Visitor:  There are some teachers who seem to be enlightened but still are involved in the world.

SWAMIJI:  Either they are not really involved and you have a wrong notion about them, or they are not enlightened. One of the two it is. Either you are making a wrong judgement about them and they may be really enlightened, or they are not enlightened. There are only two aspects of it.

Visitor:  Can an enlightened person do something bad?

SWAMIJI:  Our outlook of life has to be properly oriented. What do you mean by good, and what do you mean by bad? That has to be clear to the mind first, before you make any judgement. Your ideas of good and bad may be conditioned by certain factors which are delimited. You may not have a cosmic view of things. So, whatever judgement you make may not be complete. It may be partial. That is one aspect of the matter.

Visitor:  Can a person lose his enlightenment? Can they fall?

SWAMIJI:  A person who is really enlightened cannot fall. It is like saying a person who has woken up will sleep again. If you have already woken up from sleep, will you sleep again? It is not possible, because you have already woken up. If you again go to sleep, it means that you have not fully woken up. You are still half sleeping. You have to define what you mean by "enlightenment." It is like waking up from sleep. You are asking whether a man who has woken up can sleep again. Why will he sleep? He has already woken up. Otherwise, he has not fully woken up; he is half dozing.

Visitor:  What is morality?

SWAMIJI:  You have to become a disciple of a guru and learn. Even a clever man cannot understand it. We have got political definitions, social definitions. Anything that is good for your country is moral - is it correct? It is one definition, but it is not the whole truth.

Anything that is good for your family is good, moral. But, still it is not the whole truth. Anything that is good for your little family may not be good for the whole nation. So, your morality is delimited here. Anything that is good for your little country may not be good for the whole world; there, also, your morality is delimiting. So, what do you mean by "morality"? You have to judge it from the context.

It is like medicine. What do you mean by "medicine"? You cannot name the medicine for any particular illness, unless you know what kind of illness it is. If you say that you want medicine, they will ask what kind of illness. Then only, a medicine will be prescribed. So, your idea of morality depends upon the circumstances of your existence physically, intellectually, socially, psychologically, and politically. So, there is no off-hand answer to a question like that. Cut-and-dried answers we cannot give to such questions. Everything is conditional and relative.

Suppose somebody says, "Is it good to cut off the hand of a person?" You say that it is very bad, but suppose you are a surgeon and you are amputating a person's hand. Is it good? So, is cutting off the hand good or bad? There again, the question is relative. So, all questions bring a relative answer; under conditions, circumstances, and exigencies you will know what is proper.

Finally, that only can be called good which will directly or indirectly help you in reaching God. That only can be called good. It may be not directly useful, but indirectly, at least. You have to judge yourself: is it going to help you in any way, indirectly, at least, in reaching the Absolute? Then it is perfectly right - nothing wrong with it.

It is said that a person who is starving and about to die can even steal food, though you cannot say that stealing is good. Suppose there is a mentally demented person who is brandishing a sword in his hand, and you silently go behind him and steal that sword from his hand. Have you done a good thing, or a wrong thing? So, stealing is not always bad. You cannot answer any question in an absolute fashion. They are relative and conditional.

Drinking brandy is very bad, but suppose a person has fallen from a tree and become unconscious. You can pour a spoon of brandy into his mouth, and he will wake up. Is drinking brandy good or bad? Here, also, it is conditional. Every question has to be put carefully, and the answer also has to be given accordingly.

Visitor:  Swamiji, would you say that anything was immoral if it had a harmful effect on other people?

SWAMIJI:  It has nothing to do with "other" people. It is people in general, because you are also "other people" to certain others. For people who are other than you, you are an "other people." So, what do you mean by "other people?" There are no "other people" in the world. Everyone is equal to others. To me, you are an "other," and to you, I am an "other." When you say "other people," who are the other people? Everybody is "other people" only. What do you say?

You have to use the word carefully. You mean everybody. By "other people" you include yourself, also. You are also other people. So anything good for everybody is good. Don't say "other people." Anything that is good for everybody is fine, and you have to judge for yourself what is good for everybody. Be careful.

The best thing is not to judge quickly. There is a wise saying, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." You will be judged in the same manner as you judge others. The world is made in that way. Whatever you think of other people, that others will think about you, and whatever you do to others will be done to you. So, "do unto others as you would be done by." This is the ethics of the highest type. If you want to know what morality is, you can say it in this one sentence: "Do unto others as you would be done by." That is all.

Visitor:  Rituals?

SWAMIJI:  Images, idols, pictures, portraits, whatever it is, are as good as anything else. As every part is organically connected to the whole, you can contact the whole through any part. The worship of God through ritual is equivalent to trying to contact Him by means of visible manifestations. This is one stage of religion, or spirituality. But if your mind is vast enough to comprehend the total whole in one grasp, there is no need of touching parts. You can touch the total at one stroke. Otherwise, it is better to go slowly, stage by stage. So here is the relevance of ritual for enlightenment.

Visitor:  What about after enlightenment?

SWAMIJI:  After enlightenment means after reaching God. This is what you mean?

Visitor:  Right. After realising the Self.

SWAMIJI:  No, no. Go slowly. Are you realising God or the Self? What are you going to realise?

Visitor:  God - the Self with a big "S."

SWAMIJI:  Now, you see, after realising God, what happens?

Visitor:  What is the relationship of practices after realising God?

SWAMIJI:  When you realise God, what happens to you, actually? What will be your status in the condition of the realisation of God? What will happen to you, actually? Do you have an idea about it?

Visitor:  It is not that you reach anything.

SWAMIJI:  When you reach God, what will happen to you?

Visitor:  Then there is no other. Everything is emptiness, or fullness.

SWAMIJI:  There is no other.

Visitor:  Right.

SWAMIJI:  And, you will see only yourself. If you are seeing only yourself, no question will arise afterwards. Who will put the question? To whom? You are putting a question because you are seeing another. And you have already said that there is no "another." So, who will put the question? The question ceases. You will be doing there the same thing which God is doing. And, what is God doing just now? That you will be doing, whatever it be. Inasmuch as you have still maintained a little psychological distance between yourself and God, you are raising this question. If you have actually merged in God, you will not raise a question like that. Already you have asserted that there is no other. What will happen to you, and what will you do after realising God? You will do exactly the same thing as God is doing. Tell me what God is doing.

Visitor:  Everything.

SWAMIJI:  Then you will be doing the same thing.

Visitor:  Another analogy can be: what happens to the river when it merges in the ocean?