The Last Testament (Vol 3) ~ 09 (transcript)

This is a transcript of event The Last Testament (Vol 3) ~ 09.

This transcript is shown on the Wiki because the text that has been published is not complete.

Interviewers are Ted Knoppel/Charles Gibson, live on Nightline, ABC-TV. For details, see the event.

This page also shows a comparison of the text with what has been published on the CD-ROM.

(Editor: What we see is that the text on the CD-ROM has been edited, superfluous text has been omitted, but the essence of the discussion has been retained. But the parts of the interview of Gibson with Attorney General David Frohnmayer have been omitted at all.)

Question #	Recording transcript	CD-ROM text
Q #1	(not heard on audio or video)	GIBSON:* CAN THE BHAGWAN HEAR ME? ARE WE COMING THROUGH TO THE BHAGWAN? THIS IS CHARLIE GIBSON IN WASHINGTON. BHAGWAN:* Hi, Charlie.
Q #2	(not heard on audio or video)	Q:* BHAGWAN, IS IT TRUE THAT YOU HAVE NOT YET HELD THIS NEWS CONFERENCE? A:* No, not yet. You have been delaying me.
Q #3	GIBSON: Q: JOINING US NOW FROM THE RAJNEESHPURAM HEADQUARTERS IN OREGON, BHAGWAN SHREE RAJNEESH WHO UNTIL HIS ANNOUNCEMENT TODAY, WAS THE LEADER OF THE RAJNEESHI RELIGIOUS SECT. BHAGWAN, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AT YOUR NEWS CONFERENCE, YOU ARE GOING TO TELL YOUR FOLLOWERS THAT YOU ARE NO LONGER THEIR GURU BUT JUST THEIR FRIEND. WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS? A: I have never been their guru.	Q:* BHAGWAN, AT YOUR NEWS CONFERENCE YOU ARE GOING TO TELL YOUR FOLLOWERS THAT YOU ARE NO LONGER THEIR GURU BUT JUST THEIR FRIEND. WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS? A:* I have never been their guru.
Q #4	GIBSON: Q: WELL, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THEY HAVE CARRIED BOOKS OF YOUR TEACHING, THEY HAVE CARRIED YOUR PICTURE ON A NECKLACE ON THEIR NECK, THEY ALL WEAR WHAT YOU TELL THEM TO WEAR. WHY ARE YOU NOT THEIR GURU THEN? A: I was silent for three and a half years, and in that silent period the group of Ma Anand Sheela exploited the innocent sannyasins and tried to create a religion. And she became the high priestess of the religion.	Q:* WHY ARE YOU NOT THEIR GURU, THEN? A:* I was silent for three and a half years, and in that silent period the group of Ma Anand Sheela exploited the innocent sannyasins and tried to create a religion. And she became the high priestess of the religion.
Q #5	Q: WELL, I UNDERSTAND YOUR PROBLEMS WITH HER, BUT DIDN'T YOU REALIZE DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME THAT THEY WERE FOLLOWING YOU IN A RELIGIOUS SENSE? A: They were told so, but I was not informed and I was in isolation and in silence, so I was not aware of what is happening.	Q:* DIDN'T YOU REALIZE DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME THAT THEY WERE FOLLOWING YOU IN A RELIGIOUS SENSE? A:* They were told so, but I was not informed and I was in isolation and in silence so I was not aware of what is happening.
Q #6	Q: WHAT KIND OF A RELATIONSHIP DID YOU HAVE WITH HER, SHEELA, WHO WAS AS YOU SAY THE HIGH PRIESTESS, WHAT KIND OF A RELATIONSHIP DID YOU HAVE WITH HER FOR THOSE THREE AND A HALF YEARS? A: She was just my secretary.	Q:* WHAT KIND OF A RELATIONSHIP DID YOU HAVE WITH HER, SHEELA, FOR THOSE THREE AND A HALF YEARS? A:* She was just my secretary.
