Osho speaks!

[Martin Gifford]

At 02:52 PM 18/08/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Martin Gifford wrote:
>
>>...........This is the 70's and 80's that we are talking about. There was
>>plenty of access to sex and drugs without Osho.
>
>So?

WELL YOU SAID THAT HE WAS OFFERING ALL THESE THINGS AND THAT THAT IS WHY
PEOPLE WERE ATTRACTED TO HIM. AND I AM SAYING THAT THESE THINGS WERE ALREADY
AVAILABLE SO THAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS NOW IRRELEVANT.

>>>But well, I digress. Calling this profound
>>>philosophy is even better. What more could a man want? Unrestricted
>>>indulgence with women and drugs all the while calling it profound
>>>philosophy! The garb of philosophy is also very convenient for
>>>abandoning their families! Very, very attractive indeed!
>
>>...............Judging by the juiciness of your writing above you are
>>proving Osho right! No wonder you were interested in him!
>
>It's quite funny that you don't try to point out any mistake in my line
>of reasoning and instead prefer to write some drivel like the above.

THAT WAS NOT REASONING. IT WAS INVECTIVE.

>Perhaps you have been reading so many "juicy" things that you think of
>some objective statements as juicy. miraNDavan kaNNukku iruNDathellAm
>pEy, says a thamiz proverb, namely to the frightened man anything dark
>appears like a ghost.
>
YOU ARE PROJECTING. YOU ARE THE FRIGHTENED ONE. YOU CAN'T SAY THINGS LIKE
YOU ARE AND THEN UNDO IT WITH "NOT TO BE CHURLISH, I DON'T WANT TO OFFEND
ANYONE", ETC. YOU CALLED RAJNEESH A PIMP. YOU SAID HIS FOLLOWERS HAD A LOW
IQ. AND YOUR WHOLE EMAIL WAS ONLY CONTEMPT, DISDAIN, ARROGANCE, AND
OPINIATED IGNORANCE.

>My intention is not to be churlish, but if you have a point to make
>please make it.

HOW WAS THAT?

>Otherwise, it would be wiser to keep silent.
>
>Ramakrishnan.


MARTIN.