Why Guru Rajneesh was not a Sannyasi

I will explore the concept of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, a former guru who resided in Antelope, Ore., calling himself a sannyasi versus him practicing the life of a sannyasi. Rajneesh was a trained philosopher from India who came into the public eye in his country during the 60s for speaking out against ideas presented by Gandhi. Ultimately he was run out of the country with much disapproval, rumors of tax evasion, and squabbles with officials.
Claiming he was enlightened by the age of 21, Rajneesh believed there was only one “enlightened being” alive at a time and that he was the one. In his words, “I am not a philosopher who is trying to make a system of thought, I am a mystic who is trying to convey the mysteries that have become available to me.” He came to Oregon in the early 80s and became known to Americans as the “sex guru” who had a 64,000 acre ashram known as Rancho Rajneesh. The Ranch was home to 2,000 neo-sannyasins.

To note, there is no system that defines who a guru is, nor is there anyone who “votes” them into the title. In Hinduism, a guru is defined by the status of enlightenment, one who is a spiritual teacher and leader to others on their path to enlightenment. Gurus are often considered the immanent form of god, realized in front of you, and treated as such. 

To be a sannyasi is an optional stage in life when one is to renounce their worldly possessions, become a type of wandering holy man, and detach from caste systems or society as we know it. On a spiritual pursuit, filled with spiritual contemplation, they are focused solely on the goal of moksha. Typically they live alone and do not partake in materialistic desires. This, however, was not how Rajneesh lived.

At the time of his unravelling in the late 80s, he had 93 Rolls-Royces, lived on a $5.5 million ranch, and according to his long-time, right-hand lady Sheela Birnstiel, he wanted items of great cost such as a $1 million watch. Birnstiel also claimed in an interview with Lez Zaitz of The Oregonian (twenty years after his reign) that he took valium. Intoxicants are discouraged for Hindus, furthermore a sannyasi. Also commonly practiced is no illicit sex, but Rajneesh made headlines with his encouragement of sexual freedom. Interviews I read from former devotees tell similar stories of his involvement with fellow female sannyasins and the requirement of others to arrive to his quarters naked so he could pleasure himself. 

This lack of restraint in a sexual manner is not typical of a guru. Bering his status, he was to help people not exploit them. A quote I found quite opposite of his role as a guru was Rajneesh saying, “I am not here to help you. You may be here to be helped, but I am not. I am just enjoying my thing. I am doing my thing.” His selfishness in this statement is evidence to me that he was not as interested in guiding others as he was in himself.

Upon his arrival, Americans were somewhat rebellious in spirit. Many were participating in the social revolution stemming from the end the Vietnam War in '75. The idea of living against the norm was trending, and in my opinion, added to his appeal at the Ranch. At the time, former Indian spiritual leaders such as Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) and Mahavira were known stateside. I can see why, if lumped with Rajneesh and his status as enlightened, young Americans may have thought they were following an exemplar. However, I think he proved himself not worthy of being called a sannyasi alongside Buddha and Mahavira. 

The former took position as spiritual leaders not with the intent of gathering followers but out of respect earned from goodness. Rajneesh, on the other hand, seemed to lack moral goodness. His time ended in America, much as it did in India, with allegations of tax evasion, arson, wiretapping, bribes, threats, poisonings, hit-lists, and derailing trials.

The people Rajneesh chose to conduct his business affairs played dirty with politicians in attempt to sway laws to benefit of their organization. In my readings regarding their tactics, I would suggest that his hierarchy was not interested in religious empowerment but instead were interested in the pursuit of power. In one instance, Rajneeshees bused in homeless people from out of town with promises of food, beer, and rest in exchange for a political vote in their favor. In essence, Rajneesh created his world through recruiting and control compared to following his solo mission and people choosing to follow, as they did Buddha and Mahavira. 

According to former devotee Lasell Bartlett, those that didn’t act with permission at the Ranch were not trusted and loyalty was proven through lack of independent decision-making. For the most part, enlightenment should be an individualistic quest. These examples contradict with Rajneesh saying, “I believe that the very effort to convert anybody is violence. It is interfering in his individuality, in his uniqueness, into his freedom.” 

His religious teachings sold the package of utopian ideals, therapy, meditation and lectures for enlightenment. “What I am teaching you is a living, flowing religiousness - an experience like love,” he said. However, much of the behavior of his followers failed to resemble “love.” They strong-armed public officials and were suspected of poisoning people in an attempt to gain control. “Rajneeshees had executed the largest biological terrorism attack in U.S. history poisoning at least 700 people,” wrote Lez Zaitz of the Oregonian. This hardly seems like the teachings of love to me.

Not only did the ashram supposedly poison those not in their community, but former residents reported attempts to take out each other and Rajneesh himself. If Rajneesh was a guru, an enlightened teacher and immanent form of god, then why would his devotees attempt to kill him? To kill him would essentially be killing God. Many practicing Hindus don’t eat meat based on the idea that they don’t have the right to eat God’s creatures, let alone kill them. 

In a recorded conversation between Zaitz and Birnstiel, she claimed that Rajneesh told her, “If 10,000 people have to die to save one enlightened master, so be it.” This is a far cry from “flowing religiousness” and even further from the concept of a sannyasi on a spiritual retreat. 

In my eyes, there was little evidence of the love that Rajneesh practiced. In my conversation with Dharmarajdas, a Hare Krishna devotee in Eugene, Ore., he reminded that, “Real love found in the spiritual world is unmotivated, undisrupted and is not spontaneous. It’s the faith that is religion, it’s the service, what we do for God.” To me it seems what Rajneeshees were most concerned about was what they could do for themselves, not for God.

Some may say that enlightenment in Hinduism is having everything, to be full of all desires, and often in excess. This could be said of Rajneesh’s lifestyle. However, the negative impact he and his ashram had on the community in which they lived left a sour taste in many mouths. In addition, many former devotees ended up behind bars for proven crimes. Their behavior was not spiritually motivated but instead was motivated by greed and power—neither of which are values important to a sannyasi. 

A sannyasi may be free of all worldly rules and duties, but that is with the idea that their lifestyle is a quiet choice not affecting the wellbeing of others. With rap-sheets and attempted murders under their belt, Rajneesh and his ashram were mistaken in their quest for enlightenment. They acted immorally in the name of religion and, in my opinion, lost their way from the foundation of Hinduism. In the words of Gandhi, “As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side.”