Question 1:

Osho,

I have been reflecting on the difference between "feeling sorry" for someone and "having compassion". it seems to me that to be sorry for someone has an element of condescension in it, as if you were superior to the other, and that it does not necessarily have anything to do with love, whereas compassion must be an integral part of loving. please comment.

 

 

Prem Joyce,

The first and the most important thing to remember is that reflecting is not going to help at all.

 

"Reflecting" is nothing but a beautiful word for "thinking". The blind man can go on thinking about light, he can arrive at certain conclusions too, but those conclusions cannot be right. Howsoever right they appear to be, they are bound to be false, untrue.

 

The moon in the sky is one thing and the moon reflected in the silent lake is totally another. One exists, the other is only a reflection. If you jump into the silent lake you will not be able to catch hold of the moon; on the contrary, you may even disturb the reflection because the lake will be disturbed.

 

The more you think, the more you are creating waves and ripples in the mind. The real thing for the blind man to do is not to think about light but to heal his eyes, for the deaf man, not to reflect on music but to go through some alchemical processes which can make him hear.

 

That's the difference between reflection and meditation: meditation opens your eyes, reflection is thinking with closed eyes. Meditation is seeing and thinking is remaining blind. But thinking can give you great conclusions, very logical too; in fact only thinking can give you logical conclusions.

 

Meditation will give you very paradoxical experiences - illogical or supralogical, but never logical.

 

Existence consists of contradictions - it is vast enough to contain all contradictions - it consists of polar opposites. They appear to be opposites to the logical mind, but they are complementaries deep down in reality. They exist together in a kind of simultaneity.

 

In English "meditation" again has the same flavour as "reflection". In English there is no word which can be said to be the equivalent of dhyana or zen, so we have to use the word "meditation"; that comes closest. But a few conditions have to be put upon it.

 

The moment you use the word "meditation", the immediate question arises "On what?" because "meditation" in the English language means meditating upon something. And the words dhyana, or zen, simply mean emptying yourself of all thinking; it is not a question of meditating upon something.

 

Meditation is a state of absolute silence, of profound peace, of not thinking at all but just being aware.

 

Only in that awareness will you be able to see the truth.

 

You say, Prem Joyce: I HAVE BEEN REFLECTING ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "FEELING SORRY" FOR SOMEONE AND "HAVING COMPASSION."

 

And you can immediately see the difficulty: "feeling sorry" for someone and "having compassion" are exactly the same. The person who knows what compassion is cannot say "I have compassion"; he is simply compassionate. Having compassion is not possible - either you are compassionate or you are not; it is not a question of having. If you have compassion, it is the same, in different words, as feeling sorry for someone.

 

But language can give you great scope for playing games, mind games. "Feeling sorry" and "having compassion" are synonymous. Of course, feeling sorry and having compassion are synonymous, but feeling sorry and being compassionate are not synonymous. Being compassionate is a totally different phenomenon than having compassion. Having compassion, again you will have that idea that "I am far superior than the other. Look how much compassion I have!" And compassion is not something that you can possess, it is not something that you can have, you can only be it. Know the difference between having and being!

 

But you have been groping, and something significant has arisen out of your groping.

 

You say: IT SEEMS TO ME THAT TO BE SORRY FOR SOMEONE HAS AN ELEMENT OF CONDESCENSION IN IT, AS IF YOU WERE SUPERIOR TO THE OTHER...

 

Yes, even the blind man can grope for the door and can sometimes find it, but still he will not be able to see it. It is just accidental, that's why you are not certain. Seeing has absolute certainty about it.

 

Seeing is knowing, and knowing is not approximate.

 

You say: IT SEEMS TO ME...

 

Naturally, if you are reflecting, at the most it can only seem to you that "This is the door... perhaps this is the door." The "perhaps" will always surround you, and with the perhaps one is in a kind of bondage: there will be ifs and buts, you will never be on certain ground. And without being on certain ground you cannot be centred: there will remain some wavering - maybe it is so, maybe it is not so.

 

You say: IT SEEMS TO ME THAT TO BE SORRY FOR SOMEONE HAS AN ELEMENT OF CONDESCENSION IN IT...

 

It has! There is no question of being uncertain about it. In fact, people enjoy being sorry for others.

 

They are always looking for situations where they can feel sorry for others - it is so ego-fulfilling, it is such a nourishment for the ego. If somebody's house is on fire you go with tears in your eyes and you show great sympathy, you show much concern, as if you are immensely pained. But deep down, if you watch, you will find a certain joy, a certain glee.

