Re: Byron Katie (the Work) and Eckhart Tolle Legit??
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: February 21, 2008 04:03AM
To whom it may concern:
It seems ralpher may be abusing the private messaging system.
He is now very close to being banned from this message board.
If anyone sees any value in approving his rants and/or attacks let me know, but it doesn't seem to me that he has anything of much value to offer at this point.
Chanting his guru various slogans and mantras over and over again and attacking people on the board personally isn't a very meaningful contribution.
Though Ralpher has to some extent become a negative example on this thread of the apparent mindset of Byron Katie supporters.
It seems ralpher may be abusing the private messaging system.
He is now very close to being banned from this message board.
If anyone sees any value in approving his rants and/or attacks let me know, but it doesn't seem to me that he has anything of much value to offer at this point.
Chanting his guru various slogans and mantras over and over again and attacking people on the board personally isn't a very meaningful contribution.
Though Ralpher has to some extent become a negative example on this thread of the apparent mindset of Byron Katie supporters.
Re: Byron Katie (the Work) and Eckhart Tolle Legit??
Posted by:
vlinden
()
Date: February 21, 2008 04:24AM
Yeah, he's been messaging me too.
I think the apologist are actually very important to this board, however. Vital, actually. So I guess it's up to you as moderator to decide when to draw the line. I think if someone is doing nothing but posting press releases for some guru or LGAT, it makes sense to ban them. But if they're arguing or debating perhaps it does seem unfair to censor them.
Rafpher is, in his way, trying to debate the core issues. The fact that he is often nonsensical is very helpful to the cause, IMO. So I vote to allow him to speak as long as he is trying to argue and not just repeat the back of Byron Katie's latest book jacket.
I think the apologist are actually very important to this board, however. Vital, actually. So I guess it's up to you as moderator to decide when to draw the line. I think if someone is doing nothing but posting press releases for some guru or LGAT, it makes sense to ban them. But if they're arguing or debating perhaps it does seem unfair to censor them.
Rafpher is, in his way, trying to debate the core issues. The fact that he is often nonsensical is very helpful to the cause, IMO. So I vote to allow him to speak as long as he is trying to argue and not just repeat the back of Byron Katie's latest book jacket.
Re: Byron Katie (the Work) and Eckhart Tolle Legit??
Posted by:
The Anticult
()
Date: February 21, 2008 05:23AM
Ralpher has shown the logical-fallacies and methods of those who are shilling for Byron Katie. Ralpher is following the Byron Katie internet playbook, so it does show how they operate, so does that have some value?
-----------------------
Looking more into Byron Katie, its actually more disturbing than at first glance.
What moves her from simply a New Age money-maker into a type of culty-Guru, is her use of "volunteers".
She started taking students into her home many years ago. Now, how long before she figured out these folks could lick envelopes, and even clean the toilets and do the dishes, for no pay?
Sounds like Landmark.
Byron Katie started as a busineswoman. She is running an entrepreneurial business, that makes a lot of profit.
She knows that LABOR is the #1 cost of doing business, those pesky staff always asking for money for their work, eats into her profits.
So she started using lots of unpaid labor. She is using so-called volunteers on the HOTLINE, to upsell people to her products.
Notice the legal disclaimers on that site? That is a professional operation she is running, she has protected herself.
So where she really crosses the line is in using unpaid labor to do her profit making work. That is simply a technique to lower business costs, like Landmark, and like every other culty organization out there.
And she also knows her customers. Her first line of Sales is simply to ASK FOR FREE MONEY. She literally says, SEND ME MONEY TO THIS ADDRESS, as she knows there are some people out there who will do that. She knows there is one born every minute.
Byron Katie and Eckhart Tolle are very similar.
They both have a fake STORY about Enlightenment..."I was depressed, one-day I sat under a tree and became Enlightened...so BUY MY STUFF to be happy like me".
Its the identical pattern, and methods.
The only difference with Eckhart Tolle is he seems to dislike humans, so he just wants your money!
Byron Katie wants your money, and your free labor, and personal worship.
Choose your poison.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2008 05:27AM by The Anticult.
-----------------------
Looking more into Byron Katie, its actually more disturbing than at first glance.
What moves her from simply a New Age money-maker into a type of culty-Guru, is her use of "volunteers".
She started taking students into her home many years ago. Now, how long before she figured out these folks could lick envelopes, and even clean the toilets and do the dishes, for no pay?
Sounds like Landmark.
Byron Katie started as a busineswoman. She is running an entrepreneurial business, that makes a lot of profit.
She knows that LABOR is the #1 cost of doing business, those pesky staff always asking for money for their work, eats into her profits.
So she started using lots of unpaid labor. She is using so-called volunteers on the HOTLINE, to upsell people to her products.
Notice the legal disclaimers on that site? That is a professional operation she is running, she has protected herself.
So where she really crosses the line is in using unpaid labor to do her profit making work. That is simply a technique to lower business costs, like Landmark, and like every other culty organization out there.
And she also knows her customers. Her first line of Sales is simply to ASK FOR FREE MONEY. She literally says, SEND ME MONEY TO THIS ADDRESS, as she knows there are some people out there who will do that. She knows there is one born every minute.
Byron Katie and Eckhart Tolle are very similar.
They both have a fake STORY about Enlightenment..."I was depressed, one-day I sat under a tree and became Enlightened...so BUY MY STUFF to be happy like me".
Its the identical pattern, and methods.
The only difference with Eckhart Tolle is he seems to dislike humans, so he just wants your money!
Byron Katie wants your money, and your free labor, and personal worship.
Choose your poison.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2008 05:27AM by The Anticult.
Re: Byron Katie (the Work) and Eckhart Tolle Legit??
Posted by:
vlinden
()
Date: February 21, 2008 07:09AM
Is there any proof at all to substantiate Katie's story? The mental ward she was locked in? (Or was it an attic?). Anything?
Re: Byron Katie (the Work) and Eckhart Tolle Legit??
Posted by:
The Anticult
()
Date: February 21, 2008 03:03PM
These guys never provide any proof for anything...they are too smart for that. That could get them in trouble. What they do is tell vague STORIES.
They all do the same thing.
Eckhart Tolle: says he was miserable, then became Enlightened, so BUY his products to be Happy like him.
Byron Katie: miserable and depressed, attained Enlightenment, BUY her stuff to be happy like she is now 24/7.
Rhonda Byrne from The Secret: she was miserable, found The Secret, now she is Happy, buy her stuff.
Its all Sales 101, which they all know well.
