An amusing expose is at:

[onwardoverland.com]

I quote:

1. FREEDOM AND ACCEPTANCE IN THERAPY.

This article seems destructive and cruel towards therapists and meditation leaders. However, I defend the vulnerable and the unprotected, who seek orientation and help in therapy, but end up being manipulated, repressed and massacred. This is the true cruelty. I speak on behalf of the powerless, who need an advocate, because they do not have my knowledge and eloquence to defend themselves. I do not blame the therapists and meditation leaders. They have good intentions, they don't know better. I blame philosophy and the science of psychology for failing to give them useful guidelines on how to help their clients.

I want to demonstrate, that within the framework of understanding and accepting all facets of the human psyche, most modern therapies are useful. I aspire, to foster the efforts of the therapists, by providing a few links, that are missing in their theories. I hope my work will help to avoid, that beautiful and idealistic therapeutic enterprises, like the Humaniversity, are depreciated due to a few serious, but avoidable deficiencies. I hope, they will be able to help their clients even better than they do now.

Only a few hundred years ago the catholic church knew exactly what was right and what was wrong. Those who did wrong were despised, outlawed, punished, tortured or burned alive. Healthy sexuality, clairvoyance or independent ideas that disagree with the Bible were strictly prohibited.

Freud, Reich and the advent of our modern therapies taught us to be free and to be ourselves? In the middle ages we had standards for our behaviours. Now we have overcome them? No, we just extended the limits and changed one set of standards for another.

In the middle ages we were not allowed to be too happy or too sexual. Today there are many movements that require us to be happy and sexual. A friend of mine keeps complaining that therapists go on suggesting to him he should pick up women and get laid. His pleas, that he is not interested, are to no avail. The medieval church knew, that we must not have sex. Today's therapists know that we must have intercourse. The rules just reversed. What remained constant is, that we still have rules. What hasn't changed is, that there still are authorities who are convinced, that they know what is right for us.

After this illustration of a change of standards I will show an example of how we expand the limits, thinking that this is freedom, without being aware, that we still are setting arbitrary limits. In the middle ages a married woman, who enjoyed sex with her husband, was considered not normal. Some more liberal people allow married women to feel pleasure. Some people extend the limit even further, they even allow extramarital fun. But, who accepts the woman, who thinks of sex constantly, who wants to fuck six different men every day, or who enjoys sex with animals. We go on setting limits, totally convinced that people who exceed them, are sick or sinners. Our judgment and condemnation of the woman, who likes orgies is just as ferocious as the medieval pope's wrath of the woman who appreciated sex with her husband for reasons other than procreation.

I am always surprised, how people want to justify their conceited security about what is right, and what is wrong. The pope can quote god's law, as it is written in the bible, for his defense. People nowadays hide themselves behind the moral majority, like Pontius Pilatus or the judges, who killed Socrates.

Example: The Osho Humaniversity

The Osho Humaniversity in Egmond aan Zee, Holland, is led by Swami Anand Veeresh, a rebellious and freedom loving individual. They even offer a course, called "Authority Workshop": You are free to do whatever you want (provided you do what we say) "This workshop helps you to find back your own authority, which you had to surrender as a child in order to survive. Reclaim the power within you, that knows, 'Yes, this is what I want to do'; 'No, that I don't want to do'." Sounds beautiful, doesn't it. Just it fails to mention, that you have to surrender your authority in order to survive at the Humaniversity. As I will demonstrate later on, you shouldn't find the power within you, that thinks about any exercise the Humaniversity prescribes, 'No, that I don't want to do'.

This is the same freedom the catholic church gave to Galilei: 'You are totally free to explore the laws of the universe, provided you don't find anything that contradicts the Bible'. It is the same freedom, people in the German Democratic Republic used to have: I understand perfectly well, what they mean. I know, that the You have the freedom of expression, as long as you don't disagree with the government. By now, every member of the Humaniversity will be irritated with me, will feel I am unjust. Humaniversity is a beautiful place, that helps people to find their inner strength and authority. Choosing this organization as the target of my criticism, does by no means imply, that I consider it especially bad. On the contrary, I like the place, and I regret, that it is spoiled by the flaws, that I will explain hereafter. These flaws occur everywhere

As you might have noticed by now, my primary interest is freedom and authenticity. I don't think that constantly being false is a useful tool for growth and awareness. I like to find my inner truth, discover what I really want to do. Therefore I don't like therapy groups, that are authoritarian, that oblige participants to do certain exercises. I like to be offered exercises, not to be forced.