Q #7	Q: JUST YOUR SECRETARY? A: Yes.
Q #8	Q: AND SHE DIDN'T TELL YOU WHAT WAS GOING ON? A: She did not. And she exploited the situation, because she was the only source of communication between me and the sannyasins.	Q:* AND SHE DIDN'T TELL YOU WHAT WAS GOING? A:* She did not. And she exploited the situation, because she was the only source of communication between me and the sannyasins.
Q #9	Q: BUT THERE WAS A – FOR INSTANCE, I KNOW, THERE WAS A CASE IN COURT BROUGHT AGAINST YOU AND YOUR FOLLOWERS FOR CONDUCTING RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES, FOR – THE STATE SAYS - IMPROPERLY MIXING CHURCH AND STATE. SO YOU MUST HAVE KNOWN.... A: No. Q:... THAT YOUR GROUP WAS CLAIMING CHURCH STATUS. A: I had no idea of anything, because I was in isolation. So you have to understand it clearly, that when I came out of silence, then only I became aware of what has been happening in these three and a half years.	Q:* THERE WAS A CASE IN COURT BROUGHT AGAINST YOU AND YOUR FOLLOWERS FOR IMPROPERLY MIXING CHURCH AND STATE. SO YOU MUST HAVE KNOWN.... A:* No. Q:*... THAT YOUR GROUP WAS CLAIMING CHURCH STATUS. A:* I had no idea of anything because I was in isolation. So you have to understand it clearly, that when I came out of silence, then only I became aware of what has been happening in these three and a half years.
Q #10	Q: ALRIGHT WHAT DOES THIS ANNOUNCEMENT TODAY DO TO YOUR GROUP FOR THE FUTURE. WHAT DIFFERENCE WILL IT MAKE? A: It makes tremendous difference. First, there is no religion and there is no Master, no disciple. I am only a friend. And those who love me are living with me.	Q:* WHAT DOES THIS ANNOUNCEMENT TODAY DO TO YOUR GROUP FOR THE FUTURE. WHAT DIFFERENCE WILL IT MAKE? A:* It makes tremendous difference. First, there is no religion and there is no Master, no disciple. I am only a friend. And those who love me are living with me.
Q #11	Q: WILL THIS TAKE AWAY THE TAX-EXEMPT STATUS OF YOUR ORGANIZATION? A: I don't care.	Q:* WILL THIS TAKE AWAY THE TAX-EXEMPT STATUS OR YOUR ORGANIZATION? A:* I don't care.
Q #12	Q: WELL, WHETHER YOU CARE OR NOT, WILL IT TAKE IT AWAY? A: I don’t care.
Q #13	Q: WOULD THAT NOT COST - AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT WILL COST YOU YOUR TAX-EXEMPT STATUS, AND WILL COST YOU A LOT OF MONEY. A: It will not. It will not.	Q:* AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT WILL COST YOU YOUR TAX-EXEMPT STATUS.... A:* It will not. It will not.
Q #14	Q: IT WILL NOT, WHAT? COST YOU A LOT OF MONEY? A: Because our activity is still religious. We are not religion, but our activity is religious. And there is no need for one being a part of an organized religion. One can be simply religious. The quality of being religious is totally free from any organizational structure. I'm....	A: Because our activity is still religious. We are not religion, but our activity is religious. And there is no need for one being a part of an organized religion. One can be simply religious. The quality of being religious is totally free from any organizational structure. I am....
Q #15	Q: MAY I ASK YOU ABOUT SHEELA FOR A MOMENT. YOU CLAIM SHE LEFT WITH A LOT OF MONEY. HOW MUCH MONEY DID SHE TAKE FROM YOU? A: I don't know. Q: WELL, THE FIGURE THIRTY-FIVE TO FORTY MILLION DOLLARS HAS BEEN THROWN AROUND. SOME TALK ABOUT… A: She has not taken from here, but the money that was coming from Europe to this commune as a donation.She stuffed it somewhere in Switzerland and opened a bank account there. Her secretary has informed that it is forty-three million dollars.	Q:* YOU CLAIM SHEELA LEFT WITH A LOT OF MONEY. HOW MUCH MONEY DID SHE TAKE FROM YOU? A:* I don't know. A: She has not taken from here, but the money that was coming from Europe to this commune as a donation, she stopped it somewhere in Switzerland and opened a bank account there. Her secretary has informed that it is forty-three million dollars.
