and also...
...those who's methods are being questioned, are going to attempt to misdirect, deny, and deflect away from the key critical analysis, by misrepresenting it, and distorting it.

There are many dozens of people who are making a lot of money, using these techniques to get people into "coaching", selling products, and everything else. Many of them do it for a living, so they are highly motivated to consciously misdirect people away from reading this type of information.
Their response is generally along the lines of...DON'T READ IT, and completely misrepresent what is being said. They try to label it "noise" and then try to persuade people to not read it, and not even look it, and to stop "thinking".

One notices they don't say...go and read it very very carefully, do some careful research, and then make up your own mind.


Its taken time, but more and more people are starting to be able to perceive the exact techniques being used by Byron Katie and others who operate in a similar way.
Once people can see the techniques, they stop working on most people, they backfire.

So that explains some of the very aggressive/subtle, and extreme distortions being made, to attempt to persuade people not to even look at this type of information.
Because once people can perceive what's going on, the jig is up, the techniques backfire.

Quote
solea13
Perhaps for those who have never found themselves in thrall of a cult or high demand group however, this is really not the forum for them. I imagine it must be difficult to understand the need that some cult survivors have to grapple with and deconstruct methods of coercive persuasion, if one has never experienced them first-hand.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2009 04:42AM by The Anticult.

This just in...

Steve Salerno has announced, via a comment on his blog:

Quote

Well, after the holiday, once I get a few lingering loose ends tied up, I'm going to see if I can get some magazine to underwrite a full-out investigation of Katie and her minions. If nothing else, this mini-firestorm has convinced me that it's time to stop procrastinating and get it done.


Now, the climate is not especially good for this kind of piece, and the magazines I've worked for who are the obvious choices for such an assignment--and who could afford to pay what an ambitious project like this would call for--are financially embattled. But we'll see. I'll do my best, and I'll report back.

"Interesting observations: Positive thinking actually preserves secretive power structures, whether political, pseudospiritual, or entreprenuerial, from scrutiny.

Positive thinking is anti liberty.

The American Revolution was started by grouches who were aware of the negative uses of power, not by positive thinkers.

The checks and balances in the Constitution were written by people who saw the dark side of power and its temptations.

Now, to our friend who earned a wealth of experience from quite a different organization. He brings up some intersting points. "

Corboy,
I agree with your statements, however from my exposure to Byron Katie, and being unfamiliar with Ekhart Tolle, I would say that Byron Katie's teachings are not about positive thinking, they are about questioning thinking. And that seems to be a very important difference to me. Let's say I'm an American Revolutionary, I see the dark side of power.

To write up that Bill of Rights, I couldn't be immersed in a state of angry reaction to the abuse of power carried out by the British, there would need to be a proactive, resiliant state to get things done. I'm thinking "I hate the British, I'm going to kill them mercilessly because they are evil". I then question is that true? (lol). Can I absolutely know that is true? And no, because evil is just a concept, it's not a deep enough explanation for their behavior. Now positive thinking would be, everything is great, all is love, I'm a hippy, I'll never go to war, because peace maaaan. (lol) That definitely can be anti-liberty because it requires denial of the situation. Byron Katie's method involves I believe questioning such denial.

The kind of thoughts Byron Katie seems to focus on questioning which makes sense are thoughts such as the aforementioned one, but also thoughts such as "I wish it wasn't this way. The British should not kill people". The point of the eventual turn around. "The British should kill people, oppress people", is not condoning, and it would not be denial, it would not be avoidance of the correct response which is to defend ourselves. But the tantrum, the outrage that the British should not kill people is useless, because they are. What can I effect, what can I do, what do I have control over?

It is enlightening to notice that an example of when she used a similar turn around. A girl said, "I need a boyfriend". And she turned around and said, "How do I know you don't need a boyfriend, you don't have one". What is the purpose of this? It seems clear to me that this serves a definite and useful purpose that is not anti-liberty. It has nothing to do with the actions taken. That girl maybe will and should pursue men she is interested in but without the despairing thoughts that what is out of her control should be different then it is. That would be wishful thinking. It is wishful thinking and useless to think the Nazis should not be murdering jews and gypsies and homosexuals when they are. It's a fact. (in the 30s) There is no should, what is happening right now cannot be different then it is. That doesn't mean I shouldn't act to stop future murders. But the murders now, or in the past are done with. There is no alternative reality. There is no utopia out there, alternate timeline. This is useful for people who's belief in their thoughts and narratives causes them to dwell in a state of powerless despair, wishing for something that just ain't happening.