 

But people never look within themselves. It is bound to be there, for two reasons: it is not your house which is on fire, "Thank God!" - that is the first thing. Secondly, you must be enjoying your tears, because when somebody builds a new house, a beautiful house, you feel jealous; great envy arises in you. You cannot enjoy, you cannot participate in his joy. You want to avoid - you don't even look at his house.

 

I used to go to Calcutta where I would stay in a very beautiful house. And the man who was the owner of the house was immensely concerned about the house. He was very rich, one of the richest men in Calcutta, and he had no children. So just the wife and the husband were there with nothing else to do but maintain the house, the garden and the lawns with great care, and whenever I came he would take me around to show me what new things they had done.

 

The last time I went, he didn't talk about the house, the garden, the swimming pool. I was puzzled - that was so abnormal for him. Twenty-four hours passed and the house was not mentioned at all:

 

the new paintings that he had acquired and the new "antique" furniture - the new antique furniture!

 

- and how much it had cost him. And he was looking a little bit sad too.

 

I asked, "What is the matter? You look very sad!"

 

He said, "Yes, I am sad." He took me out onto the lawn and showed me a house in the neighbourhood - a new house had been built and he said, "Unless I can defeat this man I will remain sad!"

 

The neighbour invited me for lunch. He also wanted the owner of the house, my host, to come with me, but he immediately refused. I had to go alone.

 

When I came back he said, "Don't take any note of my refusal. I cannot go into that house. Unless I make a bigger house than him I cannot go there! It hurts! I am feeling humiliated."

 

If you cannot participate in the joy of others, how can you feel sorry when they are in trouble? If you feel jealous when they are joyful, then you will feel joyful when they are in trouble. But you will not show it, you will show sympathy. "Sympathy" is not a good word.

 

There are a few words that are very ugly but which are now very respected; words like "duty", "service", "sympathy" - these are ugly words. A man who is fulfilling his duty is not a man of love. A man who is doing service knows nothing of love, because service is not done, it happens. And the man who sympathizes is certainly enjoying some kind of superiority: "I am not in that sorry state, the other is in the sorry state. I have the upper hand - I can feel sorry for him."

 

I lived in Jabalpur for twenty years. The richest man in Jabalpur used to come to me once in a while.

 

He said one day "One thing troubles me always: I have been helping all of my relatives, even faraway relatives, I have made them all rich in every possible way, but nobody feels friendly towards me. In fact, I feel a certain antagonism from all of my relatives. Why is it so? I have done so much for them, and there was no need for me to do anything for them. I did it out of love, but they feel antagonistic.

 

I said, "I know your relatives - they also visit me - and I know that they are antagonistic to you. The reason is very simple: you have never allowed them to do anything for you. You have always been doing things for them and you have never allowed them to do even a small thing for you - you have not even asked them to bring you a rose flower - so they are all feeling humiliated. And it is not love that you are talking about, it is just ego: "I have done so much!" You want to show them that "I have done so much and I don't need anybody to do anything for me"; that's why there is antagonism. Of course, you have done it with good intentions, but intentions don't count. The unconscious desire for ego fulfilment, for ego gratification is hurting them."

 

I said to him, "Once in a while give them a chance. I know that you don't need anything, but they have beautiful gardens and you can tell them, "Sometimes bring roses for me." Sometimes when you fall ill you can ask them to come and just sit by your side, and they will all feel happy. Just small things! Sometimes you can tell them, "Invite me to supper, to dinner," and they will be immensely overjoyed; they will not feel antagonism."

 

He said, "That I cannot do - that is impossible. That is against my nature."

 

So I told him, "Then it is absolutely clear now - even you can see it - why all your good deeds have brought antagonism! "

 

These do-gooders are mischievous people. They do good, but their desire is just the opposite of it.

 

Prem Joyce, the idea of feeling superior to the other is present in both cases, whether you feel sorry or you have compassion.

 

And you say:... AND THAT IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH LOVE...

 

Certainly it does not necessarily have anything to do with love - not only that, it is anti-love because it is an ego trip and ego can never be in tune with love. Ego is poison to love, it is necessarily anti-love. Your compassion is not out of love if some desire of being superior is being fulfilled by it.

 

The lover never feels superior - the lover cannot feel superior, the lover cannot even think that he has obliged anybody. On the contrary, when somebody receives your love you feel obliged that your love was not rejected - it could have been rejected - that your love was respected, welcomed. You feel obliged, you feel thankful, you feel grateful.

 

And you say:... WHEREAS COMPASSION MUST BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF LOVING.

 

No, compassion is higher than love. Love is an integral part of compassion, but compassion is not an integral part of love. That's the difference between thinking and meditation.