Therefore I asked a few people of the Humaniversity staff: "What if I don't want to participate in an exercise. Is there any problem, if I just step aside?" The therapist looked at me, totally bewildered: "If you don't want to do the exercise, what are you doing here?" I tried to explain about freedom, but it was to no avail. So I decided, that groups at that place are not for me. Once, though, I participated in a festival group, which is the same thing, except that it is voluntary. I enjoyed the experience of staying a whole weekend without sleep and with little food. It was my choice. At any moment I could acted differently. But I do not agree to surrender my will and my authority on Friday, only to regain it on Monday, when I leave the Humaniversity.

"Well", somebody might interject, "I understand that you want freedom, but we must have strict rules in order to control a group situation, and in order to push people to their limits". This answer is totally different from the answer I received before, which showed total ignorance of the concept of liberty. There is an essential difference, if someone understands and values freedom and rebellion, but chooses to use an authoritarian structure, or if someone uses an authoritarian structure, but has no comprehension whatsoever for the freedom spirit of the group participants. But, let's stop gossip, and let us be precise and scientific. In order to be more clear, I need to interrupt my flow in order to introduce a few theoretical concepts.

Example: Aum meditation

(A true tragedy)

The AUM meditation is being offered by the Humaniversity. It consists of 11 stages, designed to stimulate a multitude of diverse emotions or energies, induced by matching music. Its merit is the fact, that it encompasses a wide range of energies, its shortcoming is, that it rejects and disowns several qualities, the foremost of which are freedom and rebellion. It is still selective. It doesn't accept everything. It is dual, it thinks that certain energies are good and worthy of promotion, and that others, like falsehood and repression, should be extinguished.

I will outline a few of the stages of the AUM meditation, as explained in the Humaniversity magazine Freestate:

I hate you. Make fists and start screaming at each other: 'I hate you'.

I love you. When the music changes, stop screaming and start saying over and over again, from the bottom of your heart, 'I love you' to each other.

Freak out. Let your energy, your feelings or whatever you find inside, express itself through your body. Let go totally. You can scream, cry, dance, rage, beat mattresses, sing.

Crying. Allow your tears to flow. Be gentle to yourself, you can cry without apparent reason. Welcome your tears and your sadness.

Laughing.

I decided to try the AUM meditation, in order to have a personal experience of it. In the first phase I came across the problem of having to say: "I hate you" to someone I felt love and attraction for. I quickly deduced, that a declaration of love would not be received favourably at this moment. A truthful expression of anger towards the leaders of the performance, who commanded our feelings and supervised our words, also was not endorsed in the script. This left me with two options: direct clash with authority or falsity. Like everybody else, I opted for falsity. I made an effort to feel anger and to say: "I hate you". After a few minutes, I felt like a record player caught in a groove, monotonously repeating the same lifeless phrase. So I dared to take the liberty to modify the phrase slightly: 'Asshole, fuck off'. Being better drilled than I was, the other participants soon corrected my deviation and brought me back to mimicking correctly the required behaviour. The motto is not creativity, but breaking in.

The next stage was worse. Faking love fills me with even more disgust than faking hate. It was worth the experience, though, because it was noteworthy how easily people can be mislead. Most seemed to believe in my false declarations of love. In the laughing stage one could see the ridiculous spectacle of a bunch of people laughing hysterically, without feeling like laughing. People are so used to being false, that nobody seemed to notice the absurdity of the situation. There was only one authentic person: a woman, who made a mockery of the exercise and laughed with ostensible, demonstrative falsity, actually showing her irritation.

In the freaking out phase, I started out noisily, like any 'good' participant. Then I committed the mistake of stopping in order to feel what I really felt like doing. Immediately, one of the leaders jumped towards me, to return me to the path of obedience. There was no use arguing, so I started hitting a pillow, without ambition. The guard already was more satisfied, but pressed me to freak out more. Therefore I determined: 'If falsity is what you want, let's give you the perfect show'. I started beating the pillow with great noise and furore, hiding my delighted smile and laughter (I am so sorry, it was the right feeling, but in the wrong stage). The leader let go of me, deeply satisfied. I did the same thing everybody else did: play-acting. The only difference was, that I was fully conscious of the falsity, and the others were mostly unconscious. I want to stress the main point of my therapeutical work: acceptance of all energies, with no exception whatsoever. At that moment this meant accepting falsity, with no judgment, no condemnatory attitude whatsoever. If you stop condemning an attitude (energy), it ceases hiding from you. You become conscious of it. It stops acting unconsciously inside of you, like in the meditation leaders and many of the participants.