Find a Problem-Pain: Human unhappiness and pain. (universal)
Make a Big Claim: my stuff can make you Happy forever instantly.
Offer a Solution: Buy their products and services to end pain, and be Happy-Rich, etc.
Never mind they are telling outright falsehoods with a straight face. They say they are happy ALL THE TIME, which is a lie. Psychology has shown that is NOT possible.
The only people who are happy all the time, are people in Mania, and that always ends very badly for them.
It is shocking so many people buy into this stuff, but most folks are too trusting, and don't look under the hood.
Wolves in sheeps clothing is an apt description.
They all do the same thing.
Eckhart Tolle: says he was miserable, then became Enlightened, so BUY his products to be Happy like him.
Byron Katie: miserable and depressed, attained Enlightenment, BUY her stuff to be happy like she is now 24/7.
Rhonda Byrne from The Secret: she was miserable, found The Secret, now she is Happy, buy her stuff.
Its all Sales 101, which they all know well.
Find a Problem-Pain: Human unhappiness and pain. (universal)
Make a Big Claim: my stuff can make you Happy forever instantly.
Offer a Solution: Buy their products and services to end pain, and be Happy-Rich, etc.
Never mind they are telling outright falsehoods with a straight face. They say they are happy ALL THE TIME, which is a lie. Psychology has shown that is NOT possible.
The only people who are happy all the time, are people in Mania, and that always ends very badly for them.
It is shocking so many people buy into this stuff, but most folks are too trusting, and don't look under the hood.
Wolves in sheeps clothing is an apt description.
Re: Byron Katie (the Work) and Eckhart Tolle Legit??
Posted by:
corboy
()
Date: February 22, 2008 12:08AM
(Pause for Station Identification)
Found some items for continuing education for those interested. They can be applied to many situations, far beyond RR.com.
What follows is copied from the website Butterflies and Wheels in an article on rhetoric:
[www.butterfliesandwheels.com]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Woolly-Thinker's Guide to Rhetoric
Be Courageous
Tell us how brave you are. Talk about how marginal, revolutionary, lonely, out there, edgy, pioneering, strange your ideas are compared to all the old safe boring tame ones everyone else has. Stand up straight, square your shoulders, squint a little as if facing a strong wind. Stifle a sigh now and then. If you can (this is difficult), make a muscle in your jaw twitch.
Be dismissive
Go on, don't hesitate. Brush people off, especially if they know about something you don't know about. If they later turn out to be Nobel economists or widely-read philosophers, just pretend you've forgotten the whole episode. "When? Where was that? I don't remember that at all, you must have me confused with someone else."
Cheers and catcalls
Use hoorah and boo words.
Hoorah: heart, feeling, spiritual, holistic, instinct.
Boo: intellect, cold, analytical.
Claiming is Succeeding
Blur the distinction between claiming to make your case, and actually making it. If anyone notices this, act surprised and wounded. Notice someone you need to talk to across the room.
Clumsy sarcasm
Say things like 'Of course I could be just as wrong as you.' Or 'Well naturally I'm not as subtle as you are, I don't know how to pick words apart until there's nothing left.' Or 'Certainly, you're right and the rest of the world is wrong.' Or 'Where did you read that, TV Guide/The Sun?'
Define words in your own special way
Define truth, for example, as hegemonic discourse, or monoculturalism, or Eurocentrism. Define education as privilege. Define science as an arbitrary game, or a story, or a power-play.
Develop sudden hearing loss
When your opponent makes a good point, a crushing argument, an incontrovertible case, simply fail to hear, and keep talking as if no one had spoken at all. Talk a bit louder. Lean toward your opponent with an intent, listening expression on your face, then continue to ignore what anyone else says.
Do a Procrustes*
Make the evidence fit the case you're trying to make. Force it. If it doesn't fit, don't give up, don't be shy, just keep pushing and hammering and chopping until it does. No one will notice.
*(Note from C. Procrustes was, in Greek mythology, a sadist who posed as a generous host. He had an iron bed. Procrustes offered refuge to unsuspecting guests, invited them to go to sleep on the bed, and then tied them to it. If the victim was too short to fit the length of the bed, Procrustes stretched the person out to fit. If the trapped victim was tall and longer than the bed, Procrustes lopped off the extra length from that persons feet.)
Embrace contradiction
Be ostentatiously anti-elitist, and sprinkle your writings equally ostentatiously with references to Foucault, Irigaray, Derrida, Kristeva and such salt-of-the-earth types along with words like 'problematize', 'phallogocentric', 'hegemonic discourse', and similar folksy slang.
Emotional Blackmail
If someone expresses skepticism about religion, demand how anyone can cast doubt on something that consoles people. This tactic can of course be used for any otherwise untenable system of belief.
Evasive Tactics
1. Wrap yourself in a flag.
The martyrdom flag. The victim flag. The spiritual flag.
2. Change the subject.
Fly under the radar
1. Use subtle pejoratives, so subtle that they're almost invisible but prejudice the discussion anyway.
2. Use words that are pejorative to one group and the opposite to the other. 'Science' and 'scientist' are good for this.
Go Ahead, Contradict Yourself
Don't be afraid to make two mutually incompatible statements in one sentence. For instance, if you are a bishop, declare that the Church is not afraid of critical examination, but at the same time guards the 'truths' of its faith very jealously. If anyone asks how you can do both of those, exactly, just look vague and perhaps hum a little sacred music.
Histrionics
Use emotion. If you don't feel any, work it up. Let your voice quiver and tremble. Sound indignant, outraged, self-righteous, passionate, 'courageous', 'defiant'.
Imply
Imply things. Be careful not to be explicit, because then it would be obvious that you are not telling the truth.
Mention the Armchair
Call your opponent an 'armchair' something. Armchair psychologist, armchair shrink, armchair historian. Whatever. Indicates that the other party is sheltered, lazy, housebound, nerdy, reclusive, uninformed, unhealthy, and out of touch, whereas you are out there with your sleeves rolled up, down in the muck with the other therapists and archaeologists and coal miners. When there is digging to be done you get out there and dig, you don't just sit in the comfy chair and ponder.
Moral One-upmanship
If people disagree with you, accuse them of Eurocentrism or elitism or intolerance or narrowness or conventional thinking or scientism or homophobia.
Pat yourself on the back
Say things like "This is a trivial issue, there are much more important battles to fight," and then go right on arguing. That way you give yourself credit for having a sense of proportion but still get to go on trying to win the argument.
Pave With Good Intentions
Make it clear that you mean very well, that all the benevolence and right feeling and compassion and tolerance are on your side, and all the other thing on your opponent's.