 

These three things are to be taken note of: the lowest love is sex - it is physical - and the highest refinement of love is compassion. Sex is below love, compassion is above love - love is exactly in the middle.

 

Very few people know what love is. Ninety-nine percent of people, unfortunately, think sexuality is love - it is not. Sexuality is very animal; it certainly has the potential of growing into love, but it is not actual love, only a potential.

 

A seed is not a flower. It can become a flower, but there is no certainty, no guarantee that it is going to become a flower - it may die as a seed. If you put it on a rock it will not sprout into a bush, into a flowering tree, it will die. If you throw it into fire it Will die.

 

Sex has the potential of love, but only the potential, remember; it is the seed. There is no need to deny it because if you throw away the seed, if you deny the seed, then love disappears.

 

That's why in the so-called religious people you will not find love and its warmth, you will find them cold, dead, without love Yes, they will have compassion, they will feel sorry for you, because you are hell-bound and they are going to heaven. Naturally they feel sorry for you: "Poor souls!" You will suffer hell-fire and they will be enjoying the pleasures of heaven.

 

There is no love at all, but they have compassion. And having compassion is a pseudo thing, it is not the true compassion. They have denied sex, and in denying sex they have denied love.

 

Sex has to be used in the right perspective. It has not to be repressed, it has not to be denied, and you are not to remain confined to it either. No repression, no indulgence. The path is very subtle.

 

Jesus says: The path is straight but very narrow. It is a razor's edge.

 

Sex either becomes indulgence, as it has become in the West, or it becomes repressed, as it has become in the East. On one side there is a well, on the other side there is a ditch, and you can fall in. You have to walk between the two. Certainly it is a razor's edge, tight-rope walking; you have to remain very balanced.

 

And the functioning of the mind is such that it moves from one pole to the other. It is exactly like the pendulum of an old clock: it goes from right to left, the extreme left, and from the extreme left again to the extreme right.

 

And remember the law: as you see the pendulum moving towards the left it is gaining momentum to go to the right; while it is actually going towards the right it is gaining momentum to go to the left. So don't be deceived by what you see; something inside is growing which is just the opposite of what you are seeing.

 

The repressed person is always ready to go into indulgence. All the repressed societies are boiling, ready to go into indulgence, and they find ways and means to go into indulgence.

 

For example, this country has repressed sex for thousands of years, and the natural outcome has been a backdoor indulgence. In Indian temples prostitutes have existed. In the South still, even today in the twentieth century, temples have prostitutes. They are not called prostitutes - Indians are very clever at giving beautiful names to ugly things - they are called DEVADASIS, "servants of God". And who are these gods? First the priest who initiates them into sexual indulgence and then the rich clients who come to the temple. These are the gods whom they serve! But they are supposed to serve the stone statue of the god inside the temple. That is just a facade. In India prostitution can now exist only in a religious garb - sex has been such a taboo that you have to find some way to make it religious.

 

Temples like Khajuraho, Konarak, Puri have not existed anywhere in the West. There is no need people are already indulging - they are indulging by the front door - so there is no need to go by the back door.

 

It is not a coincidence that the first treatise on sex was written in India. What Sigmund Freud, Wilhelm Reich Masters and Johnson, and other sex researchers have done is nothing compared to Vatsayana's sutras, the KAMA SUTRA - sex sutras - and they are three thousand years old.

 

After the birth of every great religion in India, Tantra entered by the back door. Nothing but sexuality in a rationalized form - ninety-nine percent of it is sexuality. There is Buddhist Tantra. Buddha could not have conceived of it, that his followers were going to make sex a religious ritual. But what can people do? If you repress them too much then they have to find ways, otherwise they will be continuously burning with desire.

 

Hindu Tantra... very ugly. If you just look at the Tantra paintings you will be surprised. These are the people who say that I am destroying their culture! And what kind of culture do they have? - Khajuraho and Tantra treatises and Vatsayana's KAMA SUTRA and Pundit Koka's KOKA SHASTRA.

 

What culture do they have?

 

All this nonsense has happened because sex was repressed. In the West sex became indulgence.

 

Both are wrong. But that's how the mind is: it always goes from the frying pan to the fire! It cannot stay in the middle, because to stay in the middle is the death of the mind.

 

That's what I call meditation: if you can stay exactly in the middle, the clock stops. If the pendulum stays in the middle, if you hold the pendulum in the middle, the clock stops. And if you hold yourself exactly in the middle, if you avoid the extreme and hold to the axis, suddenly you will see that the mind has stopped. Mind functions almost like a clock.

 

Sex is a potential, a great potential. If you become aware and alert, meditative, then sex can be transformed into love. And if your meditativeness becomes total, absolute, love can be transformed into compassion.

