According to Osho, innocence is the mature flowering of consciousness - a lucid, rebellious not-knowing that has dropped borrowed beliefs and honestly sees, "I know nothing," like Bodhidharma or Socrates. Stupidity is unconscious conditioning: secondhand certainties that never look inward, cling to labels, and serve vested interests. A child is ignorant, not innocent; innocence is awakened ignorance, while stupidity is blind belief and outward judgment.
Innocence means being awake and honest that you don’t know, while stupidity means being asleep in borrowed beliefs and never looking inside.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Beloved master, please could you tell me the difference between innocence and stupidity?
And Karl Marx with a big smile said, "You don't know -- I have found a way. Now there is no need to be worried about earning money. If I smoke one cigarette, so much money is saved in comparison to the older brand; the more I smoke, the more money is saved. So now I am not going to do anything except smoke, because you have always been asking me for money, money, money. Now have as much money as you want!" The wife could not understand how the money could be saved by smoking. But this is an economic theory, it does not correspond to reality. She had to inform his closest friend, Friedrich Engels, "He has gone mad. In his room he is sitting and smoking continuously -- to save money!" Engels came, and he asked, "What is the matter?" Marx said, "Now I can explain to…
Osho, could you say something about what is going on in Delhi?
I’ll tell a little story. When Lanka’s former ruler Ravana was on his deathbed, Rama sent Lakshman to learn statecraft from him—saying, “Son, we may have won, but we have no experience of running the administration here; go and ask him how to run things.” Lakshman went there and said to Ravana, “You are dying now—tell us how to govern here.” Ravana said, “Half the politics I handled, half Kumbhakarna did. Had you gotten in touch with Kumbhakarna as well?” Lakshman said, “Yes—he said: eat to your heart’s content and then sprawl on the sofa with your eyes closed. This is the best method.” “Tell me,” Ravana asked, “are you going to unleash dictatorship, or will you run things by democracy? Which method will be suitable?” “What will go down well with the people?” “Nothing,” said Ravana. “When you impose dictatorship, the people will yearn for democracy; and when you…
What is innocence? Does being innocent require one to live a simple life?
Jaina saints live naked; their requirements are almost nil. Living a naked life in a cave, in a primitive way, they seem to be very nonpossessive. But that is only the appearance. Deep down they are hankering for heaven, deep down they are greedy. Deep down they are thinking that nobody is more humble, more pious than they are. Deep down they think of you as sinners and themselves as saints. This is a very complex situation. This is a fight with themselves. They have divided themselves into two: the higher and the lower. Even in the body they have a division: the higher part and the lower part. Above the sexual organs the body is higher, below the sexual organs it is lower -- as if the body were divided anywhere! These stupid people should know that the body is one. The blood circulates continuously from the feet to…
It is my understanding that you see innocence as the opposite of knowledge -- but what about ignorance? People without knowledge are so often misused by the ones with the knowledge. Please say something about this.
Ignorance is the state which exists before knowledge, innocence is the state which exists after knowledge. Ignorance is pre knowledge, innocence, post knowledge. They appear similar -- they are in a way, and yet totally different. A child is ignorant. When you call a child innocent you are misunderstanding the whole thing. Ignorance looks like innocence because the child does not know, he looks innocent, but he will know, he will taste the bitter fruit of knowledge, he will have to. He is just like Adam in the garden of Paradise -- he will have to be thrown out. He will pass through that, he will sin, he will become corrupted. His innocence is not powerful, it is impotent. It cannot avoid being in knowledge, knowledge will enter, the serpent will seduce him, the world will corrupt him, he will move into the ways of knowledge, into the ways of…
Osho, is the innocence of small children just ignorance, or has it got any value too?
The innocence of the children is ignorance, it is not true innocence. The true innocence happens only after the second birth. The true innocence happens only after you have reached your very core through awareness; that is the second birth, that is resurrection -- you are born anew. The first innocence of a child when it is born is only ignorance, but that ignorance is far more valuable than the knowledge that your so-called learned people are burdened with. So these things have to be remembered. Real innocence belongs to the Buddhas. They have lost their first childhood in knowledge and then they become aware of what they have lost. They have lost the precious, the essential for the non-essential, so they drop their knowledge. Dropping their knowledge they become innocent again. This is second innocence, second birth. In India we call such a person dwija, twice-born. He is a…