Play the theory card
Talk about 'theory' a lot. Use the word 'theory' in every sentence. Say 'theory' with a special tone of hushed reverence. Ask people if they're well up on 'theory'. Everyone will be very impressed and very intimidated.
Pretend to be amused
Say things like, 'Not at all, I'm not angry/cross/offended, I'm amused.' Pretend to find the other person hilariously ineffectual and cute. Disguise the tremor in your voice and the bulging veins on your forehead.
Repetition
If your ideas are weak, if you have neither logic nor evidence to back them up, simply keep asserting them over and over and over again. This will convince everyone that they must be true. If they were not true, surely we wouldn't keep hearing about them all the time?
Say the methodology was flawed
When your opponent presents evidence (and it always happens, so be ready) that would undermine or completely contradict your argument, simply say everyone knows the methodology of that particular study was deeply flawed. Never mind if you know nothing about it, that this is the first you've heard of the study, just say they went about it in quite, quite the wrong way. If there's another study with a different methodology that also proves you wrong, no matter, just say it again.
Say the outcome was predictable
When your opponents point out flaws in your argument, smile cheerfully and say you think this outcome was entirely predictable.
Translate
If your opponent talks of evidence, you talk of proof. If your opponent mentions probability, you turn that into certainty.
If your opponent disagrees with your facts, say your opponent is offended. If your opponent claims to know something about the topic under discussion, call your opponent an elitist.
Translate Even More When the Subject is Religion
If someone expresses doubts about the truth claims of religion, translate that into a statement that science can solve all of humanity's problems, and mock the statement. When your opponent disavows that statement, ignore the disavowal and continue the mockery. Eventually your opponent will get bored and leave the field.
Use 'Obscure' as a First Name
Always refer to people who disagree with you (unless they are so undeniably famous it simply won't work) as 'obscure' while referring to people who agree with you as 'notable' (which sounds so much more dignified than 'famous'). E.g. if you have call to mention the Sokal hoax, be sure to say 'an obscure physicist named Alan Sokal', as if obscurity were not the natural state of nearly all physicists and indeed academics generally.
Use obscurity
Generate such a tangled clot of verbiage that opponents cannot be sure you haven't said something profound.
(unquote--from Butterflies and Wheels)
----------Appendix-------
Another set of evasive tactics is referred to in some circles as the 'Three Cards.'
This list is from an article printed on the Integral World website.
(quote)
The Three Cards Gambit
"what he's done is play “three cards”, well known to anyone who has studied cults which sprung up with the mixing of eastern religion and western psychology in the sixties and seventies, e.g. Adi Da. These three cards are:
The Higher Level Card
(i.e. Sorry, it's just over your head). You're just not smart enough to realize I am smarter than you, because you're on a lower (less divine) level.
The Projection Card (i.e., I know you are, but what am I). By criticizing me, you are really just criticizing yourself, because any problem you see in me is just a projection of a problem in yourself.
The Skillful Means Card
(i.e., it was only a test, dickhead). The most potent card of all! It's not abuse; it's not pathetic or ridiculous or wrong; it's a crazy-wise teaching. You know, like Zen stuff. So when I call you a dickhead, it's not because I'm a dickhead, it's because you have a dickhead-complex that you need to evolve past, and I'm here to help you see that. "
Quoted from the website Integral World
[www.integralworld.net]
Another discussion of the Three Cards gambit can be read here:
[www.kheper.net]
"Note that these cards are not designed in any way, shape or form to prompt a discussion or dialogue. What can one possibly say to any of these cards? Nothing…and that is exactly the point.
"They are designed to end all discussion, and they are used only when folks know the actual substance of their beliefs has run, or is running, dry"
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2008 12:24AM by corboy.
Found some items for continuing education for those interested. They can be applied to many situations, far beyond RR.com.
What follows is copied from the website Butterflies and Wheels in an article on rhetoric:
[www.butterfliesandwheels.com]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Woolly-Thinker's Guide to Rhetoric
Be Courageous
Tell us how brave you are. Talk about how marginal, revolutionary, lonely, out there, edgy, pioneering, strange your ideas are compared to all the old safe boring tame ones everyone else has. Stand up straight, square your shoulders, squint a little as if facing a strong wind. Stifle a sigh now and then. If you can (this is difficult), make a muscle in your jaw twitch.
Be dismissive
Go on, don't hesitate. Brush people off, especially if they know about something you don't know about. If they later turn out to be Nobel economists or widely-read philosophers, just pretend you've forgotten the whole episode. "When? Where was that? I don't remember that at all, you must have me confused with someone else."
Cheers and catcalls
Use hoorah and boo words.
Hoorah: heart, feeling, spiritual, holistic, instinct.
Boo: intellect, cold, analytical.
Claiming is Succeeding
Blur the distinction between claiming to make your case, and actually making it. If anyone notices this, act surprised and wounded. Notice someone you need to talk to across the room.
Clumsy sarcasm
Say things like 'Of course I could be just as wrong as you.' Or 'Well naturally I'm not as subtle as you are, I don't know how to pick words apart until there's nothing left.' Or 'Certainly, you're right and the rest of the world is wrong.' Or 'Where did you read that, TV Guide/The Sun?'
Define words in your own special way
Define truth, for example, as hegemonic discourse, or monoculturalism, or Eurocentrism. Define education as privilege. Define science as an arbitrary game, or a story, or a power-play.
Develop sudden hearing loss
When your opponent makes a good point, a crushing argument, an incontrovertible case, simply fail to hear, and keep talking as if no one had spoken at all. Talk a bit louder. Lean toward your opponent with an intent, listening expression on your face, then continue to ignore what anyone else says.
Do a Procrustes*
Make the evidence fit the case you're trying to make. Force it. If it doesn't fit, don't give up, don't be shy, just keep pushing and hammering and chopping until it does. No one will notice.
*(Note from C. Procrustes was, in Greek mythology, a sadist who posed as a generous host. He had an iron bed. Procrustes offered refuge to unsuspecting guests, invited them to go to sleep on the bed, and then tied them to it. If the victim was too short to fit the length of the bed, Procrustes stretched the person out to fit. If the trapped victim was tall and longer than the bed, Procrustes lopped off the extra length from that persons feet.)
Embrace contradiction
Be ostentatiously anti-elitist, and sprinkle your writings equally ostentatiously with references to Foucault, Irigaray, Derrida, Kristeva and such salt-of-the-earth types along with words like 'problematize', 'phallogocentric', 'hegemonic discourse', and similar folksy slang.
