They must have been homosexuals. As we are finding now in every monastery around the world, all kinds of sexual perversions are practiced. It cannot have been otherwise for Buddha’s disciples. Only my people are living a natural, sacred, existential life – not against the current, not against the universe. And without listening to me, without reading me, these idiots go on making their comments.

My whole effort is to bring materialism and spiritualism into a balance. To me the outside world is as real as the inside world. So naturally this creates trouble for me from both the sides. The communists have written books against me, for the reason that I am teaching spirituality, meditation, and diverting people from their real concern, which is a classless society. And I am making people selfish because I am just telling them to go in.

And the spiritualists are against me. And they have written books against me, and articles, and every day there are letters. Their problem is that I am taking too much interest in the world. A man of real spirituality should close his eyes, because the world is illusory.

But not one of your so-called and self-styled enlightened people have taken the trouble to think twice. When you say the world is illusory, then there is no need to renounce it. Nobody renounces dreams. Do you renounce your dream when you wake up in the morning? A dream is just a dream, there is no question of renouncing it. And if you are having a sweet dream, I will say, “Enjoy it!”

Make this whole world a sweet dream, not a nightmare. All your politicians and all your priests are trying to make it a nightmare. Then naturally people think of renouncing it. It is such a tragedy.

I am not in favor of renouncing the world. And I don’t say that the world is illusory; otherwise, why does Buddha go begging every day? If the world is illusory where are you going, begging before an illusory house? A woman gives you food, and she is illusory and the food is real?

Why do you need three pieces of clothes? This was the criticism of Mahavira, of Buddha’s contemporary, who lived naked. He did not accept that Buddha was enlightened because he was not living naked. To Mahavira, three pieces of clothes was luxury – a man who was living naked in summer, in winter, in rain. Naturally he has the right to say to Buddha, “You are living in great luxury. Three pieces of clothes? You are much too materialistic.”

Buddha was eating one meal a day; to Mahavira that was luxury. In the twelve years before he became enlightened, he ate on only three hundred and sixty-five days, in twelve years he ate only one year – not continuously. Two months will pass, and one day he will eat; three months will pass, and one day he will eat – so it comes to nearly one year in twelve years. That means that after eleven days he was eating one day, on average. Of course, to him Buddha is indulging in luxury. These are relative terms.

And Buddha was criticizing Mahavira about such trivial things, because he could not find answers to Mahavira’s criticism that he was living in luxury with daily food and three pieces of clothes. He found another way to criticize him.