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.
A man on the path of money cannot understand the man on the path of love – it is impossible, they never meet. You can worship, but you will worship for the wrong reasons, because you cannot understand. Your worship is going to be based on something wrong. What is the mechanism?
First try to understand why love becomes so impossible, because that is the root – why you cannot love. If you can love, then money will never be the attachment, can never be. Why can’t you love? From the very beginning, something goes wrong in the mind of a child so he can’t love. One thing: love is a spontaneous phenomenon, you cannot manipulate it. If you start manipulating it you will miss it. This is the trouble with spontaneous things. Spontaneous things are beautiful, the most beautiful, but you cannot manipulate them. If you manipulate they become artificial, something goes wrong.
When a child is born you start manipulating his love, you say, “I am your father, love me,” as if love is a logical syllogism. “I am your father, therefore love me.” “I am your mother, therefore love me.” “He is your brother, therefore love him.” And love knows no “therefore,” it is not a syllogism. We never wait for the child, so that love happens to him or her. We start manipulating, controlling, as if we are afraid that if he is left to his own spontaneity he may not love his mother – there is no necessity; he may not love his father – there is no inevitability. You cannot depend on it. He may, he may not.