Emotional Blackmail
If someone expresses skepticism about religion, demand how anyone can cast doubt on something that consoles people. This tactic can of course be used for any otherwise untenable system of belief.
Evasive Tactics
1. Wrap yourself in a flag.
The martyrdom flag. The victim flag. The spiritual flag.
2. Change the subject.
Fly under the radar
1. Use subtle pejoratives, so subtle that they're almost invisible but prejudice the discussion anyway.
2. Use words that are pejorative to one group and the opposite to the other. 'Science' and 'scientist' are good for this.
Go Ahead, Contradict Yourself
Don't be afraid to make two mutually incompatible statements in one sentence. For instance, if you are a bishop, declare that the Church is not afraid of critical examination, but at the same time guards the 'truths' of its faith very jealously. If anyone asks how you can do both of those, exactly, just look vague and perhaps hum a little sacred music.
Histrionics
Use emotion. If you don't feel any, work it up. Let your voice quiver and tremble. Sound indignant, outraged, self-righteous, passionate, 'courageous', 'defiant'.
Imply
Imply things. Be careful not to be explicit, because then it would be obvious that you are not telling the truth.
Mention the Armchair
Call your opponent an 'armchair' something. Armchair psychologist, armchair shrink, armchair historian. Whatever. Indicates that the other party is sheltered, lazy, housebound, nerdy, reclusive, uninformed, unhealthy, and out of touch, whereas you are out there with your sleeves rolled up, down in the muck with the other therapists and archaeologists and coal miners. When there is digging to be done you get out there and dig, you don't just sit in the comfy chair and ponder.
Moral One-upmanship
If people disagree with you, accuse them of Eurocentrism or elitism or intolerance or narrowness or conventional thinking or scientism or homophobia.
Pat yourself on the back
Say things like "This is a trivial issue, there are much more important battles to fight," and then go right on arguing. That way you give yourself credit for having a sense of proportion but still get to go on trying to win the argument.
Pave With Good Intentions
Make it clear that you mean very well, that all the benevolence and right feeling and compassion and tolerance are on your side, and all the other thing on your opponent's.
Play the theory card
Talk about 'theory' a lot. Use the word 'theory' in every sentence. Say 'theory' with a special tone of hushed reverence. Ask people if they're well up on 'theory'. Everyone will be very impressed and very intimidated.
Pretend to be amused
Say things like, 'Not at all, I'm not angry/cross/offended, I'm amused.' Pretend to find the other person hilariously ineffectual and cute. Disguise the tremor in your voice and the bulging veins on your forehead.
Repetition
If your ideas are weak, if you have neither logic nor evidence to back them up, simply keep asserting them over and over and over again. This will convince everyone that they must be true. If they were not true, surely we wouldn't keep hearing about them all the time?
Say the methodology was flawed
When your opponent presents evidence (and it always happens, so be ready) that would undermine or completely contradict your argument, simply say everyone knows the methodology of that particular study was deeply flawed. Never mind if you know nothing about it, that this is the first you've heard of the study, just say they went about it in quite, quite the wrong way. If there's another study with a different methodology that also proves you wrong, no matter, just say it again.
Say the outcome was predictable
When your opponents point out flaws in your argument, smile cheerfully and say you think this outcome was entirely predictable.
Translate
If your opponent talks of evidence, you talk of proof. If your opponent mentions probability, you turn that into certainty.
If your opponent disagrees with your facts, say your opponent is offended. If your opponent claims to know something about the topic under discussion, call your opponent an elitist.
Translate Even More When the Subject is Religion
If someone expresses doubts about the truth claims of religion, translate that into a statement that science can solve all of humanity's problems, and mock the statement. When your opponent disavows that statement, ignore the disavowal and continue the mockery. Eventually your opponent will get bored and leave the field.
Use 'Obscure' as a First Name
Always refer to people who disagree with you (unless they are so undeniably famous it simply won't work) as 'obscure' while referring to people who agree with you as 'notable' (which sounds so much more dignified than 'famous'). E.g. if you have call to mention the Sokal hoax, be sure to say 'an obscure physicist named Alan Sokal', as if obscurity were not the natural state of nearly all physicists and indeed academics generally.
Use obscurity
Generate such a tangled clot of verbiage that opponents cannot be sure you haven't said something profound.
(unquote--from Butterflies and Wheels)
----------Appendix-------
Another set of evasive tactics is referred to in some circles as the 'Three Cards.'
This list is from an article printed on the Integral World website.
(quote)
The Three Cards Gambit
"what he's done is play “three cards”, well known to anyone who has studied cults which sprung up with the mixing of eastern religion and western psychology in the sixties and seventies, e.g. Adi Da. These three cards are:
The Higher Level Card
(i.e. Sorry, it's just over your head). You're just not smart enough to realize I am smarter than you, because you're on a lower (less divine) level.
The Projection Card (i.e., I know you are, but what am I). By criticizing me, you are really just criticizing yourself, because any problem you see in me is just a projection of a problem in yourself.
The Skillful Means Card
(i.e., it was only a test, dickhead). The most potent card of all! It's not abuse; it's not pathetic or ridiculous or wrong; it's a crazy-wise teaching. You know, like Zen stuff. So when I call you a dickhead, it's not because I'm a dickhead, it's because you have a dickhead-complex that you need to evolve past, and I'm here to help you see that. "
Quoted from the website Integral World
[www.integralworld.net]
Another discussion of the Three Cards gambit can be read here:
[www.kheper.net]
"Note that these cards are not designed in any way, shape or form to prompt a discussion or dialogue. What can one possibly say to any of these cards? Nothing…and that is exactly the point.
"They are designed to end all discussion, and they are used only when folks know the actual substance of their beliefs has run, or is running, dry"
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2008 12:24AM by corboy.
Re: Byron Katie (the Work) and Eckhart Tolle Legit??
Posted by:
jj52
()
Date: February 22, 2008 05:20AM
Wow! I really appreciate that post, corboy.
I was asked to come join this thread after posting earlier today in the LGAT forum under "Byron Katie and The Work/serious concerns."
You can read my post here: [forum.culteducation.com]
Or click here, and hopefully the link works.
I've read through this discussion, and ralpher appears to be gone...
But I just wanted to clarify. I've been to The School for The Work of Byron Katie, and I'm struggling to piece my life back together. There's no doubt that it falls under mind control. There are deviances from the "norm" of cults and cult leaders that make it appear benign, but that's probably why it is so dangerous. Let me tell you first hand... that once you get to her The School, the whole game changes from the simple "4 questions and a turnaround" in her book.
