A Buddha is not defined by his personality. He is defined by the ultimate state of his being, which is beyond personality. And when a Buddha speaks, he does not speak like a person. He speaks through his ultimate awareness. In fact to say that he speaks is not good, not right. There is nobody to speak, there is no self in him to speak. And in fact he has nothing to say. He simply responds. Just as if you go and start singing in a valley the valley responds. The valley simply echoes you.
When you come to a Buddha, he simply mirrors you. Whatsoever he speaks is just a reflection. It is an answer to you, but he has nothing to say himself. If another Buddha comes to him, they both will remain absolutely silent, two mirrors facing each other... nothing will be reflected. The mirrors will reflect each other, but nothing will be reflected. Two mirrors -- just think of two mirrors facing each other. If Christ comes to see Buddha, or Buddha somewhere on the roads of life comes across Lao Tzu, they will be absolutely silent -- there will be no echo.
So when Buddha is speaking, remember it. He is not saying anything in particular. He is simply reflecting the people. That's why a Buddha can never be very consistent. A philosopher can be very consistent. He has something to say. He remembers it, he clings with it, he never says anything that goes against it... he manages. A Buddha is bound to be contradictory because each time somebody faces him, something else will arise. It will depend on the person who faces him.
It is just like a mirror. If you come before the mirror, it is your face. Somebody else comes, then it is his face. The face will go on changing. You cannot say to the mirror, 'You are very inconsistent. Sometimes you show a woman's face and sometimes a man's face, and sometimes a beautiful face and sometimes an ugly face. The mirror will simply keep quiet. What can he do? He simply reflects. He reflects whatsoever is the case.
So taoist sayings are very contradictory. Jesus is contradictory, Buddha is contradictory, Krishna is contradictory, Lao Tzu is tremendously contradictory. Hegel is not contradictory, Kant is not contradictory, Russell is not contradictory, Confucius is not contradictory, Manu is not contradictory. They have a certain dogma. They don't reflect you. They have something to say. They go on saying. They are not like mirrors, they are like a photograph. It doesn't bother who you are; it remains the same. It is dead. It has a clearcut definition and form.