It appears to me that The Work is the meal ticket. Arienariadne said she loves the work, despite her bad experience with Byron Katie, and it seems Katie supporters praise the questions and turnaround as a last line of defense against criticism. Look at jgf75 and Susan. There is a lot of money to be made by "therapists" who use these questions as a hook. In fact no one ever need to go to a BK seminar to get screwed out of their mind and money. The Work finances BK and is a way to get people further tangled up in her organization.

I think that is why they are so protective of "The Work". If people see it for what it really is how are they going to get clients?

Quote
Jay Cruise
It appears to me that The Work is the meal ticket. Arienariadne said she loves the work, despite her bad experience with Byron Katie, and it seems Katie supporters praise the questions and turnaround as a last line of defense against criticism. Look at jgf75 and Susan. There is a lot of money to be made by "therapists" who use these questions as a hook. In fact no one ever need to go to a BK seminar to get screwed out of their mind and money. The Work finances BK and is a way to get people further tangled up in her organization.

I think that is why they are so protective of "The Work". If people see it for what it really is how are they going to get clients?

Yes!

People get hooked because BK's "work" contains stuff out of cognitive therapy, which does help. When I read David Burns' "Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy" last year, I was like, did Byron Katie rip off his approach? It sure seemed like it.

The Work, in terms of the 4 Questions and a Turnaround, is a clever "gimmick".
As Jay said, for these "facilitators" they can use it with clients, and many of these untrained people charge over $100-$150 an hour! There seem to be hundreds of these "coaches" out there who are selling it.
And its also the golden goose, as people get hooked into the Turnaround loop, and there is no way to get out. The excessive self-blame and guilt created, draws them further into the Byron Katie system.

Notice how the PR people for The Work say, its all free, just do it. Well, then why are there are these hundreds of seminars, coaches, books, DVD, turnaround Houses, and everything else? Why do people get hooked into it for years? Its a golden goose cash-cow.
So it is very cleverly put together, so that most people can't see what's really happening.

But in terms of Cognitive Therapy CT, and David Burns, they are actually in direct opposition.
CT is about adjusting to actual reality, based on objective EVIDENCE. [www.nacbt.org]
Byron Katie has tried to link herself to CT, as CT has been proven to help people in many studies.
CT and the BK work are actually in direct opposition, its somewhat like saying that Astrology and Astronomy are related, as they both talk about planets. The Work is like Astrology.
Whereas CT, has been very carefully studies and refined for decades, with hundreds of actual studies to refine it.
(stay away from any "therapist" who claims they are alike)

One of the philosophical roots of CT is Epictetus.
"Men are disturbed not by things but by the views which they take of them" Epictetus, Greek Stoic philosopher 55-135AD
So its an ancient idea, that our perceptions are what disturb us, its in Shakespeare too. Its common sense. If you see a snake on a path, you freak out...then you see its a stick, and calm down.
But from there, it gets a lot more precise.

Cognitive Therapy is about adjusting to factual reality, based on evidence and reality-testing. So CT is literally the OPPOSITE to the BK work. What is CT? [www.nacbt.org]

What BK seems to have done, is to take a few components, and put them together as a "gimmick", similar to how she warped hypnotherapy to her own ends.
The Work is not neutral, its directional. It directs the client further toward BK, in a closed-loop. It is a checkmate. Its NOT freedom.

Let's look at it.

1. Is it true?
2. Can you absolutely know that it's true?
3. How do you react, what happens, when you believe that thought?
4. Who would you be without the thought?
Turnaround: (the thought is turned around to its opposite, around to oneself)

Question 1-2 are nothing new or interesting. That is why UG Krishnamurti dismissed it as a gimmick. That is the first question of epistemology in philosophy, which has been asked forever. The answer, is that nothing is 100% "true". But its the start of the BK mindtrap, as she pushes people away from how epistemology works.
The real questions should be, how ACCURATE is this thought, and to what extent can it be verified? That is epistemology [plato.stanford.edu] and is where science begins, through testing for evidence. So beliefs/thoughts/ideas can be put on a continuum of accuracy, from just over 0% to under 100%.

Question 3, is just basic self-awareness. If you believe a snake is a stick, you are scared. Again, its nothing original, just basic stuff.

Question 4, this is where it starts getting damaging. Buddhists have trained people to detach and observe thoughts, so there is nothing new here. But to try to erase and negate thought, and connect that to the SELF, is when things can get damaging. This is the beginning of the Thinking Errors in the BK Work.

Turnaround: this is where it goes right off the rails, and the real Cognitive Distortions, Thinking Errors, and mind-warping starts. Modern therapy has proven that excessive self-blaming creates depression and guilt. Also, Polarized thinking is called Black/White thinking, and is very harmful.