The Work itself, the 4 questions, that is... is very similar to other methods that are used to help a person find their projections. The problem is... that not every single thought or judgment is a projection. In the beginning, The Work helped me immensely. But when I wasn't projecting anymore, questioning my thoughts and perceptions and beliefs... was like murdering my identity and obliterating any grasp on reality. Once a person reaches the point where they question and doubt all of their own thoughts... well, then Katie is the master who gets to define reality for them.
And, she definitely does.
Thanks for all the comments here. ralpher really is a good example of what a die-hard Byron Katie fan is like... I got a lot of flack from people when I started wanting to leave it. Katie teaches that "your friends are your enemies and your enemies are your friends." The logic being that an enemy will tell you the truth about yourself, while a friend will just "reinforce your story" (story=the sum total of your thoughts, perceptions and beliefs about the world and others), so criticism is supposed to be "kind" in her world. When someone like ralpher is personally attacking you, he's probably got himself convinced that he's doing you a favor, and giving you a chance to be free of your own mind.
I've also seen how people can abuse The Work. Too many of her followers mimic Katie, and set themselves up like a teacher or guru to everyone else around them, trying to make everyone question their thoughts and see things his way. I've been harassed by my fellow School mates even before I decided to leave... because my perception and beliefs didn't match theirs. It got to the point that anything I said was immediate challenged with "Is it true?"
I've really enjoyed reading this conversation here, because there are some smart people here who know their own minds... and as an observer, it was very helpful to me to see these healthy people responding to the BK supporter that way. It gave me back some of my integrity.
Thank you!
Oh... as far as I know from the 300 people that attended The School with me... I'm the only one who has abandoned The Work. I kept in touch with people for awhile, and even the ones who saw the flaws in Katie's theories couldn't escape the allure of being "clear" and perfectly blissful 24/7 like Katie says she is. If anyone did leave, they didn't say anything. I don't blame them really. ralpher was actually pretty gentle compared to others I've encountered.
-jj
I was asked to come join this thread after posting earlier today in the LGAT forum under "Byron Katie and The Work/serious concerns."
You can read my post here: [forum.culteducation.com]
Or click here, and hopefully the link works.
I've read through this discussion, and ralpher appears to be gone...
But I just wanted to clarify. I've been to The School for The Work of Byron Katie, and I'm struggling to piece my life back together. There's no doubt that it falls under mind control. There are deviances from the "norm" of cults and cult leaders that make it appear benign, but that's probably why it is so dangerous. Let me tell you first hand... that once you get to her The School, the whole game changes from the simple "4 questions and a turnaround" in her book.
The Work itself, the 4 questions, that is... is very similar to other methods that are used to help a person find their projections. The problem is... that not every single thought or judgment is a projection. In the beginning, The Work helped me immensely. But when I wasn't projecting anymore, questioning my thoughts and perceptions and beliefs... was like murdering my identity and obliterating any grasp on reality. Once a person reaches the point where they question and doubt all of their own thoughts... well, then Katie is the master who gets to define reality for them.
And, she definitely does.
Thanks for all the comments here. ralpher really is a good example of what a die-hard Byron Katie fan is like... I got a lot of flack from people when I started wanting to leave it. Katie teaches that "your friends are your enemies and your enemies are your friends." The logic being that an enemy will tell you the truth about yourself, while a friend will just "reinforce your story" (story=the sum total of your thoughts, perceptions and beliefs about the world and others), so criticism is supposed to be "kind" in her world. When someone like ralpher is personally attacking you, he's probably got himself convinced that he's doing you a favor, and giving you a chance to be free of your own mind.
I've also seen how people can abuse The Work. Too many of her followers mimic Katie, and set themselves up like a teacher or guru to everyone else around them, trying to make everyone question their thoughts and see things his way. I've been harassed by my fellow School mates even before I decided to leave... because my perception and beliefs didn't match theirs. It got to the point that anything I said was immediate challenged with "Is it true?"
I've really enjoyed reading this conversation here, because there are some smart people here who know their own minds... and as an observer, it was very helpful to me to see these healthy people responding to the BK supporter that way. It gave me back some of my integrity.
Thank you!
Oh... as far as I know from the 300 people that attended The School with me... I'm the only one who has abandoned The Work. I kept in touch with people for awhile, and even the ones who saw the flaws in Katie's theories couldn't escape the allure of being "clear" and perfectly blissful 24/7 like Katie says she is. If anyone did leave, they didn't say anything. I don't blame them really. ralpher was actually pretty gentle compared to others I've encountered.
-jj
Re: Byron Katie (the Work) and Eckhart Tolle Legit??
Posted by:
The Anticult
()
Date: February 22, 2008 11:20AM
jj, thx for the fascinating info.
for what its worth, often just posting/writing can help a person get their own thoughts-voice back, over time.
I think you are right on the money when you say Byron Katie gets people to doubt all of their own thinking, so then she can take over. Its very dangerous to start doubting all of your own thinking. What else do we have in life?
I can't express how ugly and wrong, and even evil it is to do that to vulnerable people.
Any decent person, never mind teacher would never do that. Quite the contrary.
We need to learn how to trust our own thinking and intuition, and find our own voice, etc. This is done with writing, art, hobbies, music, etc. Each person is unique.
But Byron Katie just wants to exploit this impusle in people, and profit from it.
As far as others falling away from Katie, even just statistically, I bet many more of those who attended the Byron Katie worshops and school would be doubting it. But Byron Katie has designed a closed system of thought-control, whereby your own doubting of her is seen as something that can't be expressed. They have tried to create a closed-thought-system to entrap people.
As far as Happiness, everyone should rest assured, Byron Katie is not blissful 24/7. That is the oldest trick in the book, from the Giggling Guru to Don't Worry Be Happy. Its just a sales-trick. Its a scam.
They know that the #1 goal of humans is to Be Happy, and they pretend they have it 24/7.
They don't.
Psychology has proven that people return to a base-standard of "happiness" even after a few months. As a matter of fact, wanting to be happy 24/7 will make you unhappy!
Dr. Martin Seligman is studying this currently.
[www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu]
Its GOOD to have forceful negative Disputing thoughts at times, to clear your mind of this junk. In Cognitive Therapy its called Disptuting, and its very healthy.
Byron Katie ideas are full of bullshit from top to bottom.
Her Epistemology of... IS IT TRUE is FALSE!
Her ideas about happiness will make you UNHAPPY!
