The first question:
In the West many group-psychoanalysts, such as Bion, Ezriel, Anzien, Pichon-Priviere, treat a group as a unity and they analyze the group mentality, mood and resistances, but not as individuals. For them, as a man is made of many aspects and parts, but is a unity, so a group is made of many persons but is a unity too.
Here with you, the importance of the group is very much stressed in therapy, work, meditation, energy darshan; on the other hand great importance is given to individuality. Osho, please, has a group a kind of unique soul beyond individuals, or is it only a bunch of people occasionally gathered together? Are different social and ethical implications concerned in such a case? Please comment.
This is one of the fundamentals of fascism, that individuals don’t exist, only groups are real. But then the problem arises: where will you put the full stop? If the group is real and individuals are not real, or are just parts of the group, then the church is far more real – it is a bigger group; then the nation is far more real because it is an even bigger group; then the whole of humanity is still more real because it is an even bigger group. And the individual is completely lost. And whenever there is a conflict between the individual and the group, of course the individual has to sacrifice himself – because he is unreal. He exists only as a part of the group.
This is the way to destroy revolution completely, totally. This is not psychoanalysis; this is trying to bring fascism from the back door. But all the societies love fascism. No society wants individuals, because the very existence of the individual is a question mark on many things the society goes on doing.
An individual is bound to be a rebel. An individual is a nonconformist, he cannot conform. He can say yes only to things which he feels are worth saying yes to, but it depends on his own feeling, his own intuitive understanding, his own intelligence. He cannot be forced to yield. He can surrender out of love, but he cannot be made to surrender; he would rather die than surrender. He cannot be an obedient slave – not that he does not know how to obey. When he feels for something, when he is committed to something, involved with something, he obeys, he obeys totally, but he is really obeying his own inner light; he is not following any commandments from the outside.
To be an individual is to be nonpolitical. The whole of politics depends on people who are not individuals, who are only phony individuals, who appear to be separate but are not separate – dependent on the group, utterly dependent, for their safety, security, respectability, power, prestige – for their ego.