I am amazed from time to time how armchair intellectuals find it is their responsibility to cast negative light on great Beings. It's like intellectual vomit.
I find the start of a discussion by use of the wording "intellectual vomit" not very positive, constructive - or for that matter - non-violent (one of the supposed basic values of AOL which you admit being associated with)
Also, i do not think i can be called an "armchair intellectual" – see my answer on your comment that i'm not really familiar with the things i write about for more explanation as to why i would perhaps be “intellectual” not really “armchair”.
The air of the article on Sri Sri was negative and emotionally manipulative, which is what the author seemed to be accusing the AOL and Sri Sri of, interesting projection.
Negative yes, but in what way is it emotionally manipulative? I believe i provided arguments and rational considerations. Also i bring some previous historic examples such as Maharishi and Osho to the reader's mind. But i do not think that constitutes as 'emotionally manipulative'. It is simply 'comparing' and 'making a reference' as far as i know.
Dumping the findings of medical research from leading institutions is pretty arrogant, don't you think?
It was not i but AOL who dumped them. I seem to have to repeat over and over again: the findings of the research AOL refers to has NOTHING to do with the way they themselves describe and explain how Sudarshan Kriya works.
Sudarshan Kriya is not a meditation technique, it does prepare one for relaxing into a more meditative state and being able to go on into the practitioners meditation.
How can a thing that aims at "preparing for relaxing into a more meditative state" not be considered a meditation technique itself?
Rajaque mentions the "contention" of the author towards the end of his comments on the article and the author goes back to "intention" and at some length. It seems he does not carefully read what is being said, as he had also commented on Sri Sri without careful analysis and a grounded framework.
True, contention is not intention. I looked up the meanings of the word (in google “define: contention”) and the only use of the word that seemed applicable here seemed to be “a point asserted as part of an argument”. Well then, i do not see how “a point asserted as part of an argument” can be genuine or not unless the “intentions” of an argument are not genuine. Contentions can actually be true or false, not genuine or not. This is to say: the points and arguments i make could be wrong or right not genuine or hypocrite.
But if i have to do some introspection and see how “genuine” they are – as Rajaque proposes – than that would actually imply that i have to ask myself whether i truly meant or believed my contentions. And of course i meant and believed them to be true. (otherwise i wouldn't have written them down). On the other hand he might also be implying that the reason why i wrote down my 'contentions' had a certain foul attempt behind them (which is what the previous sentence "The author should realise that one cannot attract attention with cheap headlines.” also seems to imply). If that is so, then actually he is talking about intentions and not so much contentions.
It seemed to me that the author was making comments about something he is not really familiar with and so the criticisms are not founded or grounded.
Where and how did you deduce that? Here again is my CV: http://www.halalmonk.com/halalmonk/cv/cv_js.pdf. As you can see, i am an anthropologian and theologian by education, I have published about meditation (see also here:http://www.averbode.com/religie/index.php?pageID=894) , I have made a dissertation about the spiritual value of fasting in Gandhi's life (see also http://www.kuleuven.be/nieuws/berichten/2006/thesis/godgeleerdheid.html), I have visited India several times (see for example: http://www.vroindia.org/newsletter23.pdf), i have followed many meditation courses (i have for example personal experience with Qi Gong, Tai Chi, Hatha Yoga, Christian Meditation, Mantra-meditation and tantra-meditation.) have had many encounters with spiritual groups of different religious persuasions, and i have for a long time been involved in social NGO work (again, see also http://www.vroindia.org/newsletter23.pdf) and have put on efforts for better understanding about and between religions (see the about of my website for example: http://www.yunusnews.com/aboutyunus) Thus i don't know how i can be considered not to be familiar with any aspect of AOL.On top of it: for my arguments to be “grounded” or “founded” my personal background and expertise is not the most important issue. The strength of my 'proof', reasoning and references is. And as i provide some arguments that appearently nobody from AOL so far could counter (as for example the fact that they use pseudo-scientific language that is not related to the scientific research that supposedly backs up these claims) and quite some references in the follow up discussion i believe my arguments have enough solidity in themselves to be “founded”.