Her ideas of doubting ALL your own thinking are false and very damaging.
One could go on and on...
for what its worth, often just posting/writing can help a person get their own thoughts-voice back, over time.
I think you are right on the money when you say Byron Katie gets people to doubt all of their own thinking, so then she can take over. Its very dangerous to start doubting all of your own thinking. What else do we have in life?
I can't express how ugly and wrong, and even evil it is to do that to vulnerable people.
Any decent person, never mind teacher would never do that. Quite the contrary.
We need to learn how to trust our own thinking and intuition, and find our own voice, etc. This is done with writing, art, hobbies, music, etc. Each person is unique.
But Byron Katie just wants to exploit this impusle in people, and profit from it.
As far as others falling away from Katie, even just statistically, I bet many more of those who attended the Byron Katie worshops and school would be doubting it. But Byron Katie has designed a closed system of thought-control, whereby your own doubting of her is seen as something that can't be expressed. They have tried to create a closed-thought-system to entrap people.
As far as Happiness, everyone should rest assured, Byron Katie is not blissful 24/7. That is the oldest trick in the book, from the Giggling Guru to Don't Worry Be Happy. Its just a sales-trick. Its a scam.
They know that the #1 goal of humans is to Be Happy, and they pretend they have it 24/7.
They don't.
Psychology has proven that people return to a base-standard of "happiness" even after a few months. As a matter of fact, wanting to be happy 24/7 will make you unhappy!
Dr. Martin Seligman is studying this currently.
[www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu]
Its GOOD to have forceful negative Disputing thoughts at times, to clear your mind of this junk. In Cognitive Therapy its called Disptuting, and its very healthy.
Byron Katie ideas are full of bullshit from top to bottom.
Her Epistemology of... IS IT TRUE is FALSE!
Her ideas about happiness will make you UNHAPPY!
Her ideas of doubting ALL your own thinking are false and very damaging.
One could go on and on...
Re: Byron Katie (the Work) and Eckhart Tolle Legit??
Posted by:
corboy
()
Date: February 22, 2008 11:29PM
A Layperson's Take on Projection, Power and Professional Psychotherapy
When the word projection is invoked, we must ask whether it is used to shame or to awaken.
Whether projection is discussed in such a way as to support and enhance our conscious awarenss of power dynamics in a relationship -- or to frighten us into avoid any thought or discussion of power dynamics in that relationship.
Does the invokation of projection awaken and brighten your mind--or darken it with shame and fear of being considered crazy or disloyal?
If the use of the word projection has a shaming component, it is being improperly used.
Whose welfare is served by invoking projection--your own growth into greater awareness and adult agency--or someone who does not like what you are saying--and would rather have you doubt yourself than to admit 'I dont like what you are saying--I feel frightened.'
Sometimes when discussions get heated, persons may accuse us of 'projection' if we suggest that a leader or group is less than perfect.
Properly invoked, discussing projection supports conscious awareness about
relationships--and power.
Improperly used, projection triggers shame and fear, signals others to engage in
scapegoating. If used in this manner, invoking projection thwarts conscious awareness of what is going on in the relationship under discussion.
Improperly used, projection becomes not description but accusation. As accusation that insinuates that the targeted person is mentally ill, invoking projection shames underlings and outsiders into verbal silence and internalized self censorship. Problems go undiscussed and unresolved.
This accusatory use of 'projection' is not only imprecise, but limits the ability of an organization to identify problems in early stages and to then self correct.
Discussion of projection has to be done with the utmost care.
A true therapist NEVER mentions projection as a way to get tha e counselee to feel responsible or take blame for impasse in therapy or to take on responsiblity for the therapists' own anxiety or distress.
Therapists are expected to take care of their emotional lives in private, with their colleagues and friends (that is, adult peers) and never to pull clients in as caregivers or confidantes.
In therapy, projection is never used to stifle discussion, or to protect something or someone from scrutiny. Projection is never invoked by a real therapist to to trivialize or dismiss a client's concerns, but is used not accusingly but descriptively, to identify and discuss the dynamics of the client provider relationship--and in the client's outside relationships.
In fact, discussion of projection has to be done with the utmost care, precisely because it is a concept that can be readily abused.
In the clinical literature, projection can take at least two forms--transferance and counter transferance,
Transferance is when the client/underling projects his or her history onto the therapist or leader/[powerholer.
Counter transferance is when the therapist/powerholder/leader gets triggered
by the vulnerability of the underling and projects his or her unconscious material onto the client/devotee/student/underling.
Both types of projection can be triggered kick in when the situation is one of power imbalance, for this re-enacts how we were raised in chilhood. This is how power imbalances tend to foster transferance and regression.
This happens outside of the consulting room. A speaker at a podium or on a stage gets a sort of automatic deferance and trust--we look to the person for guidance, and do it tacitly.
Any police officer will tell you that he or she, just by wearing a uniform, will get all sorts of projections from people by becoming An Authority Figure. Ditto for clergy.
**Part of genuine psychotherapy is to assist clients how to become conscious of power imbalances both in adult society and in their families of origin--and to gain a sense of personal agency in how to share and negotiate power in thier adult relationships.
By contrast, in many parts of the consciousness scene, any attempt to have a clear and conscoius discussion of power, its use, negotiation and abuse is treated as evidence of cynicism and negativity. The result is a lot of wounded persons who are unconscious of their struggles with power end up in groups re-enacting how they were already injured in families of origin.
Unlike the New Age scene, psychotherapists are trained to be conscious of the great power they do have, the position of trust they have in relation to clients and that as poweholders and caregivers, the therapist is accountable to an ETHOS OF CARE--if things go wrong, the therapist is under scrutiny--he or she isnt infalliable and the client isnt the one who automatically takes all the blame.
(This is very different from 'there are no victims only volunteers'--this denies the reality of power, power imbalances, and the need for both boundaries and ethos of care)
Real therapists are legally accountable for their power and unlike gurus, or human potential speakers, psychotherapy is regulated by law. Few of us are aware of this vital distinction, perhaps because a large part of unhealed trauma
is the inablity to think consciously about power in one's relationships.
Therapists get the training they do so as to recognize their own projections (counter transferance) as well as client projections (transferance) and not do harm--and to be able to use the client'[s transferance to assist that person to grow and become conscious, autonomous and less and less dependent on the therapist over time.
An ethical therapist avoids using a client's transferance to increase the clients's dependence and will set boundaries. This is one reason why most therapists limit sessions to 50 minutes and are careful to avoid socializing with clients outside of the session and avoid business relations with clients outside of sessions. This is to ensure that clients do not regress too far backwards and retain adult autonomy after leaving the session.