As she says, is this God's business (things I have no control over), someone else's business, or my business. What the British do, should do, shouldn't do, really has nothing to do with my business. Same with what Byron Katie does, or when I die or how long I live? Those are not my business. So any thought that strays out of my business is perhaps useful to question that thought. Because it's getting in the way of undistracted action. She says, "fluid, clear, courageous response".

The courageous response that is fluid and clear would be to fight, but to do it tactfully and intelligently not swayed by the thoughts that are just distractions that cause one to feel powerless and un-resiliant. Another turn around perhaps more to the point would be "I should not kill people, oppress people". So basically it's to make long-standing, deep seated habitual, addictive thinking that is not serving us in our lives relent, dissolve. That makes alot of sense to me. If you haven't struggled with such thinking, then maybe you don't understand this experience.

Now as to cult of personality, I don't know, I'm swayed by the ideas, but I also have reverence for the person who thought them up.

"Under no cirumstances should a person ever use the so-called Work from Byron Katie on these serious issues.
Why?
Read the disclaimers you are forced to sign. When things go bad, and you get hurt, tough shit for you. Its almost unbelievable that there are people who shill and promote the Byron Katie "Work" for trauma and PTSD, but when anyone reads their disclaimers, all they do is cover their own asses and say it should NOT be used on psychological issues.
Now of course, they hypocritically and dishonestly say the exact opposite in public lectures and in-person, which they then deny with disclaimers."

I can't speak for others or people diagnosed with so called PTSD. But I've struggled with some intense psychological issues related to Asperger's Autism, but also been told by psychiatry that some of the symptoms I described about a decade ago bordered on schizophrenia and bipolar. I was skeptical, did not take medication. The few times I did, I felt extremely intoxicated or in a stupor. Eventually I did other things like yoga, tai chi, then vipassana meditation. And then Self-inquiry which is the process of questioning the forms and concepts of the ego. Self-inquiry and Byron Katie's the Work are very similar infact she calls it inquiry. I've found that questioning thoughts is the most effective thing i have ever discovered psychologically. I'm a molecular biology major, and from these experiences I do not view psychiatry as hard science. But if drugs, or counseling help people, people should decide for themselves.

I do view it as foolish to hand over all authority for your own consciousness to so called "professionals". So little is understood of how the brain and consciousness functions. So people should be good consumers and decide for themselves what helps them, and not fearfully buy that the prognosis the APA has created is necessarily true for everyone. I've never been to a counselor that knew how to help me, or understood any issue I've ever had. And it's hard for me to understand how someone could get a degree in "how people should live their lives and deal with their problems". It's not science. And infact, I would think the non-scientific criteria of how wise someone is is far more valid then their credentials as far as counseling.

But if they help... Nonetheless, I don't see anything harmful in questioning thoughts and asking if they are true, and turning them around to see if the opposite is true and in what ways. (of course read Byron Katie in detail because she has alot, I've found useful things that she describes about this) If it causes or brings up too intense of experiences, of course someone could resort to therapy and maybe meds as well. But questioning thoughts, why stop? In my experience my intense psychological or spiritual experiences in my early twenties were totally caused by believing certain lines of thinking, not knowing that happiness is within and expecting happiness to come from somewhere else, someone else.

Psychologically, the stuff Byron Katie describes as well as other stuff like Self-Inquiry (see Ramana Maharshi, Who am I?) are the best thing I've ever found for resolving inner psychological issues, and resolving them deeply. because the individual I think I am, is what I've learned, what I've taken on, what I've believed. This isn't new age crap, this is just my personal experience. And it's worked. If an organization or personality is abusive or manipulative (I have not seen signs with Byron katie) then leave it, or leave it when you have the confidence to.