I am a psychotherapist and once I was in a large forum in Southern California on treatment of child abuse survivors and attended one lecture in which the presenter was going on and on, heavily criticising, personally, a woman therapist who had created a wonderful and effective treatment for trauma based symptoms. It happened that I was one of the first people trained in this method and had assisted in training thousands of therapists all over the world in this method. I finally stood and asked him if he had ever taken this training he was so heavily criticising, and he said "No". I asked him if he had ever had the treatment he was criticising and he said "No". So I politely informed him that he was making ungrounded assessments and basing criticisms on what? (His own fears and memories?) The woman sitting next to me was a licensed therapist and one of my students in EMDR and then stood and introduced me. That was it. The danger is that people doing things like this can chase away uninformed and hurting people from getting help that is truly beneficial and constructive to people's lives.
And the danger of the ways AOL and Sri Sri are presented, so my article shows, is that the uninformed are fooled and tricked into expensive courses that do not offer anything more then other similar practices.
Concerning the beneficiality of Sudarshan Kriya i'd like to remark that it is also potentialy destructive according to some. On http://guruphiliac.blogspot.com/2006/07/sri-sri-cons-iraqis.html for example, one can find examples of people who say how the practice influenced them in a rather negative way. So saying that my article “chases away the uninformed” that might be benifited by it is not very relevant as it might just as well prevent those for who it could be a negative practice from getting involved in something which is not beneficial to them.
On top of it my article is about the genuinity of SSRS and AOL, not about the possible effects of SK. And i only use SK as an argument in the sense that AOL claims things about it that are “ungrounded” and “unfounded”. This to me would seem as a good example of not being genuine.
JOURNALISM NEEDS TO BE RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM. NOT BLIND, BUT RESPONSIBLE. THAT TAKES WORK, TRUE.
That is why i published the follow up article. And if it goes for journalism, it also goes for the 'guru-business'. So if i have some remarks and questions about the genuinity of AOL or SSRS, then blaming with words of “intellectual vomit”, “stop being blind” saying that i have no authority to speak (when i can actually show that i do) and just attacking me on moral grounds (that i should be responsible for example) without showing how i cross the moral line will not help a constructive dialog i think. It would be better if my arguments were countered by other arguments, my questions were countered with offering data, and my doubts were clarified with proven references.
The treatment in this case is Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, the first choice of the American Psychiatric Association now for PTSD and highly recommended by the American Veterans Administration. I am a "master" in this technique and instead I arranged Courses for Kosovo Liberation Army Vets in Kosovo for an AOL Teacher to give them the techniques and healing in the AOL Courses and then spent 3 and 1/2 years in Afghanistan teaching the Course and techniques to war and mine victims myself.
Is there any report of these events? I find it interesting. Certainly because i do not think that a religiously tensionful country that is predominantly Muslim would easily allow groups rooted in Hinduism to teach their classes. I'd really be interested in these things as i am very interested in keeping track of the non-violent efforts that are being set up in order to heal and prevent conflicts.
The teachings and trainings developed and given by Sri Sri are the most powerful and effective healing techniques I have found and I am fortunate to have personally witnessed the deep healing and profound changes for severely impacted persons, as well as increased health for high functioning persons.
I'm happy for you that you have found what you were looking for. Yet what i have found in the AOL and SSRS commercialisation so far has been distortion of facts, exagerated claims, unsolid arguments and many SSRS followers blaming me of many things without advancing arguments that really counter what i've written so far. Personal experience will at this point simply not do well enough for me, as i have read and heard many stories of personal experience claiming the exact opposite.
Jonas, I sincerely wish you health and happiness, and when you truly have it, you will come from a different place.
I sincerly thank you for your health and happiness and i wil also hope that one day i understand how you can be genuinly wishing me such things on the one hand and on the other call me an “armchair intellectual” and call my writings “intellectual vomit”.
AG commented to my reply in the following way:
"The proof is in the pudding", in only 25 years the Art Of Living has become the world's largest NGO; served millions of people and alleviated much pain and painful circumstances for people; Sri Sri has received many, many awards for the accomplishments of helping people; IAOLF and IAHV continue to grow and accomplish bigger and bigger things; He brings out more and more programs to help people and more techniques.
You go on and on with negative statements, ungrounded, twisting things and then when "It's like intellectual vomit", you cry foul and infer that it is not within ahimsa.
You are twisting things again, I did not say anything about your "authority" to say something I said it is ungrounded, ungrounded in that you do not have direct experience of what you are criticizing, do you? This twisting is manipulative, attempting to put forward a point but not having grounded experience to come from in the very thing you are criticizing, but in things you say are "like" what you are criticizing.
