| |
pass and he will go around the town and he will not find his condition fulfilled. That is thought to be, by the Jainas, a sign that existence does not want him to take food today.
Strange... then why did he feel hungry? Why did he go in the first place? If existence does not want him to take food today, there should not be any hunger -- why did he go in the first place? If I meet him somewhere I will ask him, "Why did you go? If existence itself does not want it, there will be no hunger and you will not have any urge to go around. You were hungry, it is absolutely certain. You went around the town but you had a strange condition, and that was in your mind. And people are not mind readers; now, don't throw the responsibility on poor people." Sometimes by coincidence it would happen that the conditions were fulfilled, then he would take food. Now, this is a sure way to disturb your whole system of digestion, intestines -- and that's what happened. But he was a very strong man, so he could manage for a long time. But how long can you go against nature? Finally his stomach collapsed.
Now, rather than arguing the point, Buddha simply makes Mahavira a laughingstock, saying that if he is omnipotent then why cannot he cure his stomach, then why does the physician need to be asked? He is omnipotent! He is omniscient -- he must have seen it before it happened because he knows the past, present and future. And Buddha laughs and says, "I have seen Mahavira begging in front of a house in which nobody lives. He knows the past, present, and the future, and he does not know that the house is empty, that there is nobody inside! He has stepped -- in the early morning when it was not light enough to see -- on the tail of a dog; and only when the dog started jumping and barking at him did he come to know. And he is omniscient, he knows the past, present and future -- and he does not know that the dog is just in front of him!"
These are not arguments, these are below Gautam Buddha. But the same is the situation with Mahavira. Mahavira never criticized Buddha for the simple reason that Buddha had no established name yet. He was young, and Mahavira did not bother
|
|
|