By cramming the Oxford Dictionary, one cannot know the English language. Language is a living phenomenon: it comes through dialogue, it comes through contact with living people. The Oxford Dictionary may be marginally helpful, but just the Oxford Dictionary…. He was not able even to make a single sentence, because in the Oxford Dictionary there are only words. He knew the whole language, and still he was not able to make a single sentence.
This is the situation of the scholars: they are afraid of their not knowing; they go on piling up scriptures over their not knowing, covering it up with thick layers of knowledge. But underneath they are as ignorant as ever.
Ignorance has not to be covered, but transformed into innocence. Ignorance has not to become knowledgeability, ignorance has to become a feeling of the mysterious and the miraculous in existence.
This is the way of a religious man. The scholarly man is never religious – cannot be.
Your whole approach is categorically wrong – not in part, but absolutely. You have to understand that insecurity is the very nature of life; there is no way to avoid it. And when there is no way to avoid it, the only wise way is to enjoy it. When it is impossible to avoid it, why go on hitting your head against the wall? Then it is better to transform insecurity into a beautiful experience. In fact, it is that.
Man can never demystify existence, he can never become all-knowing. The desire to become all-knowing is dangerous. In this ambition of becoming all-knowing so that you can be safe, the possibility is that you may collect much information. And in collecting information, you will forget one basic thing: that you have to go through a transformation. Information is not going to help you at all – you need a transformation of your consciousness. By transformation, you will not become a knower, you will become more and more a mystic.
Each and every thing in life, from the smallest grass leaf to the biggest star…it is all mysterious. Neither holy scriptures have any answers for it, nor science has any answers for it, although they both go on proposing hypotheses. Religion tries to propose a hypothesis of God: that he created the world. This is really pitiable; it has nothing to do with authentic religiousness, it is a childish effort to forget your ignorance. Nobody has witnessed any God creating the world. By the very nature of the fact, nobody can be a witness; otherwise the world is already there, somebody is there to witness it.
Man’s stupidity knows no limits. Christianity believes God created the world…but this is not enough: they have to know the exact year, date, day – in detail. And they have calculated – nobody knows how they have come to this calculation because they have not given the process of their calculation – that God created the world four thousand and four years before Jesus was born. Of course, it must have been Monday, and the first of January, because he cannot start in the middle of the year. In fact, wherever and whenever he started, that was the first of January. How can the calendar exist without a world?