Please describe an orthodox Rajneeshee.
It is a contradiction in terms, but I will not dispose of the question so easily. I will try to squeeze as much juice out of it as possible.
Yes, there is some way to define the orthodox Rajneeshee. It is going to be a strange definition because two terms which are contradictory to each other are used together. But still I feel it is significant.
The first quality of an orthodox Rajneeshee will be:
He will not be orthodox – in no possible sense, in no direction.
He will be totally committed to the spirit of rebellion.
He will fight against everything that is bad but that still goes on burdening human consciousness; things which should have been thrown away long ago.
But because of a strange habit of the human mind, many dead things go on keeping their grip on you; and the more ancient they are, the deeper and stronger is their grip on you. The reason has to be understood.
Before anything like education came into existence, there was only one way to learn, and that was from the people who were experienced. Naturally, the older generation would teach the younger generation. The older generation had experience, and experience was the only school; there was no alternative. The younger generation had to accept whatever the older generation was saying; there was no way to bypass the older generation.
The older generation was the only source of knowledge, hence the older people became respected. The older they were, the more respected, because the greater was their experience, the longer was their experience – and it gave them a certain authority.
There was no possible authority to compete with it, the older generation had the whole monopoly. Because of this situation – and this must have prevailed for thousands of years – the mind has got the habit, and habits die really hard. And habits which have been accumulated over thousands of years become engrained. They become a kind of program in you.
I was criticizing Mahatma Gandhi my whole life but no Gandhian replied to my arguments. I cannot blame them, because there was no argument on their side: whatsoever they would have said would have looked stupid – and they knew it. In private they had admitted to me, “What you are saying is right, but that you are saying it is not right. Just to say something against a man who is worshipped by millions of people is not right; you are hurting their feelings.”