(My opinion of the Advaita scene after reading years of damage reports)

This is the terrifying implication of Advaita -- that self and other are one, distinctions between ourselves and other persons is illusion.

If a seeker entered the world of Advaita teachings, satsangs and teachers, he or she is in a world where no one has inherent rights to decent treatment and where adoration (to alleged enlightened ones)and submission (to alleged enlightened ones) are the only options.

Therefore there is no such thing as unique personal identity

Other persons have no claim on us to behave honesty

Conventional distinctions between truth/untruth, good/bad, right wrong just/unjust are meaningless

None of us has a claim to inherent personal dignity or basic human rights

This feels like "liberation" but it is the liberation to be a blissful psychopath.

These folks have freed themselves from the experience of finitude and limitation.

My guess is these people are empty inside and their advaitic experience leaves them human vacuums craving infinite attention, infinite sexual and intellectual domination and infinite money.

Which is why these Advaita types behave the same way, leaving discarded lives in their wake.

No basis for any human right to

Hello everybody, new to the board.

I have received training in NLP, and I can confirm that BK uses language patterns and pacing and leading, as well as metaphors and embedded suggestions. I'm not the world's best NLPer, and it took me a couple of times to read through some quotes to find the suggestions, because I'm used to looking for analog marking. However, I wanted to mention another thing she bastardized for her turnaround: quantum linguistics. Specifically, Cartesian coordinates. The basic idea is, you take a belief, you add "not" to it in certain ways, and it's supposed to loosen up your thinking to leave you open to more choices. She goes a step further, and uses reframing to change the subject to the person coming to her for help. Very damaging stuff. Also, I know certain books were mentioned that she might have learned from, but I would also look in the direction of Tad James, since he goes really in depth with quantum linguistics.

Thanks for letting me rant, and for (hopefully,) forgiving me for resurrecting an old thread.

Welcome to the CEI message board.

We 'bump' older topics upwards to the front page all the time so that visitors can know what's available.

The Byron Katie discussion was one of the most heavily disrupted, trolled conversations that took place on the message board.

Heavy trolling is a sure sign that many consider a discussion valuable, and that many others want that same information to be hidden out of view.

The Anticult, a very active contributor, revealed a great deal.

Here is an example of TAC's research:

[forum.culteducation.com]

Your contribution will educate the reading public.

Thank you!!!!

Research Tip:

Selected the "all dates" option to cover the 21 years this message board has been up and running.

Further Reading

Here are just a few topics The Anticult has researched for us all:

Unpaid Labor Katie

[forum.culteducation.com]

Various topics tied to the word Washing Machine Katie

[forum.culteducation.com]


Release Forms Waivers --- NEVER SIGN ONE OF THESE! No ethical professional ever asks you to sign away your right to sue or mediate for damages if you are harmed.


Byron Katie, Landmark Education and other such groups make you sign release forms. That is a sure tip off that you should RUN in the opposite direction.

[forum.culteducation.com]

[forum.culteducation.com]

Handshake Induction

[forum.culteducation.com]

Siddha Yoga (Muktananda Gurumayi) and Byron Katie -- surprising social connections

[forum.culteducation.com]

Nested Loops

[forum.culteducation.com]

Shell Companies

[forum.culteducation.com]

The CEI message board offers a wealth of information thanks to Mr Ross's professionalism and the pro bono assistance of several excellent lawyers who fought off a series of lawsuits against Mr Ross and his websites.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2023 11:41PM by corboy.

Thank you for the welcome. I had gone through TAC's replies on the subject, as well as several others, and I'm glad to see so much information is out there already. I really do hope anyone who was drawn into BK's institution finds these posts and breaks free. I'm new to NLP, relatively speaking, but a lot of people who have been around much longer are concerned about unethical uses of NLP and hypnosis, and so am I. I'm glad to be part of this board, and I hope I can help out more in the future.

Side note: is there a place on the board for topics about fake martial artists? A lot of them have a big influence on those they draw in, and they can be really devastating

