Editing Rajneesh (section)

=== Appraisal by scholars of religion ===
Academic assessments of Rajneesh's work have been mixed and often directly contradictory.{{citation needed|date=December 2021}} [[Uday Mehta]] saw errors in his interpretation of Zen and [[Mahayana Buddhism]], speaking of "gross contradictions and inconsistencies in his teachings" that "exploit" the "ignorance and gullibility" of his listeners.<ref name=Mehta>{{harvnb|Mehta|1993|p=151}}</ref> The sociologist Bob Mullan wrote in 1983 of "a borrowing of truths, half-truths and occasional misrepresentations from the great traditions... often bland, inaccurate, spurious and extremely contradictory".<ref name="BM48">{{harvnb|Mullan|1983|p=48}}</ref> American religious studies professor [[Hugh B. Urban]] also said Rajneesh's teaching was neither original nor especially profound, and concluded that most of its content had been borrowed from various Eastern and Western philosophies.<ref name="HBU-ZTB169" /> [[George Chryssides]], on the other hand, found such descriptions of Rajneesh's teaching as a "potpourri" of various religious teachings unfortunate because Rajneesh was "no amateur philosopher". Drawing attention to Rajneesh's academic background he stated that; "Whether or not one accepts his teachings, he was no charlatan when it came to expounding the ideas of others."<ref name="Chryss207-208" /> He described Rajneesh as primarily a Buddhist teacher, promoting an independent form of "Beat Zen"<ref name="Chryss207-208">{{harvnb|Chryssides|1999|pp=207–208}}</ref> and viewed the unsystematic, contradictory and outrageous aspects of Rajneesh's teachings as seeking to induce a change in people, not as philosophy lectures aimed at intellectual understanding of the subject.<ref name="Chryss207-208" />

Similarly with respect to Rajneesh's embracing of Western counter-culture and the human potential movement, though Mullan acknowledged that Rajneesh's range and imagination were second to none,<ref name="BM48" /> and that many of his statements were quite insightful and moving, perhaps even profound at times,<ref name="BM32">{{harvnb|Mullan|1983|p=32}}</ref> he perceived "a potpourri of counter-culturalist and post-counter-culturalist ideas" focusing on love and freedom, the need to live for the moment, the importance of self, the feeling of "being okay", the mysteriousness of life, the fun ethic, the individual's responsibility for their own destiny, and the need to drop the ego, along with fear and guilt.<ref name="BM48-89-90">{{harvnb|Mullan|1983|pp=48, 89–90}}</ref> Mehta notes that Rajneesh's appeal to his Western disciples was based on his social experiments, which established a philosophical connection between the Eastern [[Guru-shishya tradition|guru tradition]] and the Western [[growth movement]].<ref name=Mehta133 /> He saw this as a [[marketing strategy]] to meet the desires of his audience.<ref name="HBU-ZTB169" /> Urban, too, viewed Rajneesh as negating a dichotomy between spiritual and material desires, reflecting the preoccupation with the body and sexuality characteristic of late [[capitalism|capitalist]] [[consumer culture]] and in tune with the socio-economic conditions of his time.<ref name=GIA183 />

The British professor of religious studies [[Peter B. Clarke]] said that most participators felt they had made progress in self-actualisation as defined by American psychologist [[Abraham Maslow]] and the [[human potential movement]].<ref name="Clarke466" /> He stated that the style of therapy Rajneesh devised, with its liberal attitude towards sexuality as a sacred part of life, had proved influential among other therapy practitioners and new age groups.<ref name="Clarke432-433" /> Yet Clarke believes that the main motivation of seekers joining the movement was "neither therapy nor sex, but the prospect of becoming enlightened, in the classical Buddhist sense".<ref name="Clarke466" />

In 2005, Urban observed that Rajneesh had undergone a "remarkable [[apotheosis]]" after his return to India, and especially in the years since his death, going on to describe him as a powerful illustration of what [[F. Max Müller]], over a century ago, called "that world-wide circle through which, like an electric current, Oriental thought could run to the West and Western thought return to the East".<ref name=GIA183>{{harvnb|Forsthoefel|Humes|2005|pp=181–185}}</ref> Clarke also said that Rajneesh has come to be "seen as an important teacher within India itself" who is "increasingly recognised as a major spiritual teacher of the twentieth century, at the forefront of the current 'world-accepting' trend of spirituality based on self-development".<ref name="Clarke432-433">{{harvnb|Clarke|2006|pp=432–433}}</ref>