Tao The Golden Gate Vol 2 04

Fourth Discourse from the series of 10 discourses - Tao The Golden Gate Vol 2 by Osho.
You can listen, download or read all of these discourses on oshoworld.com.

The first question:
Could you say something about innocence and ignorance?
The difference between the two is immense; it is as vast as possible. It is the difference between darkness and light, the difference between death and life, the difference between unconsciousness and consciousness, the difference between hell and heaven.
Ignorance is darkness. It is a state of total negativity; it is a state of knowledge – the lowest state of knowledge, the zero state of knowledge. But it is not different from the knowledgeable mind; they belong to the same category. The ignorant person and the knowledgeable person are not qualitatively different, only quantitatively different. The difference is that of degrees: the knowledgeable person knows more, the ignorant person knows less. And you can be knowledgeable in comparison to one person and ignorant in comparison to another. Hence it is a question of relativity.
Even the most ignorant person may be knowledgeable in comparison to somebody else, or even the most knowledgeable person may be ignorant except in his own expertise. The mathematician is ignorant as far as physics is concerned, the physicist is ignorant as far as chemistry is concerned, the chemist is ignorant as far as mathematics is concerned and so on, so forth. All experts are knowledgeable only in one direction and in all other directions they are utterly ignorant.
That’s why a very strange phenomenon is well known: that the people who are very logical, very argumentative, rational in their particular field, prove to be very gullible in other fields. You may find a great scientist believing in Satya Sai Baba. It looks absurd, but it is not so absurd. Deep down that great scientist knows nothing of religion. He is as ignorant or even more ignorant than an ordinary person. The ordinary person knows much more about religion than the great scientist. The great scientist has poured his whole energy into one concentrated field, excluding everything else.
You can deceive a scientist very easily; it will not be so easy to deceive a farmer. The farmer is not a great logician but he knows many things. He is not an expert in any specialized field, but his general knowledge is far bigger, vaster than the expert. Many great scientists fall victim to all kinds of superstitions.

I have heard the story of a Nobel Prize winning scientist who was hanging a horseshoe behind a chair in his study. Another scientist had come to visit him and he could not believe his eyes, because it is believed by only the ignorant masses that keeping a horseshoe hanging in your room is very good. It protects you; it is a kind of supernatural protection. The visiting friend asked the scientist, “I cannot believe my eyes! You are a Nobel Prize winning scientist; do you still believe in this nonsense, in this superstition that a horseshoe is protective?”
The Nobel laureate laughed. He said, “No, not at all – this is all nonsense. I never believe in such stupidity!”
The friend was even more puzzled. “Then why you are hanging this ugly horseshoe behind your chair?”
The scientist said, “But the person who has given it to me said whether you believe in it or not, it protects you all the same!”

