The first question:
Who are you and what type of play are you playing with us? And how long will you play? Please explain.
To be frank with you – which usually I am not – I don’t know who I am. Because knowledge is not possible here where I am. There is only the knower left, the known has disappeared; only the container is left, the content is no more.
For knowledge to exist, a great division is needed in reality – the knower and the known. Between the two, knowledge happens. The known is a must for knowledge to happen.
The space I am in is absolutely undivided and indivisible. Knowledge is not possible. So, to be exact, I don’t know.
And I would like you also to come to this innocent ignorance, to this state of not-knowing, because the state of not-knowing is the highest state of knowing – not of knowledge, mind you, but of knowing. And this knowing is contentless – not that you know something, there is nothing to know. You simply are. I am, but I don’t know who. All identities have disappeared, just a tremendous emptiness is left behind.
I call it emptiness because you are full of identities – otherwise it is an absolute presence, not emptiness, not an absence. It is the presence of something which by its very nature is a mystery and cannot be reduced to knowledge.
So I don’t know who I am, but I am tremendously content in this not-knowing. And whosoever has ever come to this door of not-knowing has laughed at all knowledge and the stupidity that goes on in the name of knowledge. Knowledge is mediocre. To be in the state of not-knowing is intelligence, it is awareness – and it is non-accumulative. Each moment that which happens disappears, it leaves no trace behind, no existential trace. One comes out of it again pure, again innocent, again like a child.
So I am a child on the seashore of time, collecting seashells, colored stones. But I am tremendously fulfilled. I know not who I am because I am not. When I say ‘I am not’ I mean that that ‘I’ no longer has any relevance. I use the word – obviously I have to use it and there is nothing in the word to be against it – but it is no longer relevant to my inner world. It is still of use with you, but when I am alone I am not. When I am with you, then this word I has to be used as a communicative device. But when I am alone I am not. Aloneness is there, amness is there, but the I is not. So who should know, and whom?