Intellectually manipulative arguments, not based in fact, attempt usually to sway people's opinions by use of verbal intellectual arguments that affect the emotions.
I did not read anything in the reference you put forward that said someone was stating that they were harmed in any way by the practice of any AOL techniques, again a negative manipulative twist, ungrounded.
In the Art Of Living websites you will find references, photos and letters of recommendation from Medical School Chancellors, political leaders, governmental administrators, UN officials, everyday people, etc. to the work in Kosovo and Afghanistan, at Hurricane Katrina and the tsunami, Palestine, etc. . We also have many teachers around the world working in difficult areas who do not choose to have any pr done about it, they are too busy with their work just quietly serving people in need. There is a video on youtube of Sri Sri's visit to Iraq, and about the work in Iraq. If it is useful for pr, it is done.
"Armchair intellectuals" become boring to me. That does not mean there is no value in debate, but this is not really presented in your articles as debate but putting yourself out as an expert on something you do not have direct, only peripheral, experience of. I do question this since by a lot of direct experience, I know that this is a strong positive effect in people's lives.
I can send you sincere best wishes without having to like what you spit out. There always needs to be room for discussion and disagreement, freedom of speech and opinion. You have yours and I have mine and that is it. Mine is grounded in direct experience and yours in this instance is not, is it?
It is work to take steps to explore that which you wish to castigate, as you have put yourself in a position where taking steps to explore this may be construed as weakness. What to do? Going on and on is not constructive at this point, it is only getting into attempts to convince and that is not only not necessary, but being in a dialogue where the forum is used to be defensive. I felt it would be useful to respond to your ungrounded statements and I did and now I have other things to attend to.
My reply:
Dearest A.,
As you yourself say that "Going on and on is not constructive at this point" i will leave the matter where it is. I myself have said more then enough about the whole topic and will soon be putting a collection of emails and replies like these on the net somewhere - indeed for all to decide by themselves. [note: hence the existence of this blog]
Just two things i would like to address and clarify as i find your allegations a bit unjust and righteousness compels me to correct this.
One: You say that you "did not say anything about my "authority" to say something" and that "you said it is ungrounded, ungrounded in that I do not have direct experience of what you are criticizing". Excuse me for misunderstanding you but you did not say that direct experience of the thing was the problem, you said that "the author was making comments about something he is not really familiar with". I then replied that i was on the contrary familiar with every aspect of the things i discuss in my article and added enough references to back that up. I think i followed all rules of proper discussion by doing so.
Also, i do not think that anyone can be expected to have direct experience with everything in this world. If somebody has previously tried Wodka, i will not tell him that he can't say anything about the effects of Whisky since he did not try that specific product. My proof of personal experience with Wodka and my thorough reading and research about the experiences with Whisky should therefore be enough to allow me to state my opinion in a discussion where the effects of alcohol are the topic.
Two you say that you "did not read anything in the reference you put forward that said someone was stating that they were harmed in any way by the practice of any AOL techniques, again a negative manipulative twist, ungrounded."
This i do not find proper because it blames me again of being manipulative where i am not.
Let me just quote three example i have copy-pasted from that very same reference-link i send:
One: "My experience was that I became weaker and sicker with practice, as did many others I know who left the organization. These were people who practiced for some time. One original organizer died at in his 40s of cancer. Another died at the Montreal ashram in his 40s of a heart attack, having been previously very healthy and fit and unstressed in general. I could go on and on, but you see for yourself. Perhaps you just started and have yet to suffer any ill effects. I have been told by a very good Ayurvedic physician in India that this practice damages the organs and the mind. He said that this particular type of Kriya should only be practiced in a pure environment such as the Himalayas where there are few people and no stress. Otherwise, he said, the body mind mechanism is opened up to all the garbage around you and you begin to take on many illnesses, both mental and physical. He also said that SSRS suffers from many mental problems as a result. (that I'm sure of) He also toured with SSRS and observed all the people. He said outside of the TM movement he had not seen so many sick individuals in one group at one time, and most of them younger than 50 years. Tsk tsk."
Two: "I have a few close friends who are staunch devotees of SSRS. They are highly educated, extremely intelligent people who regard SSRS as a SatGuru and do not revere him as God. Suprisingly, they justify the cult-like practices of the organisation, including the excessive publicity and hype. They continue to spend a lot of time, effort and money towards AoL activities and for all their pains they don't seem to radiate peace and joy as they initially did after first getting involved with AoL. They ask everyone if they are happy and ironically sound unhappy themselves, even frustrated at times. Their families are pained and worried with their dysfunctional lives."