So its very clear how this operates.
She presents the salespitch as a cure to all human suffering, which is a bigger claim that the Buddha, and is obviously false. (the irony is the BK Work does the opposite, and creates more suffering).
Then Questions 1,2, are just basic human thought. But for healthy thinking, you don't say, "is it true", you say..."how accurate is it", and look for objective evidence.
Question 3,4 push people toward the No-Self No-Mind idea, and this is meant to try and clear the slate, so to speak.

Then the power kicks in on the Turnaround aimed at the self.
As when people assign excessive self-blame, they are going to get guilt-ridden and depressed. That is actually proven in many studies. And of course, most women tend to self-blame anyway, and this makes it worse.
Then what? Then people need more Aftercare, more coaching, and even the Turnaround House.

The Turnaround is the most destructive aspect of the Work, and this is what starts to point the person towards Byron Katie, and can even disable people. Then when she layers everything else over top of it, you get exactly what she has.
If the Turnaround is self-applied by people in serious depression, or with suicide issues, they could spin down right to the bottom. As since serious depression is created by excessive self-blame, people will literally start to blame themselves for blaming themselves, and it spirals down to the bottom. If you asked Byron Katie, doesn't the BK work Turnaround spiral people right down to the bottom? She would SMILE widely and say with glee and clap her hands...YES!! She loves spiralling people down to the bottom.

These Turnarounds on the self, can completely disable vulnerable people, and can even lead to suicide. Read the Byron Katie RELEASE OF LIABILITY [forum.culteducation.com]




[www.mayoclinic.com]
Personalization and Blame. This is when you take personal responsibility for something that is not in your control. An example could be blaming oneself for a spouse's medical illness by saying, "I am to blame, if only I had made he/she exercise more."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2009 12:45PM by The Anticult.

That is about the best darn summary of what's wrong with bk I've seen yet!

I was looking for more posts on Janakis blog from people and re-read the text from the letter or e-mail she got from Katie about why she was taken off her website etc. It kind of read like bk was pretty threatened by Janaki's popularity as a purveyor of that cognitive parlour trick aka the work...

The list continues

The next point on her list was, ‘Also, I haven’t determined to have the Amsterdam event translated yet as your high profile is being seen as overshadowing other ITW facilitators and I love that it has served you and so many so well for so long’. I actually didn’t know how to respond to this. So far I was only getting reasons based on hearsay. I told her that I was booked for something else during her Amsterdam dates, because I had already heard she didn’t want translation, however I would be happy to reschedule, so that she could still change her mind about translation. I did reschedule my engagement and let her know, but she didn’t respond to that and never contacted me when she was in Amsterdam. Later on I mailed her a PS about this remark: ‘I respect your and others’ opinion, and there is not a lot of notion of overshadowing anyone inside of me. I can’t seem to think in those terms. I also never got this from other facilitators here in Europe. I don’t regard myself as being particularly successful. What I do, has nothing to do with expanding, or growing as a company, or even being a company, or reaching a lot of people, or making a lot of money, or getting a reputation, or having an agenda to be regarded as special. It is not about any of those things for me. It mostly feels like hanging out with friends and sharing The Work in a place where all of us are equal. In my programs I get to do my own Work as well, I get feedback from participants, and I get to go in and own it. It seems that the feedback you received, was given by Americans, who saw an old bio on my website, but who have never been to my workshops’.


I can't see her being so concerned about "other ITW facilitators"...unless she's just all about having a healthy franchise in Europe. Does anybody know if these facilitators have to pay her forever, or just the training + marketing help cost? I think Janaki got on the gravy train early and bk wasn't making enough off of her as a facilitator.

also, the BK work questions, are a brilliant sales technique, and a way to disable all criticisms.

For the people who sell the BK work seminars, no matter what Objection you have, they lead you to a Turnaround. If you object to the seminar salesperson on the phone that its TOO EXPENSIVE, they do the BK questions, and guess what?
Every salesperson would have an orgasm being able to have a process like this. In sales, the Objections to the sale are the #1 problem, along with buyers remorse.
But all they have to do is lead the client through the BK questions on the phone, and voila...
The BK seminar is Too Expensive? (go through the questions and Turnaround) see what happens...

Its not expensive enough! I'm too cheap! (salespeople are pleasuring themselves just thinking about the possiblities)


If you criticize BK for her behavior, guess what?
BK told a falsehood = you're a liar!
BK is greedy = you're greedy.
BK is wonderful = well, you don't do it on that honey! Only the criticism!

So its a CHECKMATE, just like BK said.

