"They cannot meet.

"Sometimes, even if you try to understand Mahavira, Buddha, Jesus, you try to understand them in terms of money. Jainas go on relating how much Mahavira renounced – 'how much' is the point. If Mahavira had been the son of a beggar, no Jaina would worship him. He was the son of a great king. He had a big kingdom, much money, gold, diamonds – and he renounced them. Suddenly he becomes important to you. The importance is in the money that he renounced, not in him.

"Even if you approach Mahavira, you approach him through money. What an absurdity. And then Jainas go on emphasizing the fact, exaggerating it, because the kingdom was really not so great. It was a small principality – because in India at that time there were two thousand kingdoms – it was just like a small district. And Mahavira's father was also not very rich, but rich, of course. When first they looked at Mahavira because he had renounced the money, he became very important. Then they started to exaggerate the amount of money that he had renounced. And now they have gone to fantastic, absurd lengths; whatsoever they say is simply wrong. And then Mahavira becomes important through the money he renounces. What is really important in your eyes?

"Why does it happen that not a single tirthankara of the Jainas comes from an ordinary family? – all the twenty-four are the sons of kings. Why does it happen that not a single poor man could become a Hindu avatar? Why only Rama, Krishna – the kings? Why does it happen that not a single poor man could become a Buddha – only Gautam Siddhartha, the prince? How does it happen?

"All three religions were born in India, and they are the greatest! Not that a tirthankara is not born in a poor family, but you will not recognize him. Not that a buddha is not born in a beggar's house, but if he is, you will not recognize him. Your recognition can only be through the money he renounces. Buddha is worthless – the money he renounces is the real thing. That attracts you, that hypnotizes you."