Jody the "Guruphiliac" has weighed in on the comments he's been allowing re Stuart:

jody radzik said...
"To be honest, I find these criticisms of Stuart totally lame. The only reason I'm posting them is because it provides Stuart more contrast from which to make his points."

Why am I not surprised? This is someone who allows himself to be swayed in reporting on Byron Katie by "good friends", at least one of who is a "formerly-inside man".

[[url=http://guruphiliac.blogspot.com/2008/02/byron-katie-is-either-going-to.html]Byron Katie Is Either Going To Enlighten You Or Kill You Trying[/url]]

It's really interesting that I've found several sites denouncing Jody as "Guruphiliac". I've no idea as to their reliability. I'll post links to them in the interest of reporting what's out there.

[[url=http://guruphiliac-jody-radzik.blogspot.com/]Guruphiliac Jody Radzik[/url]]

[[url=http://guruphiliac-blog-jody-radzik-exposed.blogspot.com/]Guruphiliac Blog Exposed[/url]]

[[url=http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/guruphiliac-jody-radzik/]Guruphiliac Blog Owner: Jody Radzik[/url]]

Quote
helpme2times
Why am I not surprised? This is someone who allows himself to be swayed in reporting on Byron Katie by "good friends", at least one of who is a "formerly-inside man".

I'm with you, there hm2x. To paraphrase something said a few times before on this thread, there are many so called 'guru busters' out there who actually are putting down all but the guru that they are 'in bed with', as a sort of deflection from the true issues. Did you notice how Jody absolutely steers clear of any response to the Seung Sahn issue, which is glaringly staring the rest of us right in the face? In my 'not even a little bit humble' opinion, Jody is a total fraud; a phony. He's selling something, and what he's selling is unhealthy if not dangerous. Worst part is he's doing it under the guise of someone who is debunking gurus.

qd

Quote
quackdave
I'm with you, there hm2x. To paraphrase something said a few times before on this thread, there are many so called 'guru busters' out there who actually are putting down all but the guru that they are 'in bed with', as a sort of deflection from the true issues. Did you notice how Jody absolutely steers clear of any response to the Seung Sahn issue, which is glaringly staring the rest of us right in the face? In my 'not even a little bit humble' opinion, Jody is a total fraud; a phony. He's selling something, and what he's selling is unhealthy if not dangerous. Worst part is he's doing it under the guise of someone who is debunking gurus.

qd

The Anticult spoke of this not long ago, here:

[[url=http://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?12,12906,70897#msg-70897]http://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?12,12906,70897#msg-70897[/url]].

Quote

this is how you do it...

You point to the most obvious abusive con-men, criminals and child-rapists who call themselves guru's, like Sai Baba. They become the bad-guys.
But then you misdirect away from the much more sophisticated LGAT groups, who actually make MORE money than the old-school religious cults in robes. The modern so-called anti-guru LGAT groups, which are not classical "cults" with shaved heads, make 10x the money of those other old-school cults.
They use far MORE powerful techniques, most of which are very hard to see, and are literally invisible.

Its wonderful the Guruphiliac points out the problems with some Guru's.
And some of those websites attacking him personally, are from followers of Sai Baba, who Guruphiliac has rightfully criticized. Sai Baba is a flat out con-artist, with his fake magic tricks, and more seriously the sexual abuse, and local government corruption, etc.

But why only go at such obvious targets?
And why not apply the same criteria to everyone?

For example, they go after Eckhart Tolle, and leave Byron Katie alone. When in fact, Byron Katie's seminars are MUCH more harmful than Eckhart Tolle. Why?
And of course, they go after TM, which is also a cult, but they leave others alone?

If Seung Sahn were someone elses guru, they would go after him for his lies, and hypocrisy, and sexual misconduct. Seung Sahn was a fraud, that is a FACT due to his own poor behavior and deceptions. If you claim to be a celibate monk for YEARS, meanwhile houndogging around the country, and then lying about it, and lying about the motivations for it, you are a FRAUD. That is reality.

So there clearly is a bias there, to go after people they don't like, and ignore or defend Guru's who are their friends friends, or where they make their money.

Certainly, guys like RandomStu are NOT "Gurubusters" as advertised. Not even close.
If you are going to be a Gurubuster, you have to start in your own backyard. Everyone with a Guru attacks their Guru's enemies, or people they don't like. That is not a Gurubuster.

And most people with a Guru, say their Guru is not a Guru, and he/she is different.
How many people inside a cultic situation can even see it, or admit it?

The difference of course, with guys like RandomStu, are that they are aware of the various techniques being used, and they want to use them themselves. They are not on the side of the "people", they are on the side of The Man, so to speak.
The Empty Gate Zen-shack, represents themselves with videos of RandomStu talking about the Zen of poker-bluffs, so he is a wannabe micro-guru himself.