I haven't really seen a lot of evidence for the cult-like nature of her organization other then that she charges money for books and stuff. But I've seen alot of speculation. Regardless the issue shouldn't be the personality. It should be if the wisdom is useful. If the wisdom is useful that points to the fact that perhaps the verdict is out whether the person is self-aggrandizing, it should cause doubt. Being famous is not the same as being an abusive cult leader.

Being adored for one's wisdom may be actually, I know these are cynical times, because it's wise. But look for what helps one develope the good qualities including self-confidence. No abuser I have ever met or been close to, and I have been in psychologically abusive relationships, has ever promoted my self-confidence or told me to question my insecure thinking (as Byron Katie and others do). Why? If I'm happy in myself, then I don't need to be treated like dirt. An abusive cult is one that treats people like dirt. It has nothing to do with the artwork of the posters. How much books cost? If people have a contrary, traumatic experience with Byron Katie, I don't mind hearing about it, but so far I've only seen speculation that doesn't seem to hold much water.

'Now as to cult of personality, I don't know, I'm swayed by the ideas, but I also have reverence for the person who thought them up.'

Kassy's explanation of how this questioning of thinking can be beneficial is very clear and helpful.

From my own experience I have found that everything, without exception, can be used by me or others either to help or hurt. A knife can be a useful tool to help me feed myself or it can be a murder weapon. It is the use to which I decide to put it that determines the outcome.

In point of fact BK did not think up these ideas, they were tools that have been recorded as in use in antiquity and were probably ancient then. BK has simply packaged these ideas for a new generation that does not have much knowledge or interest in the history of mankind and systems of thought.

From my POV the basic ideas BK is presenting so persuasively are not the problem, it is the mystique she is fomenting and encouraging amongst vulnerable followers for her own self-aggrandisement and power aspirations, the cult of personality as Kassy so aptly names it, that is so suspect.

BK is dangerous, not because this mystification of a personality has not been done before--think Rajneesh, Jim Jones etc---but because for most people who come from a less than secure background, which probably includes the majority of us, she is such a plausible 'dream come true.' An unthreatening loving 'mommy' a woman whose only thoughts are loving just me, who does not have the usual selfish human limitations, who is above all that, a female Jesus. She slips under most peoples radar.

There are quite distinct parallels here with Amma, another woman guru. We are rightfully suspicious now of the men claiming to channel god, we've seen too many of them, but women are traditionally supposed to be better than that, caring for people not power.
Women have traditionally been powerless to act in the world but as a consequence they've always compensated by practising the skills of manipulation.

Kassy, if you believe that Byron Katie's "work" is "about questioning thinking", then I'm sure you won't mind if any of us here question your thinking...

You say:

But the tantrum, the outrage that the British should not kill people is useless, because they are.

To say that a tantrum is useless is an interesting thought, but one I take issue with. I think that part of being human is to experience a whole range of feelings, thoughts, etc. in response to various life circumstances. Why try and "work" certain thoughts away? Also, why on earth would you consider someone who finds killing people abhorrent to be engaging in a "tantrum"? That's how you see such a thing? Pardon me while my mind boggles over this.

Who would I be without my story, as Byron Katie would have me be?

I'd be a nonentity, a vegetable, a rock. Not things I aspire to.

If that's what you want for yourself, to be without any story, then go for it with all you've got. But... what if you really go to town with "the work" and in the long run end up going.... crazy?

Janaki in her very informative blog has touched upon this possibility - see "Downsides of The Work".

I dare to say it is impossible to be without one's story. Unless one is suddenly struck brain dead.

Kassy, you also say:

As she says, is this God's business (things I have no control over), someone else's business, or my business. What the British do, should do, shouldn't do, really has nothing to do with my business.

Has it occurred to you, Kassy, that your visit to this forum is a case of getting out of your own AND God's business and into ours? As well as a case of engaging in, God forbid, a story? Perhaps something you will consider as you go about questioning your thoughts.

There's far more I'd like to say re your post, but I am pressed for time, so that is all from me for now.