It is defined that science is an effort to know more and more about less and less. That’s exactly what specialization is. If you follow this logic, then the ultimate science will be to know all about nothing; that will be the logical conclusion. If science is knowing more and more about less and less, then where it will end? It will end in knowing all about nothing.
Scientists are very gullible people, and the priests and the so-called saints exploit this opportunity very much. And then they brag, “Look, such a great scientist is my follower!” In fact, it is not the scientist who is his follower, it is the remaining part in him which is not a scientist, and which is far bigger than the scientist. Only a small fragment of his being has become scientific – maybe just one percent of his being – ninety-nine percent is as stupid or even more than the ordinary people, because the ordinary people don’t know more and more about less and less; they know something about everything. You cannot exploit them so easily.
Ignorance simply means that you are missing knowlegeability. A little education and your ignorance can become knowledge. Just a little conditioning, schooling, and your ignorance can be changed into knowledge. There is no difference between ignorance and knowledge; they are interchangeable.
But innocence is a totally different phenomenon. It has nothing to do with knowledge and nothing to do with ignorance either. It is a state of total freedom – from both ignorance and knowledge. It is a state of wonder. It is a very positive state of tremendous awe. When you are full of wonder and awe; when your heart starts throbbing with each beautiful moment that passes by – with the roses, with the marigolds, with the lotuses, with the stars, with the sun, with the moon, with people, with rivers, mountains.
When you can experience and feel the mystery of life, when you are so sensitive, so vulnerable, so open that the miraculous can penetrate to the very core of your being, then you are innocent.
The knowledgeable cannot be innocent. His wonder dies because of his idea that he knows. All his answers are borrowed. All that he knows he really does not know, but he carries all kinds of answers, ready-made answers. Because of those ready-made answers nothing surprises him, nothing at all. He can go on amid this beautiful existence without feeling any joy, any surprise, any wonder, any thrill, any excitement, any ecstasy. He is almost deaf. He cannot hear the music of the birds singing in the morning, he cannot hear the music of the wind passing through the pine trees. He cannot see the life of the trees, of the grass. He cannot see the beauty of a bird on the wing in the silent infinite sky. He walks without ever experiencing the splendor of the stars. He remains blind. He knows no poetry. His approach toward life is completely blocked by his acquired knowledge, by his accumulated answers. He has a ready-made answer for everything. Before a question arises, the answer is already there; even before the question, the answer is already there. The knowledgeable person never listens to the question. He never tries to go deep into the question itself. He hears the question and a process of many answers is triggered in him and he starts answering.
But the man of innocence has no answers. He listens to life in silence. He listens, he sees, he tastes, he smells, he touches. He is very alive. The knowledgeable person is dead, completely closed. He lives in his own grave, that’s why he drags. He has to carry such a burden.
The man of innocence dances; he does not even walk. He is very light. And each small thing fills him with the presence of the mysterious. A butterfly and all its colors, a rainbow in the sky, is enough to throw him into deep meditativeness. He knows no answer, he can only watch the rainbow. He has nothing to say, he can only see – his seeing is clear – he can only hear.

I used to know a very knowledgeable man when I was a child. He used to stay with my family once in a while. He was a great scholar; interested in all kinds of details. For example he knew the names of all possible trees. He used to take me for a morning walk and he would tell me the name of each tree. I have never come across a man who knows the names of all the trees, small shrubs, bushes, all kinds of plants; not only the names – their history, from where they come, what country is their original place.
But one thing I became aware of: he never looked at the trees; he could not. Seeing a rose he would immediately say, “This rose has come from Iran. The Indian word for rose is gulab. The word rose is of Persian origin. That means the flower has come from Persia; it is not of Indian origin. There is no Sanskrit word for gulab – naturally, the flower never existed in India in the Vedic age. It must have come later on. Who brought it first? How did it come?” And he would go on and on; he wouldn’t look at the rose. And he was thinking that he was teaching me.
I told him, “You are destroying something tremendously beautiful in me. Please stop all this nonsense!”
He said, “What do you mean? Is this nonsense? I have acquired it through my whole life!”
I said, “You have wasted your life because you don’t allow me to see any tree, any plant, any flower. If this is going to be so then I am not coming with you tomorrow. You go alone and you can say to yourself whatsoever you want to say. I am not going to be a part of this stupid dialogue. I am perfectly happy with the rose, I don’t want to know from where it has come. Who cares? I am not interested in its origins. I am not interested in the word. What does it matter whether it has come from Persia or not? The rose is not interested so why should I be interested? The rose is enjoying the morning sun, dancing in the morning breeze – and you are talking about Persia and language and grammar and how the word has come into use and when it started for the first time in Indian literature, when it entered Indian books for the first time. If you want me to accompany you, then you have to keep completely silent.”
And he certainly wanted me to accompany him because he was not acquainted with the territory of my town: the roads, streets and ways that lead you out of the town. And he wanted to go every day toward a new direction.
I said, “If you want to keep my company then you have to be silent; if you don’t want my company then you can keep your knowledge. Then whatsoever you want to do you can do – neither I care about it nor the roses care about it.”
He was very shocked. He told my father, “Your son seems to be against knowledge and this is not a good sign. He should be interested in knowledge. This is the time when one should learn.”
My father said, “He is a little difficult child and I knew before that some difficulty would arise when you are taking him for a morning walk.”
And he said, “He has given me an ultimatum: either I have to keep quiet or he is not going to come with me.”
My father told him, “When he says something he means it! You decide.”
He knew all the names of all the birds and he was trying to show his knowledge. I said, “Stop all this exhibitionism!”
But he said, “Whenever I go to other places and I talk to other people, they all appreciate how much I know.”
I said, “They are just as stupid as you are! But I am not stupid. I am not interested in the names of the birds. I want to enjoy their beauty, of course. I want to see them on the wing, in the wind, moving toward the sun. What tremendous joy! What freedom! If I had wings I would have followed them. But I cannot follow you – you will destroy me.”
It was very difficult for him to keep silent, but he had to keep silent because there was nobody else to take him, nobody else who was so acquainted with the territory around the town. I was acquainted with every inch of the whole territory because I was always roaming around, missing from school. I knew all the hillocks and I had followed the river as far away as possible. I had gone to all the surrounding mountains. I was the best guide for him. Even in the night I could have taken any direction, to anywhere. But I said, “You have to keep the promise: keep completely silent.”
After two days he said, “This is too much! Many times I want to say something to you because you are ignorant!”
I said, “Leave me as I am. I may look ignorant to you; I am not ignorant because I am not hankering for knowledge. If I am hankering for knowledge then I am ignorant. I am not hankering for knowledge; I don’t care a bit about knowledge. I am perfectly happy with my innocence and I want to leave it intact.”

