ON HIS WORDS
Lao Tzu is innocent, Buddha is innocent, Krishna is innocent, Jesus is innocent. These are not knowledgeable people. Of course what they have said out of their knowing we have changed it into knowledge; what they have said out of their wonder, we have reduced it into philosophy, theology. That is our work; we have destroyed all that was beautiful in it. We have given it a certain shape, a certain pattern and structure. We have interpreted it, commented upon it, dropped many things out of it. And this happens always. Just the other day I received a note from Arup, that Sarjano is translating your book into Italian; but he changes many things. He drops few things, he adds few things from his own knowledge.” Of course he is trying to do some good work, his intention is good! He wants to make it more logical, more intellectual, more sophisticated. And I am a little wild type of man! He wants to trim me here and there. You look at my beard! If Sarjano is allowed he will trim it like Nikolai Lenin, but then it will not be MY beard. He is trying to make it more appealing. There is no doubt about his intentions, but these are the intentions which have always destroyed. When he was told my message that he has to do exactly as it is: “Don’t try to improve upon it. Leave it as it is. Raw, wild, illogical, paradoxical, contradictory, repetitive, whatsoever it is, leave it as it is!” It is so difficult for him. He said, “Then I will not translate. I would rather like cleaning work.” You see how the mind works? He is not ready to listen to me, he would rather like to do cleaning work. Otherwise he has to be allowed to interpolate, to change, to color things according to HIS idea. Now, whatsoever you will do you will do wrong, because what I am saying is from a totally different plane and what you will be doing will be a totally different effort — it won’t belong to MY plane, it won’t belong to MY dimension. It may be scholarly, but I am not a scholar. It may be knowledgeable, but I am not a knowledgeable person.
Knowledgeable people have their own ways. Just small things they will do…
For example, I had said that Saraha is the founder of Tibetan Buddhism. Now, no scholar will say so decisively. Only a madman can say so decisively because you have to give proofs, you have to give footnotes and you have to make a big appendix in which you have to give proofs. I never give any proofs, I never give any footnotes, I never give you any sources from where… I know only one source — the Akashic records!
So just to make it more appealing, more digestible, he had changed it just a little, not much: that “Saraha can be said to be the founder of Tibetan Tantra, Tibetan Buddhism, CAN BE SAID. Now this is a scholarly way, a legal way, but it destroys the whole beauty of it. It destroys its whole certainty, its decisiveness, its hammer-like quality. And hammers are not supposed to be digestible! Sarjano, it is not a spaghetti! He is a good cook and makes beautiful spaghetti. I don’t know anything about spaghetti, but I know Saraha is the founder of Tibetan Buddhism. And I will not give any proof about it — I don’t believe in proofs, I simply KNOW. I know Saraha; it is a personal friendship with Saraha. Even if the historians prove something else, I won’t listen. I won’t pay any attention to them, because I know Saraha.
Osho Tao: The Golden Gate Vol. 2 Chapter Title: Just Joking Around