Q #16	Q: THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE SAYING, THAT SHE NOW HAS A LOT OF MONEY, AND THAT YOU ARE STILL COOPERATING WITH HER. SHE SAID I UNDERSTAND, THAT SHE STILL LOVES YOU FOR INSTANCE. THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO THINK YOU ARE STILL COOPERATING WITH HER AND MAY GO TO EUROPE WITH HER. IS THAT TRUE? A: No.	Q:* THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO THINK YOU ARE STILL COOPERATING WITH HER AND MAY GO TO EUROPE WITH HER. IS THAT TRUE? A:* No.
Q #17	Q: YOU'RE GOING TO STAY IN OREGON COME WHAT A: I am going to stay here come what.	Q:* YOU'RE GOING TO STAY IN OREGON COME WHAT.... A:* I am going to stay here come what.
	Q: ALRIGHT, BHAGWAN, LET ME ASK YOU JUST TO STANDBY FOR A MOMENT. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK AND WHEN WE COME BACK, WE’RE GONNA TALK TO AN OREGON OFFICIAL WITH A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON THE BHAGWAN AND HIS FOLLOWERS, DAVID FROHNMEYER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, FOR THE STATE OF OREGON.
Q #18	GIBSON Q: JOINING US LIVE NOW FROM OUR AFFILIATE KATU IN PORTLAND, OREGON, IS OREGON ATTORNEY GENERAL, DAVID FROHNMEYER, RECENTLY NAMED BY THE GOVERNOR OF OREGON, TO HEAD AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ACTIVITIES AT RAJNEESHPURAM, HEADQUARTERS OF THE RAJNEESH CULT. MISTER FROHNMEYER, GIVEN WHAT THE BHAGWAN HAS DECIDED TODAY, DOES THIS CHANGE THE NATURE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION IN ANY WAY? DF: (missing audio …) as the district attorney of a neighbouring county, these are matters that obviously will not be taken lightly. Of course law enforcement will prevent to determine whether the allegations are accurate or whether they are unfounded, or to what degree of any kind. That’s something that obviously has to be done in a professional fair and very thorough way.	(HERE GIBSON INTERVIEWS FROHNMEYER, HEAD OF THE INVESTIGATION IN RAJNEESHPURAM.)
Q #19	GIBSON Q: AND DOES THE NATURE OF THOSE ALLEGATIONS, THE SERIOUSNESS OF THOSE ALLEGATIONS GIVE YOU INCREASED AUTHORITY TO GO IN IN EFFECT TO THE AREA AND FIND OUT WHAT’S BEEN GOING ON FOR THE LAST THREE AND A HALF YEARS? DF: Well, first of all, Charlie, I mentioned that this is a neutral law enforcement effort of the federal state and local government. Secondly, the governor has exerted a rare but very important part of his executive authority to designate the attorney general to be part of this investigation independently of the request that we had already received from the district attorney who allegedly the victim. So it’s important coordinating authority and we are working closely with a number of other law enforcement authorities.
Q #20	GIBSON Q: YOU’RE WORKING TOGETHER, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT DOES IT GIVE YOU AUTHORITY, ALL OF THE GROUPS, TO GO INTO THE RAJNEESHPURAM AND FIND OUT WHAT’S BEEN GOING ON, AS SO MANY OF US HAVE WONDERED, FOR THREE AND A HALF YEARS? DF: Well, obviously we are being all appropriately restricted, constitutional and otherwise, on law enforcement and its investigations generally. Certainly, we are expecting and hoping for the kind of cooperation from members of the Rajneesh community that will allow law enforcement to do its job.
