Chapter 20: Nobody Can Expect Consistency from Me
It has never happened in the past for the simple reason that religions have criticized each other, but their criticisms were always half-hearted. They could not go the full length, because to go the full length they would have had to criticize themselves too. A Hindu can criticize a Christian, but only up to a certain limit, because beyond that limit he himself is vulnerable.
For example, one very much respected Hindu saint, Karpatri, happened to travel with me once. We knew each other - he had even written a whole book against me. And he was talking about Jesus Christ’s crucifixion.
He said, “According to Hindu philosophy, a man who is enlightened is finished with all his evil karmas; he cannot be crucified. Crucifixion is possible only if in your past life you have committed a very grave, evil act.”
Within the Hindu framework it looks logical, but I asked him, “Would you like to stretch your logic a little bit more? Do you think Krishna was enlightened?”
He said, “Certainly.” He was not even suspecting where I was leading him to - because Krishna died while he was resting under a tree, and a hunter, by mistake, shot him with an arrow.
I said to him, “It is not a crucifixion, but Krishna dying from a poisoned arrow.. He may not have committed as grave a crime as Jesus Christ in his past life, but he must have committed something; all his karmas are not finished.”
He had never thought about it, that his argument would spoil his own philosophy. So I said, “You should first look into your own home before you start criticizing anybody. I am not protecting Jesus Christ, I am simply making you aware that when you make an argument you should go the whole way, and you should look into your own religion to see whether there is something that goes against your argument. This proves it.”
Religions have been criticizing each other. It is very easy because each religion is based on certain superstitions - of course on different kinds of superstitions, so it becomes easy to criticize the other. But you should be aware that your own religion is based on superstitions, which may be different but they also are illogical, as much as any other religion’s.
It does not matter what form the illogicality takes; a superstition is a superstition. And every religion has, at its base, something that it cannot answer. So they have been arguing, but their argument was always half-hearted.
With me the situation is different. I don’t have anything to protect. I don’t have a religion, I can argue the whole way. They cannot use my argument against me - because I have nothing.
That is their basic difficulty. Because I don’t propose any philosophy, any program, they cannot fight against me. I can fight against all of them without bothering at all that my argument may go against myself, so that I have to stop at a certain limit. There is no question of that, because I don’t have anything - a proposal, a program, a philosophy.