No matter what happens, in terms of criticizing BK, seminar problems, depression, guilt, its ALL YOUR FAULT.
Notice that in the BK RELEASE OF LIABILITY [forum.culteducation.com] they take absolutely ZERO blame for anything. That is all your fault too.
So yes, its clever.
Everything is always totally YOUR fault, nothing is ever the fault of BK or BKI.

Talk about a one-way abusive relationship. Of course, the way to escape this mess, is to use healthy thinking methods...

oh yeah, you pay BK forever, for life. She has total control.
Its only a one-year renewable bogus "certification" from BK, and she can revoke it at any time, for any reason, or no reason. There is a small yearly fee they pay, but that is a bait-switch. As there are constant ongoing seminars they have to take, work for free, and also would take "voluntarily" to stay in the BK favorite list.
But also, it was mentioned if you want to be on the BK calendar, you have to kick-back 25% of your fees, or something like that. All sorts of schemes like that.

She probably kicked Janaki off the list, as she saw Janaki slipping away. Those dang europeans are more aware of US marketing propaganda, it seems! Greedy Americans are much easier to manage!

But also, BK made an example of Janaki, as a warning to the other facilitators.
If they say ONE WORD against BK, and she hears about it, you are off the list, and your business falls 90%. Try to find one active facilitator who will say one critical word of Byron Katie.
Even if they think it, they won't say it, as that would end their career with BK.

Again, another brilliant BK checkmate.

Quote
Pilot
Does anybody know if these facilitators have to pay her forever, or just the training + marketing help cost? I think Janaki got on the gravy train early and bk wasn't making enough off of her as a facilitator.

Byron Katie calls the BK Work a Checkmate.


Definitions of checkmate:

- Any situation that has no obvious escape and involves some personal loss;
- complete victory


- The conclusive victory in a game of chess that occurs when an opponent's king has no possible move that can remove him from check, the threat of attack;
- To put the king of an opponent into checkmate; To lead to a ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/checkmate

- place an opponent's king under an attack from which it cannot escape and thus ending the game; "Kasparov checkmated his opponent after only a few moves"
- a chess move constituting an inescapable and indefensible attack on the opponent's king
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2009 01:40PM by The Anticult.

there is a news story about confidentiality agreements for staff for celebrities (Rob Lowe and nannygate), which would apply to celebrity gurus as well.
Every single cultish leader and guru is going to force all of their close staff and inner circle to sign these confidentiality agreements, to keep them quiet.
Its reported that the staff of the BK Turnaround House has to sign confidentiality agreements?

The only hope to get info from whistleblowers, will probably be sites like Wikileaks [wikileaks.org] and other websites.
Its a great time to be a new wage cultish leader. The more power and secrecy your get, the more you can get.

A comment in the LA Times by a Stuart Resnick RandomStu...on drugs and "morality". [forum.culteducation.com]

There is also a ridiculous thread, with some guy trying to say Adi Da was great [www.lightgate.net] when in fact that guy was an blatant criminal. RandomStu chimes in, in that thread, its obvious he knows what these people are doing to other people, in terms of manipulation of mental concepts, and also the LGAT style sales-techniques from the western guru like Werner Erhard.
He really starts to TRY to screw with that guys mind on page 3, seemingly just for his own fun.

You have to hope not too many people get conned by the smoke, mirrors and BS.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2009 02:53PM by The Anticult.

Quote
The Anticult
A comment in the LA Times by a Stuart Resnick RandomStu...on drugs and "morality". [forum.culteducation.com]

There is also a ridiculous thread, with some guy trying to say Adi Da was great [www.lightgate.net] when in fact that guy was an blatant criminal. RandomStu chimes in, in that thread, its obvious he knows what these people are doing to other people, in terms of manipulation of mental concepts, and also the LGAT style sales-techniques from the western guru like Werner Erhard.
He really starts to TRY to screw with that guys mind on page 3, seemingly just for his own fun.

You have to hope not too many people get conned by the smoke, mirrors and BS.

RandomStu can be found commenting all over the place. It's like he's trying to drum up business for his Zen gig.

I even found RandomStu complaining about his treatment on Rick Ross's message board in comments at the Guruphiliac blog! It's in an entry about TM: "TM Wants To Own Your Kids' Minds".

He starts out trying to cast doubt that TM is culty.

Quote

At 2/28/2009 7:31 PM, Stuart said...
If someone says "TM is harmful" or "TM is a destructive cult," don't we need to examine the definition? Is he talking about the TM organization, saying that every nook and cranny of it is dangerous? Or does he mean that the particular style of meditation they teach in that org must be avoided? Or is he talking about certain rituals done outside of the meditation itself? Or about ideas that some people in the group embrace, but which aren't necessary to doing the practice?

What if someone learns the meditation technique, but afterwards avoids contact with the org? What if they do the rituals, but don't hold any ideas about them? What if they meditate together with others in the org, but don't buy into any shared belief-system? Do these things make a difference?