Q #21	GIBSON Q: ALRIGHT. YOU HAVE REASON TO SUSPECT THAT THE CHARGES OF ATTEMPTED MURDER AND ARSON AND EMBEZZLEMENT ARE TRUE? DF: Well, they’re serious charges. There is some obviously some independent evidence of the wiretapping and eavesdropping issues that’s been made public. It is really not appropriate for me to talk about evidence that is or has been or may be gathered by law enforcement, because obviously of course that’s something that will be for either a grand jury, if it reached that stage…or on down the line. So at this stage all I can tell you, is that we are asking for the cooperation of the residents of Rajneeshpuram (Osho nods) or the Bhagwan, and of all others who may have information to help us determine precisely how much of this is in fact true and therefore what to do of it.
Q #22	GIBSON Q: THE BHAGWAN’S ASSISTANT SHEELA, WHO FLED TO EUROPE, HAS NOW CHARGED THAT THERE IS WIDESPREAD DRUG USE IN THAT COMMUNE. DO YOU THINK THAT IS CORRECT? DF: Well, that’s one of those allegations that one obviously has to sort out. The law enforcement investigation is not at the stage where I would be prepared or anyone can be prepared to say that that is other than speculation or yet, another allegation. But because it’s serious, because it’s been made, and because it’s part of this tremendous controversy, that ought to be nailed down in the interest of not only the people of Rajneeshpuram, but also the citizens of the state.
Q #23	Q: ALRIGHT, LET ME ASK THE BHAGWAN THAT QUESTION. BHAGWAN, YOUR ASSISTANT, SHEELA, HAS CHARGED THAT THERE IS WIDESPREAD DRUG USE IN YOUR RAJNEESHPURAM, AND THAT MANY OF YOUR FOLLOWERS ARE IN EFFECT DRUGGED MOST OF THE TIME. IS THAT CORRECT? A: That is absolutely absurd.	Q:* BHAGWAN, YOUR ASSISTANT, SHEELA, HAS CHARGED THAT THERE IS WIDESPREAD DRUG USE IN YOUR RAJNEESHPURAM, AND THAT MANY OF YOUR FOLLOWERS ARE IN EFFECT DRUGGED MOST OF THE TIME. IS THAT CORRECT? A:* That is absolutely absurd.
Q #24	Q: THERE IS NO USE OF THIS DRUG ECSTASY AT YOUR COMMUNE? A: Not at all.	Q:* THERE IS NO USE OF THIS DRUG ECSTASY AT YOUR COMMUNE? A:* Not at all.
Q #25	Q: IS IT USED AT ALL? A: No.	Q:* IS IT USED AT ALL? A:* No.
Q #26	Q: HOW ABOUT WEAPONS, SHE HAS CHARGED ALSO ILLEGAL USE AND PROCUREMENT OF WEAPONS. A: All the weapons are legal. Q: I’M SORRY? A: All the weapons are legal.	Q:* SHE HAS CHARGED ALSO THE ILLEGAL USE AND PROCUREMENT OF WEAPONS. A:* All the weapons are legal.
Q #27	Q: ALRIGHT, LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING ON A BROADER SCALE. I THINK MOST PEOPLE LOOKING AT YOUR SITUATION, WOULD THINK, HE IS THE LEADER OF THIS GROUP, WHETHER HE IS A RELIGIOUS LEADER OR WHETHER HE IS A FRIEND OR WHATEVER, HE IS THE LEADER, AND ISN'T A LEADER TO A LARGE DEGREE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF HIS FOLLOWERS? A: I am not the leader and I am not responsible for anybody else except myself.	Q:* ISN'T A LEADER TO A LARGE DEGREE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF HIS FOLLOWERS? A:* I am not the leader and I am not responsible for anybody else except myself.