Innocence is a positive state of wonder, of awe. No society allows innocence because the society needs knowledge, it depends on knowledge. And I can understand that knowledgeable people will be needed; the whole technology, science, everything depends on them. So it is okay to be knowledgeable when you are working, but leave it there. Don’t carry it around twenty-four hours. People are carrying for twenty-four hours things which should not be carried for twenty-four hours.
When you are a doctor, be a doctor. But when you leave your hospital, forget all about medicine, forget all about what you know, forget all about your MDs and FRCS and everything. Just be innocent so that you can again be in that tremendously beautiful state of childlikeness.
Jesus says, “Blessed are those who are like small children for theirs is the Kingdom of God.”
Never for a moment get confused between innocence and ignorance. Many times they appear to be the same but they are not the same; they can never be the same. Innocence is a state of meditativeness. When you are silent, aware, open, in contact with the whole, in tune with Tao, then you are innocent.
Lao Tzu is innocent, Buddha is innocent, Krishna is innocent, Jesus is innocent. These are not knowledgeable people. Of course what they have said out of their knowing we have changed into knowledge; what they have said out of their wonder, we have reduced it to philosophy, theology. That is our work. We have destroyed all that was beautiful in it. We have given it a certain shape, a certain pattern and structure. We have interpreted it, commented upon it, dropped many things out of it. And this always happens.
Just the other day I received a note from Arup, that “Sarjano is translating your books into Italian, but he changes many things. He drops a few things, he adds a few things from his own knowledge.”
Of course he is trying to do some good work, his intention is good. He wants to make it more logical, more intellectual, more sophisticated. And I am the type of man who is a little bit wild! He wants to trim me here and there. Look at my beard – if Sarjano is allowed he will trim it like Nikolai Lenin, but then it will not be my beard. He is trying to make it more appealing. There is no doubt about his intentions, but these are the intentions which have always destroyed.
When he was told my message that he has to do exactly as it is: “Don’t try to improve upon it. Leave it as it is. Raw, wild, illogical, paradoxical, contradictory, repetitive, whatsoever it is, leave it as it is!” it was so difficult for him. He said, “Then I will not translate. I would rather like cleaning work.”
You see how the mind works? He is not ready to listen to me, he would rather like to do cleaning work. Otherwise he has to be allowed to interpolate, to change, to color things according to his idea.
Now, whatsoever you will do will be wrong because what I am saying is from a totally different plane and what you will be doing will be a totally different effort – it won’t belong to my plane, it won’t belong to my dimension. It may be scholarly, but I am not a scholar. It may be knowledgeable, but I am not a knowledgeable person.
Knowledgeable people have their own ways. Just small things they will do…
For example, I had said that Saraha is the founder of Tibetan Buddhism; no scholar will say this so decisively. Only a madman can say this so decisively because you have to give proof. You have to give footnotes and you have to make a big appendix in which you have to give proof. I never give any proof, I never give any footnotes, I never give you any sources from where… I know only one source – the Akashic records!
So just to make it more appealing, more digestible, he had changed it just a little, not much, to “Saraha can be said to be the founder of Tibetan Buddhism”. Now using “can be said” is a scholarly way, a legal way, but it destroys the whole beauty of it. It destroys its whole certainty, its decisiveness, its hammer-like quality. And hammers are not supposed to be digestible!
Sarjano, it is not a spaghetti! He is a good cook and makes beautiful spaghetti. I don’t know anything about spaghetti, but I know Saraha is the founder of Tibetan Buddhism. And I will not give any proof about it – I don’t believe in proof, I simply know. I know Saraha; it is a personal friendship with Saraha. Even if the historians prove something else, I won’t listen. I won’t pay any attention to them because I know Saraha.
Just the other day I was reading a beautiful report of the Protestant Church in Germany – again they have published a report about me! Now, it seems the man who has written the report on me and my work has become very confused, has also fallen in some kind of love with me. Now he is wavering. He cannot refute me totally – seems to be a man of some sensibility – he cannot say that I am utterly wrong, so he has found a middle way. He supports me on everything except Jesus. And he says about Jesus that whatsoever I am saying looks appealing, but it does not come from Christian sources.
Who cares about Christian sources? Burn them all! I am interested in Christ, I am not interested in Christian sources. I know Christ directly. And when I say I know Christ or Buddha or Saraha directly, I simply mean that I know that state of being. I know Christ can only say this because from such a state of samadhi no other statement is possible. This is something inner which needs no proof; it is intuitive. My certainty arises within me. Whether Jesus said it or not is not the question at all. When I quote Jesus… He says I interpret Jesus beautifully but my interpretations are very alien to Christian theology. They are bound to be: Christ himself is very alien to Christian theology – what can I do about it?
If Christ comes back, he will not be able to recognize Christian theologians. He will not be able at all to understand what this fuss is all about. He was a simple man making simple statements, very direct, immediate. And these people are creating great sophistication around it. For two thousand years they have been going round and round.
But the man who has written it – he is a PhD, a DD, and the most important expert in the whole of Germany on Protestant theology, but the way he has written the report… He has fallen in love with me. Although he is supposed to refute me, he goes on supporting me in many ways. Of course there is one thing he has to do to keep his salary intact and his profession, otherwise he will be thrown out of the church immediately, so he says everything is okay except what I say about Jesus. And the reason he gives is that it does not seem to come from Christian sources.
But Jesus never came from Christian sources! There were no Christian sources when Jesus was here. He was in contact with strange people; those people were not Christians. He was in contact with Essenes; they were great mystics. He traveled all over Asia, he traveled to India, to Tibet, to become acquainted with the Eastern approach.
Buddha was still very much alive in the air – it was just five hundred years earlier that Buddha had died. And Buddha had said that, “My religion will remain alive for five hundred years.” It was still alive; the last flames were dying. He must have felt the warmth. Jesus must have contacted Buddhist mystics.
He went to Egypt in search of secret mysteries. That’s why Christian sources completely miss many years of his life. They talk about him when he was twelve years old and then suddenly they start talking about when he was thirty years old. And what happened in between? Between the ages of twelve and thirty there is a long distance, and in a life which lasted only thirty-three years it is almost the whole life. Christian sources give no reference to it, but there are other sources.
In Ladakh there are two-thousand-year-old Buddhist scriptures which talk about the visit of Jesus Christ. And they describe the man far more accurately because the people who wrote those things were mystics themselves.
But this has always happened. Innocence will always be interpreted by knowledgeable people and will be destroyed – and with all good wishes, with all good intentions they will do a great harm. They have always done that.
Remember, I am not telling you to remain ignorant; I am telling you to get rid of both ignorance and knowledge. They are not different – two sides of the same coin. Throw the whole coin, and then you are innocent.