Three: "I did two courses, the basic and the DSN course. Uptil the first course it was all fine but as soon as I finished the DSN my back pain has increased and has become a permanent feature and so has sluggishness in my system. I feel more sleepy, even depressed at times.
And in the name of giving you more in life they take money from you and spend the time you have already paid for to pitch new "products". Its pityful.
I thought it worked in the beginning because it gave me a high feeling after the SK but rest of the day was spent feeling miserable and was like a drug addiction. Without doing SK the next day you would have withdrawal symptoms or guilt pangs."
But ok, you had to read quite a way into the page to see these things, so i understand if you haven't seen them when you looked at it.
AG emailed me once more.
I had not seen those quotes you just sent, so did not respond to them.
Whenever there is a movement promising techniques and means of healing, you find people come who have difficulties and who are coming to find help, isn't this true? They often remain connected to the organization and assist, through gratitude, wanting more education, to be indentified as being part of a positive movement, etc., . Isn't this often true also? You do not open a hospital and put up a sign "No sick people allowed!" do you? This is a volunteer based organization, with the strengths and the challenges of this kind of situation, but giving belongingness and a place to be with others, some with more life challenges than others. I have not seen anyone turned away. If they were to be turned away, it would be because they are doing something harmful to others. It is another pool of humanity, and if one wants to seek negative they can find it because that is their perception and the lenses they see through. Part of this is about moving beyond acceptance of others and just loving them as they are, with warts and faults.
By the way, do you know any doctors who succumb to illnesses?
Aren't the quotes from people you included, also subjective and from personal perception? It was not quoted from reliable medical research done on numbers of people to prove negative effects of the AOL and practices. Research undertaken to do just that further proved the efficacy of the Sudarshan Kriya.
There are people who want to "advance" in the AOL and who work very hard and also people who really want to help others and work really hard in the AOL. They need to monitor themselves and take care of themselves.
For the person who took the Basic Course and then the DSN Course: it is my information that people are not supposed or usually allowed to take the DSN Course until they have had several Basic Courses and at least 2 Advanced Courses. This is to allow the body time to become stronger from the practice of the techniques. I am wondering how they got permission to take the DSN without following this usual prescribed sequence. And since they did this, they must have really actively promoted themselves to be able to do this, or perhaps misled and said they had taken the prescribed Courses before. I wonder if the Organizers knew the person was not prepared as they were supposed to be.
As people do the practices they may feel some tiredness as the body and mind destress. Continued use of the techniques does lead to more energy and better health, you can check the research for that. Aside from the research, there are the examples of millions of people who are continuing the practices. People have to put their own effort into this in order to benefit, the techniques and practices work but you have to do them, and as instructed. Art of Living also encourages people to eat proper diet, and drink lots of water and if people do not adopt healthy living practices, what can you do? It is not Art Of Living police, it is also about personal effort and commitment.
If people are not happy or are not comfortable with something that is going on and they feel it is from the practices, they can question Teachers or Advanced Course Teachers for information, guidance and support. There are Art Of Living Ayurveda physicians also who help.
I was at the Montreal Ashram when someone I knew died in their sleep, they were not in their 40's and had retired recently and had a history of heart difficulties. This is from the information I gleaned at the time, and I was present.
If you want to find negative and focus on that, rather than on positive outcomes, you can always find it, I am sure. There are people who make a living of doing things like that. Whatever dialogue we have, do both of us need to be the one with the last word in? Does that mean the one with the last word "wins" somehow? It makes for a limited conversation, and what is the sharing in that? From human nature, enemies often become friends, just as a quirk of human nature, so as people with opposing points of view, what will happen in the future, who knows? Truth is multidimensional. I am not sure I will respond further, as I am busy with other things now I need to attend to. We are working right now on interreligious dialogues to promote education about the various religions and promote harmony. Your work as I have seen it, seems to be primarily critical, which is the format for many academicians. That is just the way it is. The purpose of that design, is to further sharpening critical thinking but how far does it go to progress against a reasonable, rational, and useful goal? Oh no, another debate!
My reply:
I'm glad the tone of our conversation has taken a different form.
