According to Osho, one doesn't become a sadhu to fix failed meditation; Mahavira prescribes a graded path where you begin as a shravak. When meditation ripens and the 'sadhu' is born within, renunciation may happen naturally—otherwise remain a householder and continue. Even liberation is possible as a shravak; choose what feels blissfully right, not compulsorily.
Don’t rush to be a monk because meditating is hard; start as a layperson and become one only if your meditation matures and worldly life naturally feels unnecessary.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Osho, many became sadhus and sadhvis; but in meditation they must be lagging behind. Then why did they first leave their homes and go along with them? You don’t give such advice!
First, Mahavira’s order makes a fourfold classification of human beings: shravak, shravika, sadhu, sadhvi. Mahavira’s path of practice begins with the shravak or shravika. No one can become a sadhu all at once; the very question does not arise. Mahavira’s discipline is a complete, graded path. First one has to be a shravak. And the shravak’s practices—meditation, samayik—belong to the shravak stage. When one has passed through that, when one has attained to that measure, then one can enter the life of a sadhu. Mahavira is not eager to bring anyone straight into initiation as a sadhu—only when the sadhu is born within. The shravak stage is the groundwork where the sadhu is born; then he may go. And even then there is no insistence that he must go; he can attain moksha while remaining a shravak. This is a delightful and unique point: only Mahavira dared to say that…
It is worth collecting the psycho-stories of sadhus and sadhvis — why did someone become a sadhu? If someone became a sadhu out of sorrow, he cannot be connected with Mahavira. For Mahavira... only if you know the language of bliss can you be connected with him. Man does not become a sadhu by leaving something — he becomes by qualities. Qualities must be born. And note too: Mahavira first says: by virtues man becomes a sadhu, by vices unsaintly. Note also: vices cannot be directly dropped — because the process of dropping is negative. Virtues can be created — that is creative. When virtues are created, vices begin to drop. If you keep attention on vices and strive to drop them, you will waste yourself — because vices exist only because virtues are absent. Do not worry about vices; endeavor to create virtues.
The son of a drunkard may become a sadhu; it can be. That the son of a sadhu not become a drunkard is difficult—very difficult. Even Mahatma Gandhi’s son, Haridas, went exactly opposite. He was a valuable man; and because of being valuable, he went opposite. The rest were clay. Clay idols—mold them as you like; they do not resist. But life resists; it fights—because the sign of life is resistance. Haridas resisted. He became Muslim; he began to drink. He called himself Abdullah Gandhi. He moved opposite to Gandhi. The cause lies in Gandhi’s effort. Gandhi’s whole effort—he would say: Hindu and Muslim are one. So Haridas became Muslim. And when he saw Gandhi felt hurt, he said: Why be hurt? If Hindu and Muslim are one, why be hurt? And he began to drink.
Osho, yesterday you said that when anger is watched consciously, it dissolves. But why is it that when sexual desire arises, even in awareness its intensity persists? Why is it so?
There is no entanglement in the breath. If you try to practice on anger… Anger is not happening every moment; it happens sometimes. And when it happens, it happens with such intensity that you are already going deep into it; so much is at stake in those moments that you may think, “We will look into awareness later; first let’s settle this now.” Lust is very deep, because existence has made it so deep; life depends on it. If lust were so easy that you decided and were freed, perhaps you would not even have been born—because many before you would have become free, and the possibility of your being would have been almost nil. But your parents, and their parents, did not become free; therefore you are. You too will not get free so easily, because your children are also to be—they are waiting: “Do not run away midway.”…
Kailash has asked a question: Sannyas? A question mark attached—and then the buts and howevers.
Sannyas—then what place is there for “but” and “however”? “But” and “however” are a man’s tricks. Either yes or no—where do buts fit in? Either you feel something is right and you do it, or you don’t feel it is right and you don’t do it. But man is dishonest. He wants to persuade himself: “The thing does seem right to me; I am so intelligent—how could it not seem right? Only, the circumstances aren’t suitable yet for me to take sannyas.” So he tacks on a but. Understand: whenever someone adds a “but,” politics has entered. “But–however” is the language of politics. The language of religion is straight and clear—yes or no. People are afraid of the company of a saint; they are frightened. They find many excuses. But they don’t want to look at the real thing. The real thing is one fear: “If I go there, I…