The second question:
What is ambition? To live without ambition seems frightening, like starting a new life up from the beginning.
Ambition is the greatest poison there is. It brings all the other poisons: greed, violence, competitiveness, struggle, a constant state of war with everybody else. It does not allow you any space for love to grow and your real being flowers only with love. Ambition is against love. Anything that is against love is against you and your real life, your real destiny. And nothing kills love more than ambitiousness.
Ambition means you want to be ahead of others. Ambition depends on creating an inferiority complex in you. It creates an ill state of affairs; it depends on that. Unless an inferiority complex starts existing in you, unless you are full of it, ambition cannot function.
So each child has to be wounded in such a way that he starts feeling a deep inferiority: that others are superior and he has to surpass them, otherwise he is nobody. Each child is taught to create a name in the world, fame in the world. Each child is told, “The way you are is not right. You have to prove your mettle, you have to become ‘somebody’ – as if you are not anybody yet!”
You are born with a certain flavor of your own, with a uniqueness, with an individuality. Nobody else is like you – nobody else has ever been like you – and nobody else will ever be like you. But this truth is never told to you. You are told, “Become somebody,” as if you are nothing. So you have to become, you have to compete to become. And of course then the struggle starts because everybody is told to become somebody, everybody is told to become the president or the prime minister. Now, how many people can be presidents and prime ministers? Then naturally there arises a cut-throat competition. Everybody is against everybody else. Life becomes a war, a constant war. In this state there is no possibility of peace, love, silence, joy, celebration. All is lost.