I must admit, though, that I still am prejudiced against falsehood. Therefore I ended up with a headache, by the time, the meditation was over. After a few hours, though, I recuperated. I most certainly will discount the Humaniversity's suggestion: 'It is best to do the meditation over a period of three months to fully experience its effect'. For heavens sake, please not, I had enough effect.

(end of the drama)

AN ANALYSIS OF THE RULES FOR THE AUM MEDITATION

Let us analyze the excerpts from the instructions for the AUM meditation, as provided in the Humaniversity periodical "Osho Freestate", July 1989.

I hate you. Make fists and start screaming at the top of your lungs at each other: I hate you'. Move to everybody and don't stop screaming; rather let it become louder and more and more total. Scream from your belly and get more and more into what you are doing.Everybody should take a course in computer programming, because it teaches you to plan ahead for all possible events. The author just forgot to consider the eventuality, that someone might not get into what he is doing. And I am sure, he will even be judgmental about such a person, he probably thinks it is childish defiance, if someone does not want to feel what he is ordered to.

I love you. When the music changes, stop screaming and start saying over and over again, from the bottom of your heart, 'I love you' to each other. ...This is the attitude of the catholic church, who thinks it can order us to truly love God, our parents and our spouse. But people in the growth movement should know better, that one cannot boss around somebody else's bottom of the heart to feel love whenever ordered. One cannot even order the bottom of the own heart. You feel what you feel, and not what you try to feel.

Make eye contact, allow your bodies to touch, when it feels right, and allow any soft feeling to flow when it happens.This is getting a lot better: 'allow ... when it happens'. But it still omits information on what to do when it does not happen.

Again make sure to meet every participant and really feel what you are saying.Great. Feel REAL love for everyone the moment you are required to.

Freak out. Let your energy, your feelings or whatever you find inside, express itself through your body. Let go totally. You can scream, cry, dance, rage, beat mattresses, sing.What if your energy and feelings are of quietness or of thinking? Probably Veeresh himself can deal with this situation, but not the other people he taught. See my comments on Rolando Toro on page Rolando and on Watzlawick's 'be-spontaneous-paradox' on page Watzlawick. You can't let go and have the feelings you are required to have. Either you let go, and whatever wants to happen, happens. Or you make things happen, but then you don't let go.

Humaniversity's instruction:

Crying. Allow your tears to flow. Be gentle to yourself, you can cry without apparent reason. Welcome your tears and your sadness.

My comment: This is the right way to say it. Allow and welcome. I wish the meditation leaders understood these words.

Humaniversity's instruction:

Laughing. [...] If you have difficulty laughing without reason, start with: 'Hahaha', and likely you will crack up laughing about your serious effort. Once this well of laughter, which is always present in your belly, is open, let it flow.

My comment: This is not so bad either. It says 'let it flow'. It gives instructions on what to do, if you don't feel like laughing. But it still does not consider the possibility, for example, that just in this moment, the well of sadness, which is always present in your chest, wants to flow.

And what about the workers? People having to pay to work there, definitely on "black" since not even the residents get paid the retirement insurance etc. so they will not get any old age coverage

Quote
S_Byers666
An amusing expose is at:
In the middle ages we were not allowed to be too happy or too sexual.
.
.
.
In the middle ages a married woman, who enjoyed sex with her husband, was considered not normal. Some more liberal people allow married women to feel pleasure. Some people extend the limit even further, they even allow extramarital fun. But, who accepts the woman, who thinks of sex constantly, who wants to fuck six different men every day, or who enjoys sex with animals. We go on setting limits, totally convinced that people who exceed them, are sick or sinners. Our judgment and condemnation of the woman, who likes orgies is just as ferocious as the medieval pope's wrath of the woman who appreciated sex with her husband for reasons other than procreation.

Just FYI, the Greeks (among others) were *very* open and experimental with their sexuality long before the Catholic Church, or Christianity as a whole, ever existed. If we look at the Old Testament of the Bible as a history book, we can see that openness of sexuality was quite predominant (at least in the mideastern region), especially notable with Sodom & Gommorah (I doubt I spelled that right) or perhaps even moreso during the reign of kings (including the kings) in Israel following Solomon. It was during the rise of the Catholic Church, especially in England, that sexuality became repressed again. The more recent "sexual revolution" is probably little more than a return to the way things were long ago.