All history is fictitious. That’s why in the East we have never been bothered by history, we have not written history at all – instead of history we have written myths. If you ask when Rama was born, Hindus cannot answer. Ask Hindus, and you will find as many answers as the persons you ask. Nobody knows, in fact nobody knows exactly whether he was born or not. The fiction is that the story writer who wrote the story of Rama, wrote it before Rama was born: Balmiki wrote it before Rama was born. Look at the Eastern approach. You cannot conceive of it, that the Christian apostles should write the story of Jesus before he was ever born. But Balmiki wrote the story of Rama before he was born and then Rama had to be born to prove that Balmiki was right, otherwise people would laugh at this old man. And he had written so, “So do it!” So he had to do the things that Balmiki had written already. He had prophesied it, it was a prediction, and then Rama followed. Look at the approach: history is thought of as fiction. Only novels are written first, then you can play, you can make a movie out of them.
In the secret traditions of the Essenes it is said that Christ never was, that in fact it was a drama, a Christ drama, that had been played for centuries before Christ was ever born. In fact he was never born, it was just a drama. By and by, people became so much attached to the drama, they started loving the drama so much, that it turned out becoming a reality; it started looking like a fact. That’s why there are so many versions. If you look into the four gospels, all are different, sometimes contradictory. Four persons writing the same story are bound to be different.
The Eastern way of looking at things is that whatsoever is cannot be seen by the eyes. And whatsoever can be seen by the eyes is just a fiction – enjoy while you are seeing it, love it – it is leela, God’s play. So when I am saying things to you, these are not sermons – a sermon is a serious thing – these are just like the songs of the birds. So whatsoever surfaces in me, I tell you; and I am not worried whether it is proved by history or not because history itself is meaningless to me.
The fourth question:
Why has there never been a single woman enlightened master?
A woman cannot be a master – it is not possible. When a woman arrives she becomes a mistress, not a master. The fulfillment of a woman is love. The flowering of a woman is love. Mastery is not the goal of the feminine mind; they don’t become masters, they become mistresses. To be a master is basically a male effort.
Awareness is the way of man, love is the way of woman.
On the path of awareness it is possible to teach; one can become a master. On the path of love, how can you teach love? You can flower, you can bloom in love, but how can you teach it? Yes, if somebody wants to learn from you, he will learn it, but you will not be a master. And such women have existed: Rabiya, Meera, Mallibai, Magdalen, Teresa. Such women have existed: Sahajo, Daya, Lalla. Many women have existed, but they were not masters. They were so surrendered to God that they became Mistresses.
Meera says “I am a mistress to you. My Lord” – a mistress to Krishna, to God himself. She sings the song of the glory of her Lord, she dances. If somebody can catch something from her, it is overflowing; but she cannot be a teacher. She is surrendered, her surrender is absolute. Yes, if you are in her company, you will learn what surrender is…but you will have to learn, she will not teach. A woman cannot be a teacher.