jj52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Zentient,
>
> I don't know anything about the Unity Church, but
> I did think it was really odd that a Church would
> have Katie come do a seminar there when I saw that
> event listed awhile back. Katie's belief system is
> so Anti-everything-Christian... she doesn't belong
> teaching in a Church!
>
> After attending The School, I felt like I
> understood better the message that Katie is trying
> to get across to everyone. No, you're not supposed
> to question the thoughts that bring you
> "happiness," only the ones that bring you
> "stress." Supposedly. Basically, anything
> about reality that you don't like, just turn it
> around and convince yourself its not what it is so
> you can live in bliss... I mean, this stuff gives
> "rose colored glasses" a new meaning.
>
> However, when you are at The School in her
> controlled environment, she unleashes a whole new
> realm of questioning. The idea is that no matter
> what you think, it's just a "story." Katie often
> says "That's my story, and I'm sticking to it."
> Her beliefs about the world and "reality" make her
> happy, and I think she doesn't want to see it
> differently. She basically tells us that we can
> live in delusion as long as it makes us happy.
> Forget reality! Because... isn't reality whatever
> you believe it to be anyway?? She calls herself a
> "lover of reality" but then distorts reality to
> fit her purposes.
>
> Have you ever heard her say this: "It was a chair,
> then it wasn't"...? To her, things are not things,
> just illusions. But she will call it a chair
> because she knows that is what you call it... and
> she's got her "human disguise" on. It's so beyond
> good sense... but I'm trying very hard to explain
> her belief system in a way that we can all
> understand... especially me. Sorry if it doesn't
> make sense here... It's hard to make something
> that doesn't make sense... make sense.
>
> Even though she has a "story"-- a delusion-- about
> the world... she also claims that she has no
> beliefs and no story at all. She basically says
> that her "story" is just to benefit us normal
> people who can't understand what it's like being
> her. She says that everything is nothing. She may
> call it a chair, but she doesn't really believe
> that's what it is, because to her it's just
> nothing. She thinks that the chair is really just
> a "projection"... an illusion that her mind is
> creating for her. So, in Katie's mind nothing is
> real. She teaches that the mind is just like a
> movie projector... constantly putting images
> before our eyes... even our body is nothing but a
> projection, she says. Nothing is real, so why
> believe your mind? She says that she lives in
> "reality" because she has "done all her Work",
> questioned all her thoughts, and come to realize
> that there is NOTHING, that she is NOTHING... that
> we all are nothing. No right, no wrong, no good,
> no bad. No Christian God, no devil. No Buddha. No
> Muhammad. No feelings. No evil, no sin, no virtue.
> Nothing. Everything is a figment of our
> imagination... And once you realize that, then you
> are living "in love."
>
> That's her ultimate message.
>
> At the same time, she says that there is
> SOMETHING... "God" as she defines God. And that's
> all there is, and that is "reality" or "love"
> according to her. God, in Katie's world, is
> something, everything, and nothing all at once.
> God is just this big nothingness, and we are like
> fingers on this giant nothing organism... we don't
> really exist, because we are little pieces of this
> big nothing...
>
> It's almost as if this nothing God were just
> playing a game with Itself, and tricking us all
> into believing we exist, and the only way out of
> this world is to realize that we really are
> nothing and don't exist, to do The Work, and
> return back to our big nothingness... which is
> really all we are, anyway.
>
> So, any thought or belief you have about anything
> is really just an illusion, and you can choose
> your illusion, because you are a little piece of
> the big nothing called God, or "reality."
>
> Are you confused yet???
>
> There are people out there knocking themselves out
> trying to reach the same point that Katie is...
> because they actually believe this crap. I suppose
> that's why I couldn't immerse myself in it.
>
> Katie says in her new book "A Thousand Names for
> Joy" that the thing she "really likes about being
> in different bodies" is that when someone else
> hurts, she doesn't have to feel it. In other
> words, she is you, you are her, everyone is
> everyone, and all little parts of the big nothing
> God. That is why she treats everyone so sweetly...
> because she's just talking to herself. Everything
> and everyone is an extension of herself. But, she
> knows you probably don't understand that, so she
> will talk to you on your level... Is this insane
> or what? She contradicts herself all the time...
> she'll tell you whatever, and deny it, because it
> didn't really mean anything anyway... and/or you
> just didn't understand.
>
> She really seems to enjoy having no empathy and
> feeling no pain... and this is "bliss".
> Personally, I could never be happy like that.
>
> But, that's really the goal of The Work.
>
> Psychopathy anyone?
> How about a little narcissism?
>
> (I dunno if that answered your question, but it
> sure helped me to get that all out!)
>
> -jj

Reading through this again, it struck me how similar this is to the delusions I I sometimes have. The thing is, I have Undifferentiated Schizophrenia...

helpme2times Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Remember that video where Katie is counseling the
> woman who is afraid of war? Well, there are
> actually three videos covering the entire
> dialogue. I just watched
> Part
> 2 - "I'm Afraid of War".
>
> Actually I didn't make it through the whole video.
> It bothered me so much, I had to stop watching. I
> could barely believe what I was hearing.
>
> I went back and transcribed the part where BK lost
> me. This is what Byron Katie actually says to the
> woman re her possibly experiencing war again:
>
> "The sirens could go off and you might think,
> 'Hmmm, interesting sound. I don't have the room
> that I thought I'd have.' As an intelligent human
> being, what can I do from right here, right now?
> And if nothing comes to you to do, you might just
> ask yourself again, 'I'm afraid of war, is it
> true?' And notice that you're still intact, the
> flower's still fine. And if the bomb blows your
> leg off, you can get very excited. It's like, how
> do I know I'm not supposed to have that leg
> anymore? It's gone. And immediately move into why
> you are better off without it. I know you can do
> this because your mind is very busy creating what
> you can't do when the leg's blown off. That is
> proof of your capacity to understand, to create.
> You're creating the world in the moment of what
> you will no longer be able to do. Not very
> exciting. But it's very exciting to just sit in,
> 'My leg is gone and what could be better than two
> legs?' Obviously, life with one leg. And all of
> the examples of why your life would be
> better."

