I'll grant you that Rajneesh and Muktananda were more "learned" than Warat, who wasn't? Isn't?

Inspiring? Unfortunately that's in the eye of the beholder, it's not self-existent. R&M were, apparently, no less "inspiring" to the inspired after they had fallen to the temptation of sex, drugs and abuse of power even to those aware of their fall. According to popular reports Rajneesh openly relished his bad guru status so I'm not sure if he could "fall."

I lean to "due to sincere effort have reached levels of
understanding about the human condition and in turn use their experience
and wisdom to guide others on the path" actually being a magical promise. I'm unsure. I appreciate that's not the same thing as saying someone is a divine realised enlightened guru.

Back in the 1990s the reality that  Buddhist teachers in the West were pretty well all "fallen" was first publicised and since then they just keep falling. Now the scandalous behaviour of monks in Myanmar, Thailand and Korea is even part of the public discourse.

However I'm not that interested in the fall of gurus and self-proclaimed enlightened teachers. I'm more interested in the enabling behaviour of those being inspired. Behaviour that is sometimes criminal and in many cases requires self-censorship. It is in these behaviours that followers of M&R were most flagrant and that is why I mentioned them and naturally it is my past behaviour that inspires that interest.