Q #28	Q: WELL EVEN IF YOU COME OUT OF A THREE AND A HALF YEARS SILENCE, DON’T YOU CERTAINLY GET THE IMPRESSION WE ALL DO LOOKING AT IT FROM OUTSIDE, THAT THOSE PEOPLE ARE FOLLOWERS OF YOURS, THEY ARE THERE BECAUSE OF YOU. A: They are because of me. That is their responsibility and their choice.	Q:* THOSE PEOPLE ARE FOLLOWERS OF YOURS, THEY ARE THERE BECAUSE OF YOU. A:* They are because of me. That is their responsibility and their choice.
Q #29	Q: WELL, THEY HAVE AS I UNDERSTAND IT CONTRIBUTED MONEY THAT HAS WOUND UP WITH YOU HAVING NINETY ROLLS ROYCES. ISN’T THAT SOMETHING ... A: That too is their responsibility, not mine. I have not asked them.	Q:* WELL, THEY HAVE CONTRIBUTED MONEY THAT HAS WOUND UP WITH YOU HAVING NINETY ROLLS ROYCES. A:* That too is their responsibility, not mine. I have not asked them.
Q #30	Q: BUT IT CERTAINLY WOULD INDICATE, TO THOSE LOOKING FROM OUTSIDE, THAT YOU WERE CONSIDERED BY THEM TO BE THEIR LEADER. AND I’M REALLY WONDERING, DOESN'T THE LEADER AT SOME POINT HAVE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT HIS FOLLOWERS, HIS DISCIPLES - I THINK YOU'VE CALLED THEM DISCIPLES, HAVE YOU NOT? A: When I am not their leader the question does not arise. I am their friend, nothing more, nothing less.	Q:* BUT IT CERTAINLY WOULD INDICATE THAT YOU WERE CONSIDERED BY THEM TO BE THEIR LEADER. DOESN'T THE LEADER AT SOME POINT HAVE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT HIS.... I THINK YOU'VE CALLED THEM DISCIPLES, HAVE YOU NOT? A:* When I am not their leader the question does not arise. I am their friend, nothing more, nothing less.
	Q: ALRIGHT, LET ME TAKE A BREAK FOR A MOMENT AND I WANT TO GET BACK TO THAT QUESTION. IF YOU ARE JUST A FRIEND, AND MAYBE THAT CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE INVESTIGATIONS AND YOUR ACTIVITIES. WE’LL GET BACK TO THAT QUESTION WHEN WE CONTINUE OUR DISCUSSION. A: Okay.
Q #31	GIBSON Q: CONTINUING OUR DISCUSSION NOW, DAVID FROHNMEYER, THE BHAGWAN CONTINUES TO INSIST THAT HE HAS NEVER BEEN A RELIGIOUS LEADER, THAT HE HAS NEVER BEEN A LEADER AT ALL, AND THAT HE IS NOW JUST A FRIEND TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE AT RAJNEESHPURAM. FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, DOES THAT CHANGE THE NATURE IN ANY WAY OF WHAT YOU ARE DOING? DOES THAT MAKE IT LEGALLY LESS CULPABLE? DOES IT CHANGE ITS LEGAL STATUS IN ANY WAY? DF: Let’s distinguish two things, Charlie. The first is that this ongoing criminal investigation has not said that he is culpable at this point of anything and obviously it was he who first raised the allegations. There is a separate issue, that the Department of Justice of Oregon has filed, that's a lawsuit against various of the entities, the corporations and so forth, and the commune, because their legal documents, the recorded deeds, any number of matters that are public record…	(GIBSON ASKS FROHNMEYER SOME QUESTIONS. HE THEN ASKS HIM IF BHAGWAN'S STATUS AS A FRIEND, NOT A RELIGIOUS LEADER, WILL CHANGE ANYTHING. FROHNMEYER SAYS IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE CIVIL LAWSUIT THAT CHALLENGES THE LEGALITY OF RAJNEESHPURAM BECAUSE OF VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION ON CHURCH-STATE GROUNDS,)
Q #32	GIBSON Q: I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT HE HAS NOW HIRED A LAWYER, WHO ADVISES HIM. HE IS VERY, THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE AROUND I GUESS, ARE VERY AWARE OF WHAT HIS LEGAL SITUATION IS, AND I AM WONDERING IF THIS CHANGE IN STATUS IN EFFECT, SELF-DECLARED OR WHATEVER, MAY CHANGE ANY LEGAL STATUS THAT HE HAS. DF: With respectively civil lawsuits that challenges the legality of Rajneeshpuram, because of violating constitution on church state grounds, we don’t see anything yet that would do that. Time and events obviously will tell for themselves. Obviously a year ago when the federal judge refused to dismiss our lawsuit, and in fact said that if we prove the facts that we believe we can this is in fact a violation of the constitution, we would believe that that continues to be a problem for that organisation right up to the present day.