 

Sex is the seed, love is the flower, compassion is the fragrance.

 

Compassion has love as one of its ingredients, but not vice versa - love is not compassionate. You can see it everywhere: lovers are continuously fighting. They are intimate enemies, continuously at each other's throats. Yes, once in a while, just to rest, they are loving too, but those love-breaks are few and far between; otherwise there is constant struggle, fight. The woman is nagging - that is her way of fighting - and the man is always ready to hit hard on the woman's head. In fact, people think that when you don't fight, your love has died.

 

Psychologists also agree with these fools. They say that it you don't fight that means you are not interested, if you don't fight that simply means it does not matter; if it matters then you have to fight.

 

Lovers are fighting - there is no compassion there is cruelty. And you can see that cruelty in their love-making also.

 

For thousands of years people have been making love in the dark for the simple reason that it looks ridiculous, aggressive. Lovers are not related in a compassionate way, it is a fight to grab as much as possible: to give as little as possible and to get as much as possible. It is a bargain, it is a business.

 

People art forcing each other to give love in every possible way, direct and indirect. It is cruelty, it is violence, it is aggression.

 

Once in a while it has happened that lovers have killed each other. That seems to be the extreme form of love, just the very climax! They bite, they scratch with their nails. Vatsayana says these are methods of love - scratching the beloved with your nails and biting your beloved so that blood comes! These are "love methods", "love techniques"! Vatsayana must have been some kind of sadist, but Indians call him a rishi, a seer - a maharishi, a great seer. He must have been like Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - a great seer! And all this nonsense he is writing, giving techniques... It is called "love-bite", "love-scratch". And he says it makes love-making very deep, profound.

 

You must have heard about de Sade from whose name "sadism" has been coined. De Sade seems to have been the greatest lover in the world! He used to carry a suitcase with him, just like a doctor's suitcase, with all the instruments. Of course he was far more modern than Vatsayana. Why scratch with your nails if you can have beautiful instruments to scratch with? Why bite with your teeth if you can have devices? And as a Western man, technology-oriented, he had all kinds of instruments in his bag.

 

He had a beautiful personality - women became attracted to him - he was very rich, he was a marquis. But once a woman entered his love chamber - it was called a "love chamber" in fact it should be called "torture chamber" - he would immediately lock the door. The woman would be puzzled because on all the walls there were other, bigger instruments - whips and all kinds of things.

 

And then he would undress the woman and start beating her.

 

The women who had been in love with him - of course they never dared to go again, once was enough - even confessed before the court... Almost all the women, because he had made love to many women, hundreds - he was rich enough to pay - confessed in court that the way he made love to them was always dangerous and they were very scared, but they never had such beautiful orgasms either before or after.

 

And de Sade writes in his memoirs that when you beat a woman she becomes really aroused, when you whip her she becomes alive, warm. Certainly, obviously!

 

Lovers don't have compassion for each other. You may not be a de Sade, but every lover is on the way to it. De Sade may be the goal, but very few reach to that height.

 

Prem Joyce, love has no ingredient of compassion in it. Vice versa is true - compassion certainly has love in it - but because of compassion that love has a totally different quality, a different flavour.

 

The word "compassion" has to be understood: when passion is transformed it is called compassion, when passion goes through an absolute transformation it is compassion. Love is a stage on the way but not the end.

 

Buddha has defined compassion as "love plus meditation". When your love is not just a desire for the other, when your love is not only a need, when your love is a sharing, when your love is not that of a beggar but that of an emperor, when your love is not asking for something in return but is ready only to give - to give for the sheer joy of giving - then add meditation to it and the pure fragrance is released, the imprisoned splendour is released. That is compassion; compassion is the highest phenomenon.

 

Sex is animal, love is human, compassion is divine. Sex is physical, love is psychological, compassion is spiritual.

 

And let me remind you again that it is not "having compassion", it is being compassion. You can have sex, you can "have" love - though you "have" it less than sex - but you cannot have compassion. You become compassion, your very being is compassion. Walking, you are compassionate, sitting, you are compassionate, sleeping, you are compassionate. Whether anybody is there or not does not matter: your compassion is just like a flame - it goes on burning in absolute aloneness, radiating.

 

If somebody passes by he can have it, with no strings attached, with no conditions. Compassion is the experience of the Buddhas, of the awakened.

 

You cannot reflect on these matters. Stop reflecting, don't waste your energy in reflecting. Put the whole energy into meditation. Become silent, aware, watchful, and in that watchfulness miracles happen. And everybody is entitled to this miracle of becoming compassion. It is our birthright!

 

- Osho, "Zen Zest, Zip, Zap and Zing, #3, Q1"