This is some, "My voice will go with you" stuff here . BK is using pacing and leading, and embedded quotes. Setting up a thought in the listener's mind to play out exactly as she wants it to, including the work patterns. There are also unspecified verbs and nouns, and nominalizations, of course. When I learned hypnosis, my teacher Summed up a lot of the language patterns of the Milton model into about 8-10 main distinctions. One of the biggest was simply called vague language. It might be valuable for people new to hypnotic language to have that term in mind, and remember that it's really just like it sounds: any word or phrase that sounds vague. It causes you to go inside and look for a personal meaning to it, and while you're inside, someone can sneak in suggestions

question lady Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

Quote
yg
Hi Solea
>
> The issue of authority is a big one, and if we
> e were not looking to authority outside of
> ourselves, or authority learned from outside of
> ourselves but now internalized, we would not be
> prey to so much.
>
> [snip]
>
> Getting free of the lure and the hypnotic
> influences of some these things I had to really go
> deeply into this authority issue and wanting to
> give my power away or another way to say it is
> always looking for Mommy and/or Daddy to tell me
> what to do. Either authority outside of myself,
> or internal learned authorities operating
> internally.
>
> yg

>
> This makes a lot of sense to me yg.
>
> Here is an excerpt from one of BK's books, A
> Thousand Names for Joy:
>
>

Quote

I was sitting once with a friend who had a
> huge tumor, and the doctors had given her just a
> few weeks to live. As I was leaving her bedside,
> she said, "I love you," and I said, "No, you
> don't. You can't love me until you love your
> tumor. Every concept that you put onto that tumor
> you'll eventually put onto me. The first time I
> don't give you what you want or threaten what you
> believe, you'll put that concept onto me." This
> might sound harsh, but my friend had asked me to
> always tell her the truth. The tears in her eyes
> were tears of gratitude, she said.

>
> [www.thework.com]
>
> What struck me about this was the way the BK
> invaded this woman's boundaries and invalidated
> what she had just told her. BK ignored the woman's
> expression of love, then presumed to tell the
> woman that she did NOT love her, and even told her
> what she would do at some future date. To top it
> off, she says she did so because it was "the
> truth". Wow.
>
> The friend expressed her inner reality to BK and
> BK essentially said "no, that's not what you feel.
> I'll tell you what you feel." This is exactly the
> process Patricia Evans describes in her book
> "Controlling People." Evans says someone is trying
> to make a control connection when they define you,
> rather than respecting your right to define
> yourself.
>
> I am wondering, does anyone ever ask "Is is
> true?", in response to Katie's edicts about HOW IT
> IS.

Metaphor, to an embedded command, to a direct suggestion, to another embedded command. She's putting everyone listening in the vulnerable spot of being hospitalized with cancer. She's telling them to love her. She's then preframing by using a strange direct suggestion: she is the cancer inside of you, doing bad things to your body and health, and she caused bad things to happen to you. This may be handling objections, which is part of the NLP sales close:
1: Get rapport;
2: ask questions;
3: find a need/desire;
4: link the desire to what you're selling;
5: close and handle objections.

She goes on to preframe that it sounds harsh, to handle objections, but she gives a suggestion that they expect her to always tell the truth, and that she does. She then suggests through the metaphor and a quote that you will shed tears of joy. Also, by linking the love for her to the cancer, she's telling you to love cancer.

News about the "Turnaround"...

I got a book from the "secret" third man who helped create NLP, named Frank Pucelik. It's called, "The Magic of NLP, Demystified". Check out his version of the meta model in the book. You'll find a section on referential indexes. This section is broken up into five subsections, one of which is called, "reversed referential indexes". These occur when the speaker is stated as receiving the action of the verb, rather than doing it. Taking from Fritz Perls, this is also known as the linguistic pattern of projection. Martin Shepard basically says that perception is projection, and challenging the model is basically a turnaround. Of course, I don't think he intends for it to be abused like Katie does

Shout out to Corboy for pointing out something I didn't think about when I posted about Pucelik's book. There are two versions: one from circa 1990, and the other is an updated version. The one from 1990 is the one I'm referencing, with the writing team of Pucelik and Byron Lewis. It's a good read, and I might have to get myself the updated version, too