn't the compassion of the saints, compassion of the people who go out in the war and heal people, doctors and so on and so on. It's not that at all. It is the one answer that is true under all circumstances and therefore out of that right action, because compassion goes with intelligence. If there is no intelligence which is born out of compassion - you understand? - then you get lost in some trivialities. And the world then accepts those trivialities as being extraordinary acts of compassion. They become saints, and they become heroes, they become all kinds of idiotic recognition's of silly people. So there is one act, one quality that is supreme and that is compassion with its intelligence. And out of that intelligence there is right action under all circumstances.
Is that enough?