John Lennon, in one of his creative moods, was sitting alone in his room strumming his guitar. While doing this he saw a beetle scuttle across the floor.
“Hello, little beetle,” said John, “I named my group after you.”
The beetle stopped, turned around and said, “You called your group Eric?”

That was his name. You think only man is competitive? Even beetles are!
This competitiveness in individuals becomes competitiveness on many planes, on many levels. Societies compete with each other, nations compete with each other. Everybody is trying that “I am superior to you” and naturally nobody will allow that “You are superior to me” – it hurts.
Hence so many wars. In three thousand years there have been five thousand wars. If somebody comes from some other planet and looks at us and our history, he will think that this earth is a madhouse. Five thousand wars in three thousand years! What we have been doing except fighting? Seventy percent of our energies go into war; we could have transformed the whole earth into a paradise and we have made a hell of it.
But there is competitiveness about everything.

The NATO forces were on maneuvers in Europe and each country had a separate camp in close proximity to each other.
One day the British camp received a message from the American camp which read: “Please send three dozen condoms, as we have run out of stock. Size: twelve inches long by three inches thick.”
The message was taken to the Commanding Officer who did not know what to do with it, so he sent for the Intelligence Officer. “Matter of prestige, old man,” said the Commanding officer. “Have to do something!”
The Intelligence Officer returned within the hour. “All taken care of, sir. The motor workshop is making something out of old inner tubes and the silk-screen department is going to do the final touches.”
“What are the final touches?” asked the Commanding officer.
“Well, sir,” said the Intelligence officer, “on the package will be printed: ‘Condoms, Made in England, Size – Medium.’”