Wouldn't it be clearer to say something like, "The way I understood the TM practice, the way I used it, the way I connected with the organization... had effects in my life that I didn't like"? That way, it'd make clear that our own decisions, understandings, and intentions have a powerful role in the process. Simply saying "TM is harmful" or "TM is a destructive cult"... projects all the power onto an external boogieman.

Imagine a True Believer saying, "TM is Perfect and Godly. I'll never consider any other view." Or an Ammachi devotee, or Hare Krishna, saying the same thing about their org. And if anyone questioned it, they'd respond, "You're ignorant and unspiritual." We could easily see it as a cultish mindset. If we switch it around and insist that TM is Bad, and hold the belief with the same dogmatism, closed-mindedness, and lack of critical analysis... isn't it still cultish?

I've brought this up previously with John Knapp, once by email, and once in the TMfree Blog. Each time, he's responded in a personally insulting way, and with a refusal to discuss the substance of these points. Any type of opinion is no problem, but it does seem weird to refuse to discuss the issue in a reasoned, mature way. It does seem odd to be unwilling or unable to examine the question dispassionately, focusing on the ideas/issues in their own right, rather than immediately hiding behind irrelevant, ad hominem judgements.

Stuart

(I've noticed in various comments of his that Stuart loves to say "it does seem odd" or "it does seem weird". And then hammer away that people need to be "rational" and "reasoned". Very interesting.)

Next Stuart opens up about what's really bugging him: how he got treated on this here message board.

Quote

At 3/02/2009 11:12 PM, Stuart said...
Regarding my what I say re John Knapp in this comments section on 3/02/2009 10:01 PM, the genesis is as follows.

There's a public net discussion called "Cult Education Forum" at [forum.culteducation.com]. The forum is tightly moderated against views that deviate from their dogma. In the areas that I've explored, expression of opposing views is met with personal attacks from the most active group members (starting with comments from the moderator like "You're ignorant," and getting more vicious and less constructive from there), as well as possible deletion or banning of heretical statements.

It's a wonderful example of how people can call themselves "anti-cult," while still mired in a cultish mind-set. Cultishness isn't a matter of holding particular views, but rather of an avoidance of open dialog with dissenters. Anyone can see what I'm talking about by going to the forum and searching for threads on "Byron Katie" or "Eckhart Tolle," or viewing pages like [forum.culteducation.com] and [forum.culteducation.com].

A few months ago, John Knapp initiated a thread on those forums, advertising his own, for-pay, "cult recovery support group." This thread can be found at [forum.culteducation.com]. Immediately, he was challenged by one of the forum's denizens, making it clear that in order to be accepted, John would have to join in their criticism of one of the group's boogiemen. Curiously, this enemy was a profoundly obscure blogger named Stuart Resnick.

Prior to this, my only contacts with John were: he had invited me to be his facebook friend; he'd requested an exchange of links between our sites; and he'd made an appreciative reference to me as a source for an idea he wrote of on his site. But when he was told on this rickross Forum that I was the bad guy, he sheepishly went along with their opinions. He did so without quoting anything I'd written, and without rational explanation. In private email, he told me that he'd made his criticism of me on the Forum without reading much of what I'd written there. He said he was justified because he was following his "feelings," which he said he values more than reasoned thought.

(I've got to emphasize here that John's stance strikes me as highly questionable for a "cult recovery" counselor. Our feelings often drive us to follow the crowd; this is deeply imbedded in our evolution. De-valuing rational thought robs us of our greatest tool for resisting cult dynamics.)

There's no way for me to know for sure the motivation behind John's behavior. If he had rational backing for his criticism, I'd like to know what it is, but he never provided any on the Forum, nor when I emailed him privately. Or perhaps, since the Forum represented potential customers for his group, he felt that agreeing with them was a good business decision. Or maybe he really does just do what he "feels" like doing, moreso than thinking things through, and this caused him to unconsciously follow the crowd first, and rationalize later.

As he's never given any substantive response to my attempts to discuss the matter, we can't say for sure. If he had responded to my emails with anything approaching a dialog, that could have been the end of it. In fact, he avoided doing so, though I meticulously explained to him my objection, and asked for dialog several times.

There's some chance that the information I'm sharing here is useful. Firstly, what I'm describing is representative of what goes on in cult dynamics in general. Further: since John widely advertises his "cult recovery support ," it's a good idea to make maximum information available to people who might want to get involved. Once the facts are publicly known, then there's no problem, as everyone can then make informed decisions for themselves.

Stuart

There are more comments there by RandomStu, if anyone cares to check them out.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2009 09:11PM by helpme2times.