In psychotherapy it is recognized that the therapist is capable of projecting his or her issues onto the client---it isnt just the client who is capable of projection. When clients project issues onto the therapist this is called 'transferance.' If a therapist projects unconscious agendas onto clients, this is termed 'counter transferance.'
In real psychotherapy, the therapist as powerholder is recognized as having the burden of accountablity for becoming conscious of and being able to manage his or her countertransferance issues. This is why professional therapists are required to get training, and complete a couple thousand hours as apprentice therapists, guided by a clinical supervisor before being qualified to take the examinations needed to be licensed as independent practitioners.
Really wise therapists in practice become members of consultancy groups where they meet regularly and other therapists can help them identify countertransferance pitfalls.
An alert therapist is thus expected to recognize when his or her countertransferance issues are potentially unmanageable in relation to a particular type of client.
These are persons whom that therapist will refer to another colleague. It does not mean the client is bad or has done anything wrong. No therapist, no matter how well trained or conscious, is capable of working with everyone, and will have a list of colleagues to whom referrals can be made.
These countertransferance issues are such that therapists are warned of the hazards of 'dual relationships'-- social or business relationships with clients outside of the therapy situation. In such situations it is difficult for clients to set boundaries and say no because they rely on the therapist as a surrogate parent.
It is the therapists job to protect the client by avoiding dual relationships. This is defined by law as well as the codes of professional ethics. A therapist has to be awake to these matters, the way a designated driver at a party stays sober so as to drive the others safetly home.
But in human potential and guru-run spiritual projects , it is rare for anyone to acknowlege that powerholders remain vulnerable to the dynamics of countertransferance. If a leader is considered perfect, it is the underlings or outsiders who get tarred with the 'projection' brush.
If a leader is considered perfect and incapable of harm--then he or she would consider ethos of care to be irrelevant--despite wielding vast power, with no way to examine the realities and responsiblities of power and power abuse in any conscious way.
If a parent or leader is considered infallable and perfect, that person is considered incapable of succumbing to the pitfalls of countertransferance. So the only people left to take the blame if things go off balance are the kids or the underlings.
In spiritual or human potential set ups where leaders have not been trained to recognize and acknowledge the reality of countertransferance, transferance, countertransferance is rarely acknoweldged publicly or discussed in such a way as to assist all to be conscious of the symmetry of ountertransferance /transferance. It is not recognized that leaders are quite capable of engaging in projection and that the name of thier hat is countertransferance.
When stresses come up in such an organization, all too often projection issues are solely imputed to underlings, never to the powerholder. Countertransferance may indeed occurring, but if there is no vocabulary to assist everyone to see it consciously and discuss it, matters can go unresolved.
In professional psychotherapy, countertransferance (projection issues for powerholders) is a matter that is publicly acknowledged and discussed. There is considerable published literature on the subject and has been for decades.
By contrast, professional therapists do not consider themselves enlightened or infalliable. They are required by law to get continuing education.
And as part of recognition of their unenlightened status, mental health professionals carry malpractice insurance.
And clients of professional therapists never sign any form to sign away their rights as citizens to sue for damages if harmed by the therapist.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2008 11:50PM by corboy.
When the word projection is invoked, we must ask whether it is used to shame or to awaken.
Whether projection is discussed in such a way as to support and enhance our conscious awarenss of power dynamics in a relationship -- or to frighten us into avoid any thought or discussion of power dynamics in that relationship.
Does the invokation of projection awaken and brighten your mind--or darken it with shame and fear of being considered crazy or disloyal?
If the use of the word projection has a shaming component, it is being improperly used.
Whose welfare is served by invoking projection--your own growth into greater awareness and adult agency--or someone who does not like what you are saying--and would rather have you doubt yourself than to admit 'I dont like what you are saying--I feel frightened.'
Sometimes when discussions get heated, persons may accuse us of 'projection' if we suggest that a leader or group is less than perfect.
Properly invoked, discussing projection supports conscious awareness about
relationships--and power.
Improperly used, projection triggers shame and fear, signals others to engage in
scapegoating. If used in this manner, invoking projection thwarts conscious awareness of what is going on in the relationship under discussion.
Improperly used, projection becomes not description but accusation. As accusation that insinuates that the targeted person is mentally ill, invoking projection shames underlings and outsiders into verbal silence and internalized self censorship. Problems go undiscussed and unresolved.
This accusatory use of 'projection' is not only imprecise, but limits the ability of an organization to identify problems in early stages and to then self correct.
Discussion of projection has to be done with the utmost care.
A true therapist NEVER mentions projection as a way to get tha e counselee to feel responsible or take blame for impasse in therapy or to take on responsiblity for the therapists' own anxiety or distress.
Therapists are expected to take care of their emotional lives in private, with their colleagues and friends (that is, adult peers) and never to pull clients in as caregivers or confidantes.
In therapy, projection is never used to stifle discussion, or to protect something or someone from scrutiny. Projection is never invoked by a real therapist to to trivialize or dismiss a client's concerns, but is used not accusingly but descriptively, to identify and discuss the dynamics of the client provider relationship--and in the client's outside relationships.
In fact, discussion of projection has to be done with the utmost care, precisely because it is a concept that can be readily abused.
In the clinical literature, projection can take at least two forms--transferance and counter transferance,
Transferance is when the client/underling projects his or her history onto the therapist or leader/[powerholer.
Counter transferance is when the therapist/powerholder/leader gets triggered
by the vulnerability of the underling and projects his or her unconscious material onto the client/devotee/student/underling.
Both types of projection can be triggered kick in when the situation is one of power imbalance, for this re-enacts how we were raised in chilhood. This is how power imbalances tend to foster transferance and regression.
This happens outside of the consulting room. A speaker at a podium or on a stage gets a sort of automatic deferance and trust--we look to the person for guidance, and do it tacitly.
Any police officer will tell you that he or she, just by wearing a uniform, will get all sorts of projections from people by becoming An Authority Figure. Ditto for clergy.
**Part of genuine psychotherapy is to assist clients how to become conscious of power imbalances both in adult society and in their families of origin--and to gain a sense of personal agency in how to share and negotiate power in thier adult relationships.
By contrast, in many parts of the consciousness scene, any attempt to have a clear and conscoius discussion of power, its use, negotiation and abuse is treated as evidence of cynicism and negativity. The result is a lot of wounded persons who are unconscious of their struggles with power end up in groups re-enacting how they were already injured in families of origin.
