THE DHAMMAPADA: THE WAY OF THE BUDDHA, VOL. 9-12 The ...

THE DHAMMAPADA: THE WAY OF THE BUDDHA, VOL. 9-12 179
meditation. The processes are different. In knowledge you have to go into words, into language, into scriptures.
In knowing you have to go within yourself. The processes are not only different but polar opposites. In knowing,
first you have to drop knowledge because that becomes a hindrance. First you have to know that ”I don’t know.”
You have to become innocent.
Jesus says: Unless you are as innocent as small children you will not enter into my kingdom of God.
The clergyman was telling his guests a story when his little girl interrupted.
”Daddy,” she asked, ”is it true or is it mere preaching?”
There is a great difference whether something is true or is just preaching ”mere preaching.”
An old priest had to leave his village one Saturday the day everyone goes to confession. He taught the new
young priest who was taking over his job the necessary basics: ”If a woman steals money from her husband three
’Ave Maria’ and two ’Pater Noster’; if someone commits adultery five ’Ave Maria’ and three ’Pater Noster’; for
those who have been telling lies one ’Ave Maria’ and two ’Pater Noster’, and so on.”
The young priest heard first the confession of a pretty village girl.
”Father, I have committed a sin,” the girl said.
”What have you done-a, my child-a?” asked the priest.
”I have given the boy next door a blow job,” she replied timidly.
The young priest was puzzled because he had not been instructed about such a situation. At that moment,
he saw the old priest passing by, his suitcase in hand, preparing to leave. Quickly he called out to the old man,
”Father, Father, one moment please. There is a young-a girl-a here. What do I give her-a for a blow-a job?”
”Fifty dollars,” replied the old priest.
Knowledge is borrowed; knowing is yours, your own. It is authentic. Knowledge is information, knowing is
transformation.
You ask me, Nicholas, ”You talk about the difference between knowing and knowledge. But to become a master,
do you not have to have knowledge as well as knowing?”
Knowing is enough. To be a master, knowing is enough.
”It seems to me,” you say, ”that you, in your talks, show much knowledge.”
I am not a master because of my knowledge, but in spite of it! I was a professor in the university. I had to
struggle a great deal to get out of my knowledge. Still, something of it goes on lingering around me. Forgive me
for that! But it has nothing to do with being a master.
Jesus had no knowledge; he was more fortunate. He was not a professor in a university, he was just a poor
carpenter’s son. Mohammed was fortunate; he was absolutely illiterate. I was unfortunate. I have suffered a lot
from knowledge. My whole problem was how to get rid of it. That’s why I am so much concerned about you and
I continuously insist on being aware of knowledge don’t become knowledgeable. I am saying it because of my
own experience.
It is easy to renounce wealth, it is easy to renounce power, prestige, because they are outside things. The
greatest problem is to renounce your knowledge because it goes so deep. It becomes almost a part of your being,
it becomes so ingrained. You can escape to the Himalayas the wife, the shop, the power, everything will be left
behind, but not knowledge. It will be there with you wherever you go. It is not a shadow, it is something inside
your skin. It is easy to get out of your skin; it is more difficult to get out of your knowledge. Hence I go on
saying to you: Beware, beware of becoming knowledgeable. And there is a great tendency in the mind to become
knowledgeable because it is very ego-fulfilling.
But one need not be knowledgeable to become a master. If you are already knowledgeable, then put it aside.
Become innocent again so that you can know on your own, and when you have known you can use your knowledge.
It can be used, but only later on. Knowing comes first, then you can use your knowledge, but your use of knowledge
will be totally different from the use of the scholars.
That’s why my interpretation of Jesus, Buddha, Mahavira, is totally different from the interpretations of
scholars. It is bound to be so. Their interpretations are verbal, they are only logical interpretations. They are
great argumentators, clever in hairsplitting.
My interpretations are not argumentative, are not intellectual. My interpretations are paradoxical. If you are
against me you can call them anti-intellectual; if you love me you can call them supra-intellectual. It depends
on you. If you are against me, they are irrational; if you are in love with me, they are suprarational. If you are
against me, they are self-contradictory; if you love me they are mysterious, paradoxical.
And when I say anything I am not concerned whether I am being true to Buddha or not. My concern is
whether I am being true to myself or not. If I am true to myself I know that I must be true to Buddha; it can’t