'To say that a tantrum is useless is an interesting thought, but one I take issue with'

A tantrum is useless in that it is an immature reaction to a situation in which I find myself without power. I might create a lot of noise and diversion with a tantrum but it doesn't get me anywhere. A tantrum serves only to keep me locked into my powerlessness.

A more mature response is to wait for the initial flush of anger to subside, decide what I want from the situation and rationally assess how I go about getting it. This response demands an element of impulse control, an ability to look at the situation from more than one perspective and the knowledge that nothing happens until I take calm, considered action.
A familiarity with my own thought processes and an ability to control the expression of my emotions is a vital part of this whether I learn that familiarity in therapy, from the writings of Marcus Aurelius, the traditional gnostic religious route, BK's borrowed questions or from the experience of just plain living.
There is a very big difference between allowing free reign to my anger and holding my anger in check until I can use the energy to some good purpose.

'If that's what you want for yourself, to be without any story, then go for it with all you've got. But... what if you really go to town with "the work" and in the long run end up going.... crazy? '

There is no suggestion to go for it with all you've got.
My childhood story is particularly horrendous, and remained a horrendous suicidal nightmare for a long time. It was so bad that I'd have welcomed crazy or death any day of the week rather than to keep reliving it.
Much later in life I learned (not courtesy of BK) to put it in the past. The story does not change but I am no longer living in the past and in that story. I had to sort out my own thinking processes in order to do this. No-one else could do the hard and painful work that sorting out took.

The principle of becoming less identified with your story is sound but BK does not screen for damaged people who need a far greater one-to-one input from a responsible, caring person to make progress.

As has been mentioned before on this thread she also has little or no follow-up except to sell all-comers more and more expensive and extended LGAT's. The filming and selling-on of real people in real pain is the most appalling exploitation, regardless of whether they have signed a disclaimer.
It gives the erroneous impression that this undertaking can be done in a few minutes onstage. Its the ongoing work of a lifetime.

She is out for power and big bucks and the little benefit her borrowed questions might provide is far outweighed by the unbelievably callous and irresponsible nature of her operation.

helpme2times, I agree I think being critical and questioning other people's thinking is good, so i welcome it. And while critical of what I'm saying you still asked good questions I'll try to answer them as best I can from my own understanding.

""""To say that a tantrum is useless is an interesting thought, but one I take issue with. I think that part of being human is to experience a whole range of feelings, thoughts, etc. in response to various life circumstances. Why try and "work" certain thoughts away? Also, why on earth would you consider someone who finds killing people abhorrent to be engaging in a "tantrum"? That's how you see such a thing? Pardon me while my mind boggles over this.""""

I agree, in my own experience that is part of being human. However, it is also easy to get bogged down in feeling sorry for oneself or wishing things weren't the way they are to the point that it is disempowering. I imagine other people have had this experience. Because I want to be effectual in my life, happy as possible it makes sense to question whether things are true. Someone would engage in method's such as the four questions of Byron Katie, or Self-inquiry or even just meditation because they see ways in which their way of relating and thinking and beliefs are not working in the world.

"I dare to say it is impossible to be without one's story. Unless one is suddenly struck brain dead."

This I don't know, I haven't really set up as an aim being without my story, or without thinking. But to get to deeper levels of consciousness, of knowing who I am. Peeling off the layers. And I don't see the aim of the Work or any other method of self-questioning as to become brain dead or contemplate your navel for years. Infact the opposite. For instance there are alot of misconceptions about Eastern Enlightenment but if you read the actual texts such as the Bhagavad Gita or others, Ribhu Gita, upanishads. The state described is a highly functional one, yet acting from dispassion or with non-attachment. Dispassion and non-attachment in my experience heighten, not lessen functioning in the world. Infact being caught up in all sorts of worries, fears, longings can be in my experience a kind of brain death.

"""Has it occurred to you, Kassy, that your visit to this forum is a case of getting out of your own AND God's business and into ours? As well as a case of engaging in, God forbid, a story? Perhaps something you will consider as you go about questioning your thoughts."""