This stupidity, about everything! But we are brought up in this way; our whole educational system depends on this foundation – and we think we are creating intelligence. If this stupidity is the foundation of our educational system, how can we create intelligence out of it? We can destroy intelligence, but we cannot create intelligence out of it.
An intelligent person is one who comes to see that there is no need to compete at all. “I am myself, you are yourself. I need not be you, you need not be me.” A rose is a rose is a rose; it need not be a lotus. The lotus need not become anxious, worried about becoming a roseflower.
The whole of nature is in deep peace for the simple reason that competition has not poisoned it. There is no competition at all. The biggest cedar of Lebanon has no ego like “I am bigger than others.” Just a small rosebush has no inferiority complex that “I am so small.” Nothing of superiority, nothing of inferiority, but each is unique. This stupidity has entered only human consciousness – human consciousness is being conditioned for it.
You ask me, “What is ambition?” It is a feverish state, it is an insane state. It is not healthy. You say, “To live without ambition seems frightening…” Of course because you have lived with ambition for so long, it has become your very lifestyle. You have become identified with it; you don’t know any other way of living. To drop it feels as if you are dying.
And in fact that’s what has to be done by a sannyasin: he has to die in many ways before he can be reborn. And this is a must: that you should die as an ambitious person, you should die as an ambitious mind completely, totally. Not even a trace of ambition should be left in you because even if a small trace is there, it will start growing again. It is like a root: it will again sprout, again leaves will grow, again there will be foliage. It has to be completely thrown out of your being.
Yes, it feels difficult, very arduous, almost impossible in the beginning because we don’t know any other way to live.
People ask me, “If we drop competitiveness, if we drop ambitiousness, then how we will grow?” and trees are growing and animals are growing, and the whole existence is moving and growing – just you cannot grow without ambitiousness.
And what has happened with ambitiousness? Have you grown? Something wrong has grown in you; something like cancer in your being has grown. Yes, that cancer will not grow anymore. If you drop all ambition, then a totally new process sets in: your natural growth takes over. Then you are not competing with others. You are simply evolving each moment within yourself, not comparing. If you are playing music and it is beautiful in this moment, the next moment it will be more beautiful because out of this moment the next moment is going to be born – from where else will it come? – next moment you will have a deeper music arising, and so on, so forth. You need not be competitive with other musicians. In fact, if you are competitive with other musicians your inner music will never grow. You may learn more tricks, strategies, techniques to defeat them, to go ahead of them by right or wrong means – because competitiveness is so blind it does not bother at all what is right and what is wrong.
Competitiveness believes that whatsoever succeeds is right and whatsoever fails is wrong. That is the only criterion for an ambitious mind: the end makes the means right. For a noncompetitive mind there is no question about thinking of others; you simply continue growing on your own. Your roots go deeper into Tao, into nature. Not that other trees have reached deeper so you also have to reach – you reach deeper for your own nourishment, you reach deeper for your own enrichment, you reach deeper because your branches can go higher. The deeper the roots go, the higher the branches reach. But it has nothing to do with others; the others are accepted as they are. Nobody takes any note of others.
It is certainly starting a new life up from the very beginning. That’s why Christ says, “Unless you are born again you shall not enter my Kingdom of God.” A rebirth is needed.

A championship is held to see who has the largest prick in the world. The theater is filled with people and the gays are screaming with excitement. Up in front sit the judges.
First a Russian comes on stage. He is enormous and the applause is loud. The judges measure him and there is more applause.
Next a black man comes on stage. He is huge and loud applause sounds through the theater.
Then an Italian and a Japanese come forward. Both are measured and receive standing ovations.
The excitement of the crowd is mounting when a dwarf suddenly appears on stage. Everyone whistles and yells for him to leave. But the dwarf raises one arm in the air and asks for silence. Then when all is quiet, he opens his fly and takes out a turtle, shouting, “Just a minute folks, this is just a crab!”