I'd also leave these last comments you send as they are, certainly because they pronounce your personal views on the matter (to which you are more then entitled) and offer some more info about the workings of AOL (for which i must thank you) but i'm afraid that just like the previous time, one or two remarks are needed, because it would seem that my point of view otherwise might unjustly remain misunderstood.
"Hi
I had not seen those quotes you just sent, so did not respond to them.
Whenever there is a movement promising techniques and means of healing, you find people come who have difficulties and who are coming to find help, isn't this true? They often remain connected to the organization and assist, through gratitude, wanting more education, to be indentified as being part of a positive movement, etc., . Isn't this often true also? You do not open a hospital and put up a sign "No sick people allowed!" do you? This is a volunteer based organization, with the strengths and the challenges of this kind of situation, but giving belongingness and a place to be with others, some with more life challenges than others. I have not seen anyone turned away. If they were to be turned away, it would be because they are doing something harmful to others. It is another pool of humanity, and if one wants to seek negative they can find it because that is their perception and the lenses they see through. Part of this is about moving beyond acceptance of others and just loving them as they are, with warts and faults.
By the way, do you know any doctors who succumb to illnesses?
Aren't the quotes from people you included, also subjective and from personal perception? It was not quoted from reliable medical research done on numbers of people to prove negative effects of the AOL and practices."
The fact that those quotes were subjective and personal perceptions is just as true for all the quotes and stories from the people who favor Sudarshan Kriya and AOL and describe them positively.
I did not try to give the idea that my quotes would in any way 'prove' that SK was an awful thing. I only bring up my examples of these negative experiences because people from AOL - like yourself - bring up their own personal experience as an argument.
Personal stories simply don't prove a thing about the 'goodness' or 'genuinity' of AOL, SSRS or SK because both positive and negative can be found. For personal reasons it might be an argument, but not in an intellectual debate (and i therefore also did not bring the topic of personal stories into my original article)
"Research undertaken to do just that further proved the efficacy of the Sudarshan Kriya."
I'll come to this a bit further
"There are people who want to "advance" in the AOL and who work very hard and also people who really want to help others and work really hard in the AOL. They need to monitor themselves and take care of themselves.For the person who took the Basic Course and then the DSN Course: it is my information that people are not supposed or usually allowed to take the DSN Course until they have had several Basic Courses and at least 2 Advanced Courses. This is to allow the body time to become stronger from the practice of the techniques. I am wondering how they got permission to take the DSN without following this usual prescribed sequence. And since they did this, they must have really actively promoted themselves to be able to do this, or perhaps misled and said they had taken the prescribed Courses before. I wonder if the Organizers knew the person was not prepared as they were supposed to be."
Perhaps you could ask the person on the Guruphiliac blog him- or herself.
As people do the practices they may feel some tiredness as the body and mind destress. Continued use of the techniques does lead to more energy and better health, you can check the research for that.
This is exactly what i have mentioned in my very first article: I have checked the research and it does not say anything about such things.
First of all "energy" as such is not a term used in such medical research, so the word is not even mentioned in all the abstracts that i read at http://www.aolresearch.org/pubresearch.html
Second, above all the research seems to show that Sudarshan Kriya has an effect on reducing anxiety and certain types of depression. That is not something you could call "better health". The term to use would be better "sense of well being". This is not the same as "health" as a "sense of well being" is a psychological state and health includes your fysiological state. Admittedly it has relation to concepts like "mental health", but when you write "more energy and better health", then people get a very different idea of what you mean.
Thirdly, now that i have taken a better look at the research summaries, it turns out that most of them make it very clear that the research that they conducted was on very small scales and so should be done on bigger scales if you want them to be conclusive. Thus the research so far provides us more with 'promising information' than with conlusive statements.
"Aside from the research, there are the examples of millions of people who are continuing the practices. People have to put their own effort into this in order to benefit, the techniques and practices work but you have to do them, and as instructed. Art of Living also encourages people to eat proper diet, and drink lots of water and if people do not adopt healthy living practices, what can you do? It is not Art Of Living police, it is also about personal effort and commitment."
Like i said, personal experience is not an argument in the present discussion. Even the existence of millions of people who do something is not an argument for that something to be 'good' or 'genuine'. There have been more then enough historic examples of this - from gurus (e.g. Osho) to political structures (e.g. Nazism) - that show how millions can do something that is not at all very beneficial to the society or the world. (Admittedly, the Nazism-example is way to harsh in this case, but i just wanted to make a point, i certainly don't want to compare AOL with it in any other way.)