Most methods of self-inquiry or self-questioning or questioning thoughts have very little to do with external actions. It would be pointless for my developement emotionally to repress going to forums and talking about things or any other actions. Or repressing a story, as I said Byron Katie's method involves questioning stories not getting rid of them, she's explicity said this over and over again. That seems sound and sensible to me. I have lots of stories going on, but one is disempowering, clearly untrue and causes me to not do things be a vegetable or a rock (lol), it makes sense to question it's reality to me. I came on this forum because it's fun to discuss things, it's fun to debate, and question other people. When it gets to be not fun, not interesting, I'll do something else. Maybe work on my blog.

[cephalopodmollusks.blogspot.com]



Also most of the "stories" that go on in my head often have very little relationship to anything actually happening. For instance jealous thoughts, angry thoughts depressed thoughts. My understanding is that it is not good to repress thoughts and feelings, or get rid of them. But Byron Katie's method, which other people have come up with also, to question them. Byron Katie in her description of the method for instance one of the questions is "How would I be without this thought?" she has been explicit that this is not an invitation to drop the thought, or repress the thought. But just to call attention to the freedom, happiness that could perhaps be awakened by not being attached to it.

On the Killing people. For instance right now, there is alot of killing in the world, and not just killing but people abusing eachother and just not being nice. But the way I look at it, is that there are also tornados, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, meteors. Other people killing others is out of my control, it's as in my control is a hurricane. I cannot do anything about their actions. Obviously physical self-defense and even war may have their place, as is preparing for a hurricane.

But I look at other people's atrocities as natural disasters. I don't get mad at a natural disaster. I prepare as best as possible or even move out of it's way. I also may not notice in what ways those habits and tendencies are within me. For instance in the War on Terror, there has been a habit on all sides to demonize the opposite side and both sides have commited pretty horrible atrocities. 9/11 and Abu Ghraib. Byron Katie made the statement several times about being a victim and victims are violent people. She's talking about, in my opinion being a mental victim. yes, if I'm assaulted, I had no control over that. But atrocities, and oppression are often motivated by a victim mentality even though the perpetrators are quite privilaged compared to those they are oppressing. I've never found a victim mentality to be useful.

"""Who would I be without my story, as Byron Katie would have me be?
I'd be a nonentity, a vegetable, a rock. Not things I aspire to. """

My experience is the opposite. But then again if your story is working for you, and your doing good or good as you define it, then yeah, do you need Byron Katie's the Work? Mine wasn't working for me, it involved alot of feeling sorry for myself, and blaming others instead of taking responsibility for my actions and acting an empowered manner to live a good life. So I was vegetable, a rock and then I questioned my thoughts and started acting more like an animal. (lol)

I was actually exposed to other methods besides Byron katie's but her methods were in accord with what makes good, sound sense to me. Because is the story of who I am true? Now, if I like the story, then good, but if I low self-esteem if it's a negative experience why dwell in it? Why not question it's reality? Can a story ever be true? Any story picks certain events and anecdotes and leaves out others, it has to because there are zillions of happenings in any given moment. So the story had very little to do with what happened.

"""If that's what you want for yourself, to be without any story, then go for it with all you've got. But... what if you really go to town with "the work" and in the long run end up going.... crazy? """"

Umm, this really contradicts my experience. Insanity, schizophrenia has alot to do with believing faulty stories. aka delusional. I was alot more schizophrenic-ish before I started to really work on myself, question myself, and question my thoughts. Now, if people are doing the Work, or some other method of self-questioning, inquiry, and they start to lose it because maybe something they hadn't expected rises to the surface. I've had that. However, if questioning if things are true, leads to intense anxiety, or worse experiences. How was the denial of these deeper experiences less pathological? Many people walk around and "function" but you look at human history and what the so calle sane people are capable of, how much their empathy is masked by their ideologies.

"""In point of fact BK did not think up these ideas, they were tools that have been recorded as in use in antiquity and were probably ancient then. BK has simply packaged these ideas for a new generation that does not have much knowledge or interest in the history of mankind and systems of thought.

From my POV the basic ideas BK is presenting so persuasively are not the problem, it is the mystique she is fomenting and encouraging amongst vulnerable followers for her own self-aggrandisement and power aspirations, the cult of personality as Kassy so aptly names it, that is so suspect."""