The third question:
What do you mean by “live in danger”? Should man not be careful for the future? Please explain it.
To live in danger simply means not to cling to the past because the past gives you a certain kind of security – because it is familiar and well-known. Maybe it is all misery, all anguish, but still because it is known and you have lived through it for so long, you are well acquainted with it. You know the ups and downs and you have become accustomed to it. In fact, you have become adjusted to it and now there are no more surprises in it. It gives you a certain comfortable, convenient, cozy feeling. It may be dirty, it may be enclosed like a prison, but still it feels like your home because you have lived so long in it. Even prison cells become people’s homes.
I used to visit prisons; a governor of one of the states in India was my friend so he allowed me to visit all the prisons in that state. I used to go to the prisons and I was surprised to see that people were perfectly happy. In fact, they started becoming worried when their time for release was coming closer because the outside world looked so alien. Somebody has lived for fifteen years in the prison; now, for fifteen years he had no worries about food, shelter, no problems of any kind. He was taken care of. Now he will have to look for a job again, whether he will get it or not is uncertain. Outside the gate is unknown. Once he is outside the gate he will be thrown into an unknown world. Fifteen years is a long time.
I asked many prisoners, “Why do you come back again and again? Have you not learned the lesson that you should not do such things again?”
They said, “In fact, we have learned the lesson. Inside there is so much security and outside so much insecurity – unemployment, poverty, starvation and all kinds of problems. And once you have been released from prison, your problems increase because nobody wants a thief as a servant. People ask, ‘Why you have been sent to jail?’ People ask, ‘Bring certificates, character certificates.’ From where can we get character certificates? For fifteen years we have been in jail! We can get a character certificate from the jailer that ‘This man behaved well, did nothing wrong,’ but that will be from a jailer and that is enough proof that nobody is going to give us employment, nobody is going to trust us. Outside the prison there are only vast unknown faces, so the only alternative is to do something again so that we are sent back to the jail.”
Our whole system of punishment is stupid; it is utterly nonpsychological. Any person who goes to the prison once is bound to come back again and again and again. He creates friendship there, his friends are there, his room is there, his place is there. Even in prisoners a certain hierarchy arises: there are people who are important and there are people who are not so important and there are people who are just nobodies. And it is a small compact world. There are heroes: people talk about, “This man has murdered seven people and you have murdered only one, just one? And you brag so much? And somebody has been stealing for years, and you did your first theft and were caught? What kind of thief are you?” There are master thieves; people start learning from the knowledgeable people, and when they come out they use their knowledge.
When I say to live in danger, I mean always remain prepared to move into the unknown. It does not mean that you should not be careful for the future, but the best care that you can take about the future is to first get rid of the past. It is the past that does not allow you to take care of the future. It is the past that goes on repeating itself mechanically and you cannot improve upon your future. If you drop the past completely, your future will be totally different and you will start growing. That is the first care you should take.
The second care that can be taken is to live in the present as totally as possible because it is out of the present that the future grows. And you never bother about the present; you think only of the future. You constantly think of the future. Either you think of the past or you think of the future, and both are foolish. Live in the present. That’s what I mean when I say live dangerously.
I have come across a story. Somebody like you must have invented it because there is no reference about it anywhere – neither in Christian sources nor in non-Christian sources.

Two women are crying and weeping under Jesus’ cross. One says to the other, “I would give everything to be able to take the nail out of his hand!”
After a few minutes, the other replies, “Yes, me too. I would give everything to be able to take the nail out of his hand!”
Jesus looks down and mumbles to himself, “Damn! Those two bitches want me to fall off the cross!”

You become even adjusted to your cross. You don’t even want to fall off your cross. Being on your cross even becomes cozy, comfortable – it is your cross. You start worshipping it, you start bragging about it.
Just watch people, listen to their stories. They are all bragging about their miseries. They go on magnifying their miseries, exaggerating their miseries, as if they are not satisfied with the small miseries that they are suffering; they want bigger ones. They have become adjusted to their cross.
I am telling you: leave your cross behind. Jesus says, “Carry your cross on your own shoulders.” I say drop it, why carry it? Forget all about it! And how can you dance if you are carrying a cross on your shoulders? No wonder Christians say Jesus never laughed. How can you laugh when you are carrying a cross on your shoulders? You can only weep, you cannot laugh.
When I say live dangerously, I say don’t become adjusted to that which is dead because if you become adjusted to that which is dead, you will be dead. Remain alive, moving, growing, flowing, going into the unknown every moment, facing the unknown whatsoever it brings. There is no other way to grow, and even if sometimes it is painful – and it is painful sometimes, it is rough sometimes, it is very rough sometimes, but out of this pain is born great ecstasy. That is the price we pay for the ecstasy.