"If people are not happy or are not comfortable with something that is going on and they feel it is from the practices, they can question Teachers or Advanced Course Teachers for information, guidance and support. There are Art Of Living Ayurveda physicians also who help."
I was at the Montreal Ashram when someone I knew died in their sleep, they were not in their 40's and had retired recently and had a history of heart difficulties. This is from the information I gleaned at the time, and I was present.
If you want to find negative and focus on that, rather than on positive outcomes, you can always find it, I am sure. There are people who make a living of doing things like that.
Whatever dialogue we have, do both of us need to be the one with the last word in? Does that mean the one with the last word "wins" somehow? It makes for a limited conversation, and what is the sharing in that? From human nature, enemies often become friends, just as a quirk of human nature, so as people with opposing points of view, what will happen in the future, who knows? Truth is multidimensional."
Your philosophical truth-concept is of little concern in face of certain facts. To repeat for example, when the research does NOT show that Sudarshan Kriya gives "more energy" and all the official AOL pages say that it does and this can be verified by medical research, then truth can be as multidimensional as it wants, it remains a false statement.
"I am not sure I will respond further, as I am busy with other things now I need to attend to. We are working right now on interreligious dialogues to promote education about the various religions and promote harmony. Your work as I have seen it, seems to be primarily critical, which is the format for many academicians."
My work on Yunus News is primarily focussed on 'correction' . I think that is different then simply critical. The effort is to come closer to the reality and the truth, not to criticize for the fun of it. On the contrary, it corrects because so many misunderstandings create so much problems in the world. I believe harmony and understanding often go together.
On top of it, my work in the Pax Christi NGO is as an organizer of the Flemish Peace Week where many Flemish peace organisation join in an effort to do all sorts of activities concerning a certain peace-theme during a certain week. My dissertation was a constructive effort to combine both Gandhian and Christian views to find a new, useful and contemporary way of fasting. My book-publication centers around essentials of meditation (recognizing it as a very beneficial religious practice). ...
I really do not see where you get the idea of my work being 'primarily critical'.
"That is just the way it is. The purpose of that design, is to further sharpening critical thinking but how far does it go to progress against a reasonable, rational, and useful goal? Oh no, another debate!"
Not at all [note: not at all another debate, I meant], academics (which i believe you are still refering to with these last sentences) are not the discussion here and neither am i one myself. I shall therefore not go into it.
And one more reply from AG:
(I guess she found "going on and on" constructive after all. Though, as the reply did not bring in any new arguments, but only brought in more adoration and sanctification of both Guru and Organisation, i did not see the need to reply. Certainly that those so busy people that are so involved with "Seva" make me "lose count" of the amount of emails like this that they send me - i guess they do find some time to write them after all)
Only a minute,
I have been with Guruji since 1996 and when you see Him working tirelessly for others 20 hours a day usually, every day, it builds a lot of respect, gratitude, and affection.
The affection and gratitude are so strong for some there seems to be a compulsive element, depending on their personality.
AOL is volunteer run, so there are mistakes and sometimes remarks by people are not edited by a senior with more PR knowledge, or organizational knowledge of what is going on, to make things accurate and clear. This happens so many times. As volunteers, people come and people go.
Also as Guruji has said, if you open a hospital you do not put out a sign, "No sick people allowed", the AOL is a mixture of people from all over the world, all backgrounds and we all have our stories. As a Guru He is here to help people and He does not discriminate. We have so many programs helping people we lose count and they are originating all the time. I was once the editor of the Rishimukh magazine and tried to get stories from people about what kind of Seva they were doing and they were all too busy with the seva to respond most of the time. We work hard, there are lots of problems in the world right now, aren't there? And in so many places we have people there, helping. I was in Kosovo 2+ years and in Afghanistan for the better part of 3 and 1/2 years, setting up Courses and teaching to war victims and torture vicitms, etc. The Course and the techniques are SUPERIOR for people with PTSD and stress from cumulative traumas, as well as everyday anxiety of people in less troubled areas. Shell Oil, World Bank, Credit Suisse and other large firms are clients, as well as villagers who are beneficiaries. There is so much charity work done, you cannot imagine, I am a teacher and cannot keep up on the information. .
And there is so much criticism that is unfounded, I just happened on another entry somewhere on the internet saying the School outside Bangalore is small and is fee only and that is an out and out lie!
Anyway, I am busy and must go, what to do?
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten