Sophist

 

 

Sophos is a beautiful word -- the sage. Remember, the sage does not mean the saint. The saint is against the sinner; it has a polar opposite to it. The saint is one who is not a sinner; he has chosen to be virtuous, against vice. The sinner is one who has chosen vice against virtue. They are polarities like negative and positive. The saint cannot exist without the sinner; the sinner cannot exist without the saint -- they are partners, they can only co-exist. A world without saints will be a world without sinners too. If you really want sinners to disappear from the world, let the saints disappear first -- and immediately there will be no sinner.

 

The existence of the saint creates the sinner. And the more you respect the saint, the more you condemn the sinner, and the rift goes on becoming bigger and bigger. And the irony is that they exist together, two sides of the same coin. They are not different, their logic is not different -- just their choice is different. One has chosen the night part of life, the other has chosen the day part. But life consists of both day and night; it is neither day alone nor night alone. Both are halves of one whole -- hence both remain in misery.

 

Your sinners are miserable because they go on missing the beauties of virtue, the beauties of the other part that they have chosen not to choose. And your saints are miserable because they have repressed something which cannot be destroyed, which is an absolutely essential part of their being.

 

If you look deep into your saint, you will find a sinner hiding somewhere in his unconscious. And the same is the case with the sinner: look deep, and you will find a saint hiding somewhere in his unconscious. The conscious of the saint is the unconscious of the sinner, and the conscious of the sinner is the unconscious of the saint.

 

The sage is neither this nor that. He is NETI, NETI -- neither this nor that -- he has not chosen. He has accepted his wholeness; he is total, as much day, as much night. He has dropped the constantly choosing ego. He has simply accepted whatsoever is the case. He lives the truth in its utter nakedness, whatsoever it is -- he has no business to interfere in the stream of life.

 

The sage is a tremendously beautiful phenomenon, because of his wholeness. The sage is a perfect circle. He contains all, he rejects nothing. That was the idea of SOPHOS; it was a beautiful word. But it fell from its reputation.

 

It fell because it is a dangerous word too: it can easily be used by the cunning people. Because the sage is whole, he is both, now the sinner can use it. He can say, "I am both. I don't choose -- whatsoever is the case...." Now the sinner can pretend to be a sage. He can say, "Because it is so, this moment I am like this. This is happening -- what can I do? I have dropped choosing. I have accepted life in its totality."

 

Now, the sage is a totally different phenomenon from this cunning person. This cunning person used the word and the word became associated with this cunning mind. It became a camouflage for doing whatsoever you want to do. Deep down there is choice, but you can pretend on the surface that you are not a chooser, and you live in choiceless awareness. It is a very subtle cunningness.

 

So the word Sophos fell from its pedestal and became 'sophist'. The word 'sophist' is ugly -- it means a pretender. It means one who is pretending to be a sage and is not, one who is pretending to be a sage and is not even a saint. He is simply a sinner but has found a beautiful rationalization for remaining a sinner.

 

The murderer can say, "What can I do? -- God intended to murder through me." The thief can say, "What can I do? -- that's how God commanded me. I simply followed." And it will be very difficult to argue with him; he has a beautiful rationalization there.

 

So the SOPHOS fell and became a sophist. And the same happened with SOPHIA: wisdom IS not knowledge, but they look alike. Knowledge only pretends to be wisdom; it is just the opposite of wisdom. Knowledge is always borrowed, and because it is borrowed it is basically untrue.

 

-Osho, "Philosophia Perennis, Vol 1, #6“