You don’t understand what you are saying: “as the master” – because the master exists only with the disciple. The master cannot exist without the disciple. I am a master only to those who are disciples. For others I am a teacher, not a master. You are confused about these two words. You can like my discourses; then I am a teacher. You can like my person; then I am a teacher. When you start feeling in absurd love with me, discourses or not…. Because one day I may stop talking. Then? And that can happen any day. Then those who are in love with me will be here, and those who were only here for words will be gone. They will say, “Now what is the point?” I am a teacher to them, not a master. When I have become silent, then those who love me – not for any reason at all – only they will be able to stay with me. All those who stay for certain reasons will be gone.
A teacher is one from whom you get knowledge. He teaches you, hence he is the teacher. The master is one who destroys your knowledge; the function is totally opposite. The master is one who helps you to unlearn. He does not give you learning, more learning; he starts shattering all that you have gathered in the past. He goes on hammering on the head. Slowly, slowly the rock of the head is turned into sand – it disappears. The master exists only for the disciple; it is a relative phenomenon.
I am a master only f you are a disciple. Only then do you know what it means.
So your use of the word master is simply out of confusion. You are saying that you love me as a teacher – but I am not a teacher! I am against all teaching! The work that is being done here is against all teachers. It is not against the masters, but it is against the teachers. The teacher goes on teaching you something that he himself knows not. The teacher himself is just carrying borrowed knowledge. And if you are alert enough, you can see; you can easily see who is a teacher and who is a master.
The teacher talks out of the memory. It has no depth, it does not come from his heart, it does not arise from his being. It is just an accumulation in his biocomputer called “the mind.” Machines can do that. Sooner or later computers will be doing it and they will prove far better teachers than any human beings, because they will be far more efficient, quick, infallible – but no computer can ever be a master. Teachers will be replaced by computers, but buddhas cannot be replaced by computers, because the teacher simply goes on giving that which has been given to him. First you have to feed the teacher just like you feed the computer. The knowledge has to be put inside the memory of the teacher, then he starts giving it back to you.