Unlike the New Age scene, psychotherapists are trained to be conscious of the great power they do have, the position of trust they have in relation to clients and that as poweholders and caregivers, the therapist is accountable to an ETHOS OF CARE--if things go wrong, the therapist is under scrutiny--he or she isnt infalliable and the client isnt the one who automatically takes all the blame.
(This is very different from 'there are no victims only volunteers'--this denies the reality of power, power imbalances, and the need for both boundaries and ethos of care)
Real therapists are legally accountable for their power and unlike gurus, or human potential speakers, psychotherapy is regulated by law. Few of us are aware of this vital distinction, perhaps because a large part of unhealed trauma
is the inablity to think consciously about power in one's relationships.
Therapists get the training they do so as to recognize their own projections (counter transferance) as well as client projections (transferance) and not do harm--and to be able to use the client'[s transferance to assist that person to grow and become conscious, autonomous and less and less dependent on the therapist over time.
An ethical therapist avoids using a client's transferance to increase the clients's dependence and will set boundaries. This is one reason why most therapists limit sessions to 50 minutes and are careful to avoid socializing with clients outside of the session and avoid business relations with clients outside of sessions. This is to ensure that clients do not regress too far backwards and retain adult autonomy after leaving the session.
In psychotherapy it is recognized that the therapist is capable of projecting his or her issues onto the client---it isnt just the client who is capable of projection. When clients project issues onto the therapist this is called 'transferance.' If a therapist projects unconscious agendas onto clients, this is termed 'counter transferance.'
In real psychotherapy, the therapist as powerholder is recognized as having the burden of accountablity for becoming conscious of and being able to manage his or her countertransferance issues. This is why professional therapists are required to get training, and complete a couple thousand hours as apprentice therapists, guided by a clinical supervisor before being qualified to take the examinations needed to be licensed as independent practitioners.
Really wise therapists in practice become members of consultancy groups where they meet regularly and other therapists can help them identify countertransferance pitfalls.
An alert therapist is thus expected to recognize when his or her countertransferance issues are potentially unmanageable in relation to a particular type of client.
These are persons whom that therapist will refer to another colleague. It does not mean the client is bad or has done anything wrong. No therapist, no matter how well trained or conscious, is capable of working with everyone, and will have a list of colleagues to whom referrals can be made.
These countertransferance issues are such that therapists are warned of the hazards of 'dual relationships'-- social or business relationships with clients outside of the therapy situation. In such situations it is difficult for clients to set boundaries and say no because they rely on the therapist as a surrogate parent.
It is the therapists job to protect the client by avoiding dual relationships. This is defined by law as well as the codes of professional ethics. A therapist has to be awake to these matters, the way a designated driver at a party stays sober so as to drive the others safetly home.
But in human potential and guru-run spiritual projects , it is rare for anyone to acknowlege that powerholders remain vulnerable to the dynamics of countertransferance. If a leader is considered perfect, it is the underlings or outsiders who get tarred with the 'projection' brush.
If a leader is considered perfect and incapable of harm--then he or she would consider ethos of care to be irrelevant--despite wielding vast power, with no way to examine the realities and responsiblities of power and power abuse in any conscious way.
If a parent or leader is considered infallable and perfect, that person is considered incapable of succumbing to the pitfalls of countertransferance. So the only people left to take the blame if things go off balance are the kids or the underlings.
In spiritual or human potential set ups where leaders have not been trained to recognize and acknowledge the reality of countertransferance, transferance, countertransferance is rarely acknoweldged publicly or discussed in such a way as to assist all to be conscious of the symmetry of ountertransferance /transferance. It is not recognized that leaders are quite capable of engaging in projection and that the name of thier hat is countertransferance.
When stresses come up in such an organization, all too often projection issues are solely imputed to underlings, never to the powerholder. Countertransferance may indeed occurring, but if there is no vocabulary to assist everyone to see it consciously and discuss it, matters can go unresolved.
In professional psychotherapy, countertransferance (projection issues for powerholders) is a matter that is publicly acknowledged and discussed. There is considerable published literature on the subject and has been for decades.
By contrast, professional therapists do not consider themselves enlightened or infalliable. They are required by law to get continuing education.
And as part of recognition of their unenlightened status, mental health professionals carry malpractice insurance.
And clients of professional therapists never sign any form to sign away their rights as citizens to sue for damages if harmed by the therapist.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2008 11:50PM by corboy.
Re: Byron Katie (the Work) and Eckhart Tolle Legit??
Posted by:
Zentient
()
Date: February 22, 2008 11:44PM
A few things about Byron Katie, please give feedback:
1) If you must question your thoughts, you should question ALL of them. Your positive thoughts are equally as "untrue" as your negative ones. Katie forgets to mention this! Why doesn’t she process this with people?
I’d love to see her do this -
A thought appears, such as: “My partner loves me” , “I am a strong competent person” “My life is going to get better”
Can you ABSOLUTELY know that’s true?” Who would you be without that thought? Do a turnaround, which is as true -”My partner does not love me” “I am a weak and incompetent person”,”My life is going to get worse”
Does this make sense to anyone? Thoughts come and go, and just being aware of this can help a person. The problem comes when our thoughts are about taking everything personal and becoming reactive to everything and everybody. This is true whether or not the thought is "positive" or "negative".
2) I have been going to the local Unity Church, which has totally bought into Byron Katie. She came to the church and one of the members gives workshops there. This had caused me to question the Unity Church. Anyone know about this connection? Do some people consider the Unity Church a cult?
Thank you and enjoy the day.
1) If you must question your thoughts, you should question ALL of them. Your positive thoughts are equally as "untrue" as your negative ones. Katie forgets to mention this! Why doesn’t she process this with people?
I’d love to see her do this -
A thought appears, such as: “My partner loves me” , “I am a strong competent person” “My life is going to get better”
Can you ABSOLUTELY know that’s true?” Who would you be without that thought? Do a turnaround, which is as true -”My partner does not love me” “I am a weak and incompetent person”,”My life is going to get worse”
Does this make sense to anyone? Thoughts come and go, and just being aware of this can help a person. The problem comes when our thoughts are about taking everything personal and becoming reactive to everything and everybody. This is true whether or not the thought is "positive" or "negative".
2) I have been going to the local Unity Church, which has totally bought into Byron Katie. She came to the church and one of the members gives workshops there. This had caused me to question the Unity Church. Anyone know about this connection? Do some people consider the Unity Church a cult?
Thank you and enjoy the day.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.