The reality is these so-called Gurubusters are not what they say they are.
They are not being intellectually honest and applying the same criteria to their own backyard, as they are to others.
They are not critical thinkers, or skeptics, or anything like that.
They have an ideology, and a set of beliefs they follow, and they just criticize others who differ from their own beliefs.
If they wanted to be more honest, they would declare their bias, and provide full disclosure.
But they do the opposite, they try to CONCEAL their own connections to the people they are promoting, going easy on, or ignoring.
One would be wise not to take these guys too lightly or a face-value.


They also try to play the silly card that some cultists use, that there is an "anti-cult cult". There have been blog posts about that, and how that strategy has been created in the cult apologetics field.

Cult deprogramming and the “Anti Cult Cult” [www.cultnews.com]

From a look at his website this morning, it seems that Steven Sashen is still distancing himself from "The Work".

I say "it seems" because I don't know for sure. After all, one can still find references to him doing The Work at various places online. For example:

[[url=http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/36/sashen.html]http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/36/sashen.html[/url]]

[[url=http://www.templepriestess.com/Health%20&%20Wellness%20Resources.htm]http://www.templepriestess.com/Health%20&%20Wellness%20Resources.htm[/url]]

[[url=http://www.chimestones.com/meditation/interviews1.php]http://www.chimestones.com/meditation/interviews1.php[/url]]

I've found an online article about "The Secret" with some interesting quotes from Mr. Sashen:

[[url=http://www.lfpress.com/newsstand/News/Columnists/Gillespie_Ian/2007/08/22/4437275.html]"This is one Secret that UWO can keep to itself" by Ian Gillespie[/url]]

An exerpt from the article:

Quote

Another approach is to view The Secret -- and this UWO course -- as the latest self-help craze peddling hope at a high price. And that's certainly the view taken by Steven Sashen, a self-described "anti-guru" who is highly critical of the "personal transformational business."


"One of the fundamental ideas in a lot of these programs is that once you get something you want, then you'll finally be happy," Sashen says from his office in Boulder, Colo. "The problem is that it's just not true."

Sashen says the lucrative self-help industry, estimated by some to be worth $10 billion a year, is rooted in a familiar set of motivational strategies, including affirmations and reminders.

"All of us are hard-wired to become hypnotized by the promise of a technique that will give us what we want," says Sashen. "It's brilliant marketing."

Indeed, The Secret's official website boasts its system reveals "for the first time in history" the special knowledge that transformed the lives of Plato, Newton, Shakespeare and Einstein.

But Sashen says almost all these "transformational" programs follow a similar format. First, he says, the programs offer participants some kind of unusual experience ("Which isn't that hard when you've got people stuck in a hotel all weekend," he quips.) and then claim it's part of a breakthrough leading to future success.

But Sashen scoffs at such notions. He suggests that if you fed a group of people bad food for a weekend, a certain percentage of those people would later succeed in their endeavours -- but clearly their success had nothing to do with the bad food.

"The best way to make money is to say you have a great way of making money," he says. "And the technique is fixing some imagined problem that's wrong with your customer. . . . And we're constantly suckered into it."

Frood's description of the UWO program sounds eerily similar.

"The things that hold us back are things that have been part of our life forever," she says. "So (the solution) is naming the limiting belief."

And there, says Sashen, is the central misguided tenet of the entire self-help industry: We're not happy because there's something wrong with us (usually caused by some past incident) and we have to fix it.

"A class like this is the kind of uninvestigated thinking that, I imagine, other (university) departments wouldn't stand for," he says. "I'm surprised the economics department isn't boycotting."

The article says that Mr. Sashen is "highly critical of the "personal transformational business".

Is it true?

If it IS true, then why doesn't Mr. Sashen criticize this "Work of Byron Katie" he's no longer touting on his website?

Some thoughts on guruphiliac and RandomStu:

Random Stu: Honestly, I was on a list with him where I was on the same side as he was going hard against certain Amma fanatics. I found his posts rational and funny in the face of fundamentalist hindu lunacy. However, on guruphiliac and the Ross site, my experience has been the exact opposite. I think he is similar to the "anti-cult" movements on the religious right who focus on groups like the Mormons, yet secretly have their own beliefs which are equally dangerous and wacky. He is like the Zen version of them.

His philosophy is a cruel mix of Libertarianism, Ayn Randroidism, and pure East/West new age tomfoolery. He is so focused on the SELF, particularly HIS SELF, that he has little compassion for anybody who isn't as "strong' and "ruggedly individualistic" as he is. He imagines himself as this impervious Nietzchean figure and can't fathom why anybody else might have difficulties finding their own strength in dealing with cult leaders, and why they might need help from people outside of themselves.

