A petition is made to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for Osho to remain in the States as a religious leader. The INS delays with excuses that Osho committed fraud by entering the country as a tourist with the intention of immigrating; that Osho cannot be a religious leader if he is in silence; that he is responsible for sannyasins marrying in order to obtain residency (issued with a 'green card').

I had not gone to stay in America forever. They had given me visa for few months as a tourist. Then I applied more, again for a tourist visa, because I was not thinking to stay there. But side by side, the commune was growing, my health was getting better, and then my people started forcing me that, "If your health is better here, why bother going anywhere else?" And there was no problem, because I fulfilled almost all their categories that are needed for a permanent residence. So I applied for a permanent residence.

There is no question of any fraud, as they proposed before the court, that I had a pre-intention to stay in America and applied for a tourist visa. If I had a pre-intention, I could have applied for direct residency. There is no problem in it. As a man of religion, as a man who is known all over the world, these are their categories, as a philosopher, I had every possibility. There was no need to ask for a tourist visa but I had never thought of staying there.

In October 1982, Osho is interviewed by the INS in Portland.

The interviewer asks: Okay, now I think this is an exact quote that occurred in July of 1979 from you "Book of the Books": "This ashram is only a launching pad on a small scale. I am experimenting. The new commune will be on a big scale--10,000 sannyasins living together as one body, one being. Nobody will possess anything, everybody will use, everybody will enjoy. Everybody is going to live as comfortably, as richly, as we can manage, but nobody will possess anything." Did you say that?

We have already started those communes in the world. Now we have communes: two communes in Italy and one in Sicily, one in England, two in Holland, two in Germany, one in France, one in Japan, one in India, one in Nepal and in many other countries.

They are separate communes.

No, nothing.

No, I know also nothing.

I will have to explain it.

In India we have five categories of teachers. The first category is called the Arihanta; he's a teacher and also a master. Being a master means that he has realized what he says. For example, Jesus will be called an Arihanta because whatsoever he says is his own realization. He says, "It is on my own authority."

The second category is called the "Siddha." The Siddha is only a master. He has realized but he's incapable of communicating it. He cannot say what he has realized; in a way he is dumb. And there have been many saints in the world who have not spoken because they cannot manage to bring the beyond within the words. That too is called a Buddha, a teacher.

The third category is called an Acharya--who is only a teacher but not a master. He knows exactly what he's teaching, but not on his own authority. The Pope is an Acharya. If Jesus is an Arihanta, then the Pope is an Acharya. He is speaking on the authority of the Bible, not on his own authority.

The fourth category is called Ubadhyay--one who is not even certain of what he says. Perhaps fragments are true. P.D. Ouspensky has written a book on Gurdjieff: In Search of the Miraculous. Its subtitle is "Fragments of an Unknown Teaching", and he's very true in writing the subtitle--only fragments, because he could understand only parts of it; parts were beyond him. He's also called a teacher.

And the fifth is called a Sadhu. A Sadhu is one who has not achieved but is trying sincerely to achieve. He may be just one foot ahead of you, but he can teach that much. He cannot claim the achievement; he cannot say with certainty that this is so.

English is poor in that way, it has only two words. English is poor in many ways, particularly as far as religion is concerned, but is bound to be so. Eastern languages are poor in scientific terms. So you have only one word, teacher, for everything. You can call me a teacher but to us it means a very lower category.

It will continue.

Until I feel again to speak. I have spoken so much that I felt I was speaking to the walls. It is almost futile.

I cannot even say anything about tomorrow.

No, not at all. I had been telling it for years, that one day I'm going to stop speaking and just communicate through silence.

That date you mentioned.

That must have been the last.

It is something difficult...less of the intellect and more of the heart.

I don't engage in anything, I simply sit there silently in a prayerful mood.

No, but that prayerful mood is infectious.

No, with Sheela I talk every day. That is a different matter.

Only with Sheela because she has to bring the work to me, and what she cannot decide I will seek an answer to. She has to ask me.

I have heard.

Nothing--I neither approve nor do I disapprove. That is their business if they want to marry here; it is perfectly for them...

No, nothing can be lifelong in this life. Only bogus and hypocritical things can be lifelong.

Everybody changes, everything changes. Today maybe...it may look like we will be together for the whole life, tomorrow it may not look...

No, any commitment for the future is a bondage, and is a destructive bondage. You can commit only for the moment. I can say about this moment, I cannot say about tomorrow. What that tomorrow will bring, who knows?

So to me, marriage is only a working partnership. If it works, good; if it works your whole life, good. If it does not work, then say good-bye. I don't think it's anything sacred. It is just an institution and a working partnership like any working partnership of the business world; nothing to be bothered about so much.

In December the INS denies the petition for Osho to stay as religious teacher. Applications are made under four other categories.