So really, on the path of surrender, offering is not possible, because offering is really based on will: you offer, you are there. On the path of surrender offering happens, but the surrenderer never knows. He cannot know. He cannot say, “I have offered my mind to the divine.” Really, he cannot speak in terms of acts, he can only speak in terms of happenings. So at the most he can say. “The offering has happened.”
Without a will you cannot have an ego, and without an ego you cannot talk of anything as an act. So “happening” is the phenomenon on the path of surrender. Surrender itself is a happening.
But on the path of will there is a different process. The moment I say “the path of will,” the will is taken for granted. You do something. This is a fact on the path of will, taken for granted. It is never questioned, because those who follow the path of will say that even to question a thing is to accept will. Even to question a thing means the will is there. To question is an act, to answer is an act, to doubt is an act, to say no is an act. So the will cannot be questioned. On the path of will, the will cannot be questioned. That is a basic hypothesis.
On the path of surrender, will-lessness is the basic hypothesis. You cannot question that. So this must be understood: on every path something is a hypothesis. It is bound to be, because you have to begin somewhere and you have to begin in ignorance. Because of these two factors a hypothesis is needed. Even in science you begin with a hypothesis – something assumed which cannot be questioned – and if you question it, the whole edifice falls down.
For example, one of the most accurate, scientific dimensions is geometry, but you begin with a hypothesis. You begin with something taken as an assumption which can neither be proved nor disproved, because only that thing can be disproved which can be proved. So to begin with, you take something in ignorance, in faith. So, really, science is not as scientific as it looks. If you go back to the beginning every science begins with a hypothesis, and if you question the hypothesis, no answer is possible…and this is as it should be, because you cannot begin from nowhere.
Look at it in this way: if I come to a strange city and I ask someone where the person A lives, he may say, “A is a neighbor of B.” But I say, “This is not an answer at all because I do not know B either. So where does B live?” Then he says, “B is a neighbor of C.” But I say, “I am in a strange land. I don’t know anything about C or D or E, so please tell me in such a way that I can understand. Everything is unknown to me, so from where to begin?”
If he says, “D, E, F, G,” they are all hypothetical. So from where to begin? A beginning can only be possible if I assume one thing as known which is not really known, otherwise no answer is possible. This is the situation, this is how we are in this world: everything is unknown, so from where to begin? If you say we must begin with knowledge, then how can you begin? When everything is unknown, how can you begin with something as a known fact? Then you cannot begin. If you begin with an unknown fact, then too you cannot begin.