Stoic, my understanding is that B.K's ideas bare a strong resemblence to the Hindu tradition, specifically the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, and Advaita Vedanta. One of the reasons I mentioned Self-inquiry and that not only from B.K is because I have actually found those sources to be rich with wisdom, and spiritual (psychological) instruction. I still find probably of famous new age authors the two that I have found the most spot on, or relevent are Byron Katie and Don Miguel Ruiz (author of Four Agreements). So, I do find her teachings in Loving What is, etc. to be a useful auxillary to the practice of Hindu-based Self-inquiry because she describes the process of questioning one's thoughts well. Her teachings are not convoluted.

How byron katie is packaging herself, I have very little interest, nor am I vulnerable enough to worship her as a nice grandmother/ female Jesus, I see her more as a clear source of clarity and fine mental discrimination. Yes, there are lots of people out there looking for their leader to tell them what to do. I have a guess on why Byron Katie would be packaging herself the way she is, because from what I've seen her, I haven't seen much of insincerity.

And a Jim Jones just his name gives me a shudder, let alone what he did. Intuition is valuable and if she was a creep, I think I could tell. So my theory is that if she's packaging herself in some New age way as if she's this really wise, enlightened figure. It's because in the modern context of America that is how to reach people and she is aiming at a larger audience. I could be wrong, maybe she's self-aggrandizing. But that seems like a conclusion that should be thoroughly investigated, not just jumped to, unless you want to (lol).

On the Youtube and Google videos there is no evidence to my mind that she is fomenting worship but responding with her own form of clear thinking to people's troubles. If somewhere else she's fomenting this, I'm unaware of it. If her organization requires people to renounce their lives and serve her as some kind of fuhrer demigod (lol), (I'm skeptical), but if that is the case, yes that is kind of problematic (lol).

The comment about women I'm a little uncomfortable with, because I'm not a big fan of generalizations about groups of people.

"""BTW--Substituting Katie for legitimate professional counseling and therapy is your choice to make, but a more safe approach generally accepted approach for the treatment of personal psychological or emotional problems would be seeking help from a certified, credentialed therapist/doctor.

In most states such treatment from helping professionals is overseen by boards, professional licensing etc.

Katie has no similar accountability. So if her self-styled therapy flops and damage is done, the participant has no immediate recourse through such layers of accountability."""

I'm really skeptical of psychiatry/psychology. If people are helped, obviously they should continue using what works. But the diagnoses for instance schizophrenia and others I haven't seen any peer review proof that they are actually brain conditions or understood. So, I question the authority of psychiatry/psychology. And in my own case, I use what works. And so far that never has been that route, although I have had counselors, there guess was as good as mine. There just another human, a degree does not make them understand emotional problems better, or wiser, or more equipt to deal with life situations.

But that aside, if it works... And I could imagine it could be in many cases safer than the alternative. Nonethless with Byron Katie, or any other meditation or spiritual practice, I view it in that quarter. Or religion. If someone is Catholic and it helps them emotionally with psychological issues/mental illness then more power to them. If they still need meds and therapy then do that too. But why stop meditating, why stop questioning thoughts, why stop going to church (or punk shows), or whatever it is if that helps too?

It is a good point, that there isn't the kind of accountability though. So going into a form of meditation, self-inquiry, whatever it is, religion, anything else, byron katie's the Work, it would be silly to expect it. But this turning psychological, emotional, spiritual problems and saying that they are purly medical issues does not strike me true either. In a sense that seems like kind of hijacking of people's autonomy to make decisions for themselves. Something has struck me very frightening and cult like about the medicalization of people's emotional problems.

Especially when the APA claims it's judgement is better then the consumers themselves, especially when the criteria of whether a drug works is not that it effects some brain system a certain way, and that the pathology of schizophrenia or any other mental illness has been isolated, it's just that they feel better. So the consumer is obviously the most equipt to decide if something works or not, and this fearful mentality of take the meds or commit suicide or get hospitalized. Who says? Where's the proof? I was told that, it was total b.s.