The fourth question:
After yesterday's discourse a couple of women came up to me and asked if we could get together and tell jokes. I had to say no, that I only joke with one person and that I am not joking around. What to do?
That’s a beautiful use of the word joke; it reminded me of a joke.

A young man is driving with his girlfriend on a lonely road and one tire gets punctured. So they jacked and jacked and jacked – and then went out to change the tire.

You are using “joke” in the same sense as “they jacked and jacked and jacked” – inside the car! It is good finding new meanings to old words, but you seem to be a little old-fashioned.
If you joke only with one person then for how long can you keep joking? You will get bored. And think of the other person too: he or she will also get bored. A little bit of joking around is not bad! It keeps the water flowing. And joking is not a one-way affair. When you joke with somebody, somebody jokes with you; you can’t go on joking alone. Or do you think you can do that? That you simply lie down and “I will joke alone.” You will look very silly. The other has to joke also. So instead of just listening to each other’s old jokes it is better to joke around a little so you both will learn a few new jokes. Then come back to the girlfriend or boyfriend and joke in a new way and they will be thrilled! And by that time they must have joked somewhere else, so they will bring some new jokes. And remember, each person jokes in his own way.
Don’t be so old-fashioned – and not in my commune!

It was Easter time and the rooster was curious, hearing all the people talking about Easter eggs.
When the day came he walked into the house to take a look at the famous eggs. To his shock, he saw blue eggs, yellow eggs, green eggs, and a red egg.
Without stopping to think, he went back outside and beat up the peacock!

Now don’t be that kind of traditional rooster! It is good to have all kinds of eggs, all colors, multicolors. Then life is more like a rainbow. Otherwise it becomes a drag and dull.
And joking with one person has created monotony – people call it “monogamy.” And then slowly, slowly they stop joking because what is the point? The same jokes again and again… And the women are very sensitive; the moment you want to joke with them they say they have a headache, or the child is growing teeth and the whole day they have been tired, or the cook has left, or the servant has not turned up, or there has been no electricity in the house the whole day. There are a thousand-and-one problems. Simply the woman is saying, “Please, no more of these jokes. Enough is enough!” She knows you, that you will again joke the same old joke.

A stranger walks into the local pub. The bartender welcomes him and says, “Well, sir, a pint of beer? Or do you prefer a whisky? You are my guest – it is on the house.”
“No, thank you,” replies the stranger. “I don’t drink alcohol. I tried it once and it makes me feel dizzy.”
“Well then, I am sure you will enjoy one of my best cigars,” the cheerful bartender says, offering him the cigar.
“No, thank you. I don’t smoke. I tried it once and it makes me feel sick.”
The bartender, still smiling, continues, “Well, come on then, let us play some poker!”
“No, thank you. I don’t play poker. I tried it once and lost my money,” is the stranger’s dry reply.
At this moment a young man walks into the bar and sits next to the stranger. The stranger turns to the bartender and says, “May I introduce you to my son?”
“Hello,” says the bartender, “I presume that you are his only child are you not?”

Become a little more contemporary. You are living at least two thousand years back. And don’t think this is the way you will ever get into paradise – paradise has completely changed meanwhile; it is utterly modern. You will look like a fool there, you will look so out-of-date. You will not fit. If you cannot fit here with my commune, which is simply representative of paradise on the earth… We are just trying to rehearse for paradise!

Four women arrive in paradise; three of them are English and one is Italian. Saint Peter asks the first one, “Have you been an honest woman?”
“Oh yes, sir,” she replies. “I have been honest all my life.”
So Saint Peter tells an angel, “Take this woman into the pink room!”
The same thing happens to the other two women: they are both sent to the pink room.
Then Saint Peter asks the Italian one, “And you, have you been honest?”
“I never did-a any harm-a to anyone, Peter!” she replies. “I could-a say I was-a honest. I loved love, I loved love more than anything-a else!”
Says Saint Peter to the angel, “Take this one to my room!”

Enough for today.

Spread the love