	GIBSON Q: NO MATTER WHAT HE DID TODAY. BHAGWAN: (interrupting) Mr. Frohnmeyer. Q: LET ME ASK YOU THAT QUESTION. BHAGWAN: Wait a minute. You wait a minute.	BHAGWAN:* (interrupting) Mr. Frohnmeyer. Wait a minute.
Q #33	Q: BHAGWAN, WILL YOUR ANNOUNCEMENT TODAY CHANGE IN ANY WAY WHAT RELATIONSHIP YOU HAD WITH YOUR GROUP A YEAR AGO OR A YEAR AND A HALF AGO? A: First, let me say to Mr. Frohnmeyer that the whole situation changes completely. His case becomes bogus against the city. His case was that city is being mixed with religion, and there is no religion at all here.	Q:* BHAGWAN, WILL YOUR ANNOUNCEMENT TODAY CHANGE IN ANY WAY WHAT RELATIONSHIP YOU HAD WITH YOUR GROUP A YEAR AGO? A:* First, let me say to Mr. Frohnmeyer that the whole situation changes completely. His case becomes bogus against the city. His case was that city is being mixed with religion. There is no religion at all here.
Q #34	Q: SO BHAGWAN, YOUR ACTIONS TODAY DID HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THAT CHURCH-STATE CASE THAT WAS BROUGHT BY THE.... A: No, it had nothing to do with it. It is just a byproduct by consequence of it.	Q:* BHAGWAN, YOUR ACTIONS TODAY DID HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THAT CHURCH-STATE CASE THAT WAS BROUGHT BY THE.... A:* No, it had nothing to do with it. It is just a byproduct by consequence of it.
Q #35	Q: MR. FROHNMEYER, YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT. DF: Well, the response is not to debate a lawsuit over national television but simply to say that time and law will tell.	Q:* MR. FROHNMEYER, YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT? FROHNMEYER:* Well, the response is not to debate a lawsuit over national television but simply to say that time and law will tell.
Q #36	Q: BHAGWAN, ARE YOU SAYING... A: He has no answer. That's why he is depending on time. GIBSON Q: I AM SORRY, AGAIN? BHAGWAN: He has no answer. That’s why he is depending on time and court and other things.	Q:* BHAGWAN, ARE YOU SAYING...? A:* He has no answer. That's why he is depending on time and court and other things.
Q #37	Q: BUT DID YOU HAVE THAT CASE IN MIND WHEN YOU DECIDED...? A: No, I don't. I don't have that case in mind. You have raised the question, that's why I am saying there is no religion here. And that makes it clear that attorney general's case is simply finished. It has no grounds at all.	Q:* BUT DID YOU HAVE THAT CASE IN MIND WHEN YOU DECIDED...? A:* No, I don't. I don't have that case in mind. You have raised the question, that's why I am saying there is no religion here. And that makes it clear that attorney general's case is simply finished. It has no grounds at all.
