And Jesus also creates many troubles, because Jesus goes into the temple of Jerusalem, becomes very angry, takes a whip, hits the money-changers, turns their boards, throws them out of the temple. Now, a non-violent person cannot be so angry. If Gandhi was asked, he will say, “Go for a fast. Sit in front of the money-changers and do a fast unto death unless they stop money-changing in the temple. That will be the non-violent way to transform their hearts.” But taking a whip in your hand and hitting them and turning their boards and throwing them out of the temple does not seem to be very non-violent.
He never talks about it. He drops the whole matter. He only talks about Beatitudes: “Blessed are the meek for theirs is the kingdom of God.” But Jesus does not seem to be so meek. This man is meek who is turning money-changers’ boards and throwing them out of the temple? Is he meek? Can you call him meek? He is a warrior. He cannot tolerate such nonsense in the temple. He said, “You have polluted the house of my father. Get out from here!”
Gandhi chooses only pieces and then makes a hotchpotch which he calls synthesis of all religions. It never happened. Neither the Mohammedans were convinced with him, nor the Hindus. He could not even convince Hindus – he was a Hindu – and he was murdered by a Hindu. He could not convince Hindus. He could not convince Jainas either, because they continuously believed that Krishna is not a good man.
In Jaina mythology Krishna is thrown into seventh hell for the simple reason because he distracted Arjuna, who was going to renounce war. He forced him, persuaded him, convinced him, seduced him by beautiful logic – silenced him somehow – to fight. And millions of people died. Who is responsible for all this violence, for all this blood? He is responsible – more responsible than Arjuna. Jainas have never forgiven him; not even after Gandhi a single Jaina has written a book in which Krishna is forgiven or accepted. What to say of Krishna? Jainas don’t even agree with Buddhists and their nonviolence, Buddhists don’t agree with the nonviolence of the Jainas. They both are non-violent, but their nonviolences are different.
Jainas say, “Don’t kill. Don’t eat meat.” Buddha has said, “Don’t kill, but meat you can eat if the animal has died on his own accord – then what is wrong in eating the meat of the animal?”
Now that is a big problem between Jainas and the Buddhists. And I think that Jainas are right in a way. Logically Buddha is right, that killing is bad – “Don’t kill animals. They have life, as much life as you have, and they want to live as long as you want to live. Don’t kill them. But when an animal has died, why waste his meat? It can be used as food. Its skin can be used, its meat can be used, its bones can be used. They should be used. Why waste them?” He seems to be very pragmatic; he was a pragmatic man.
But Jainas are also right. They say that once you allow that meat-eating is not bad, then who is going to decide whether the animal has died on his own or not?