Guruphiliac: Human, has flaws. However, does not deserve to be lumped in with Random Stu. He does not always see the flaws in some of the groups he DOESN'T attack. However, unlike Stu, he doesn't continually attack cult survivors for their weakness and doesn't dismiss the notion of mind control in the manner that Stu does. He is about supporting cult survivors, not attacking them, an important distinction to make between him and Stu. He is still a spiritual seeker and would LIKE to find a guru who isn't completely full of BS, so he lowers the bar if he finds one that remotely makes sense to him. However, I have seen him change his mind about leaders and groups if the evidence is strong enough. Random Stu does not have the kind of open mind necessary to make those kind of changes, he is sealed shut and inflexible in his emotional Fortress of Solitude. Jody seems to have a heart and I applaud his work, if imperfect. If there were more people doing what Jody does, Jody's site would be irrelevant. But for now, he is one of few...

Quote
shakti
Guruphiliac: Human, has flaws. However, does not deserve to be lumped in with Random Stu. He does not always see the flaws in some of the groups he DOESN'T attack. However, unlike Stu, he doesn't continually attack cult survivors for their weakness and doesn't dismiss the notion of mind control in the manner that Stu does. He is about supporting cult survivors, not attacking them, an important distinction to make between him and Stu. He is still a spiritual seeker and would LIKE to find a guru who isn't completely full of BS, so he lowers the bar if he finds one that remotely makes sense to him. However, I have seen him change his mind about leaders and groups if the evidence is strong enough. Random Stu does not have the kind of open mind necessary to make those kind of changes, he is sealed shut and inflexible in his emotional Fortress of Solitude. Jody seems to have a heart and I applaud his work, if imperfect. If there were more people doing what Jody does, Jody's site would be irrelevant. But for now, he is one of few...

Shakti, I respectfully disagree that Jody is supportive to cult survivors - at least as far as Byron Katie is concerned. I say it stinks to high heaven that he would allow a "formerly-inside" person to BK cloud his assessment of her. He's admitted in various comments that his opinion of BK rides in good part on what his friend thinks of her.

In one of the earliest comments on the now infamous Gurpuphiliac post, Byron Katie Is Either Going To Enlighten You Or Kill You Trying, Jody had this to say:

"Is Katie at fault for charging too much? No. It's the folks who paid it that are to be blamed."

Now how helpful is that to someone burned by BK?

In an ensuing comment Jody says,

"But that still doesn't mean she's running a destructive cult, as those members of the cult of the anti-cult are shrieking about."

That's rather nasty, and I'm pretty sure I've witnessed him say even nastier things in his comments - regarding BK as well as other blog subjects.

I suppose I can agree that he's generally less vicious than RandomStu can be, but sometimes it's not by much at all.

Quote
Cruz

Quote
The Anticult
by the way, there appears to have some dissent in the now closed Open Forum at the Institute For The Work website?
[www.instituteforthework.com]
Questions about the cockroach story, questions about the books being copied from other books, etc.
So they closed the Open Forum. Bye bye freedom of thought, and open discussion.

An interesting bit of information came up, regarding Byron Katie’s no longer Open Forum. As we know, the very last post on the Forum was by Carol Skolnick, on April 6th. It was about BK and Stephen Mitchell having copied their ‘Tao’-book from ‘Grace Unfolding’ by Greg Johanson and Ronald Kurtz. As it turns out, the penultimate entry to the Forum seems to have been a piece on Stephen Mitchell’s true Valentine’s Story being adulterous in spirit. However romantic and serene the story is being portrayed now, truth is that both Katie and Stephen were in actual fact two-timing when they first hooked up. Byron Katie has a long history of rewriting her books. It will be interesting to see whether her ‘Katie-ism’ “I’m a lover of the truth” will be included in forthcoming editions.

Regarding the sudden shutting down of the "Open Forum" at Byron Katie's "Institute For The Work" site... it's now more than a month since the last date of anyone posting there. So their wonderful "Open Forum" remains closed. What gives?

[[url=http://www.instituteforthework.com/community/index.php?name=PNphpBB2]Institute For The Work - Discussion Forums[/url]]

Carol Skolnick was the last to make a post on April 6, 2009. Today is May 20.

They claimed the following reason for the shutdown:

Quote

Dear Open Forum Users,
In order to better serve you, we have closed the Open Forum and will reopen it as soon as we can. We apologize for any inconvenience. For information on how to do The Work or to use the free hotline, go to www.thework.com.

Why is it taking them so long to "fix" that "Open Forum"?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/20/2009 10:23PM by helpme2times.

I just found out that within the BK circles the word is going around that some crazy lady from Europe is spreading lies about Katie.

Quote
Meadow
I just found out that within the BK circles the word is going around that some crazy lady from Europe is spreading lies about Katie.

Yikes!

If that's true (is it true?), then I wonder who started the rumor?

I'd like to do a turnaround on the thought, "Some crazy lady from Europe is spreading lies about Katie".

Turnaround: Some crazy lady in America is spreading lies about a sane person in Europe.