	Q: ALRIGHT, BHAGWAN AND ATTORNEY GENERAL FROHNMEYER, I APPRECIATE BOTH OF YOU JOINING US TONIGHT. IT'S BEEN VERY INTERESTING. TOMORROW … (announcement of the next program) THAT’S OUR REPORT FOR TONIGHT. I'M CHARLES GIBSON IN WASHINGTON FROM ALL OF US HERE AT ABC NEWS. GOOD NIGHT. A: Good NIGHT, Charlie. (apparent break in recording, then Gibson's voice. Osho gets up, ready to leave…)	Q:* BHAGWAN AND ATTORNEY GENERAL FROHNMEYER, I APPRECIATE BOTH OF YOU JOINING US TONIGHT. IT'S BEEN VERY INTERESTING. I'M CHARLES GIBSON IN WASHINGTON FOR ALL OF HERE AT ABC NEWS. GOOD NIGHT. A:* Good NIGHT, Charlie. (apparent break in recording, then Gibson's voice)
Q #38	Q: BHAGWAN? DOES THE BHAGWAN STILL HEAR ME? IT’S CHARLIE GIBSON IN WASHINGTON AGAIN. IS HE STILL THERE? (Osho returns to chair, sits down.) I WANTED TO THANK HIM. IT WAS VERY INTERESTING. I'M STILL SOMEWHAT UNCERTAIN AS TO WHY HE'S DONE WHAT HE'S DOING TONIGHT, BUT I MOST APPRECIATE HIS BEING WITH US AND I THINK THIS WAS INTERESTING. THANK YOU. A: Now I am also thankful to you. Q: I’M SORRY, GO AHEAD. A: I am also very thankful to you, and glad that you have made this point clear to the whole nation, that now there is no religion here. And Mr. Frohnmeyer's whole case is down the drain.	Q:* I'M STILL SOMEWHAT UNCERTAIN AS TO WHY HE'S DONE WHAT HE'S DOING TONIGHT, BUT I MOST APPRECIATE HIS BEING WITH US AND I THINK THIS WAS INTERESTING. THANK YOU. A:* Now I am also thankful to you, A: because I am also very thankful to you, and glad that you have made this point clear to the whole nation, that now there is no religion here. And Mr. Frohnmeyer's whole case is down the drain.
Q #39	Q: WELL, I DON’T KNOW IF THAT IS THE CASE. BUT I SUPPOSE THIS WILL BE PURSUED IN THE COURTS AND I HOPE WE HAVE A CHANCE TO DO THIS AGAIN AS THIS CASE PROCEEDS. A: We will. We will pursue in the courts, but it is finished. It is just a dead case. Thank you.	Q:* I SUPPOSE THIS WILL BE PURSUED IN THE COURTS AND I HOPE WE HAVE A CHANCE TO DO THIS AGAIN AS THIS A:* We will. We will pursue in the courts, but it is finished. It is just a dead case. Thank you.
Q #40	Q: I AM SORRY, GO AHEAD. LET ME ASK YOU, IF WE CAN DO THIS, I THINK THIS IS VERY INTERESTING, AND IF WE COULD CONTINUE THIS AT SOME POINT, WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN COMING ON... A: Yes. Yes. Q:... AND TALKING TO SHEELA AT SOME POINT? A: I am willing. Always, whenever you want.	Q:* WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN COMING ON AND....? A:* Yes. Yes. Q:*... AND TALKING TO SHEELA AT SOME POINT? A:* I am willing. Always, whenever you want.
	Q: WELL, WE'LL BE IN TOUCH AND WE'LL TRY TO DO THAT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A MOST INTERESTING CONVERSATION. A: Okay. Thank you. Q: THANK YOU SO MUCH, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO DOING IT AGAIN. A: Good. Q: TAKE CARE. (Osho gets up, and leaves, public applauding.)	Q:* WELL, WE'LL BE IN TOUCH AND WE'LL TRY TO DO IT. A:* Okay. Thank you.
	GIBSON Q: MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL? MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL I THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS ANYONE IN THE STUDIO WHO WILL APPLAUD YOU, BUT … (end of recording of Gibson). (video credits: 1985 Osho International Foundation )