Quote
rrmoderator
TarSpiel:

"...each of us *experiences* that objective reality in our own unique ways"?

There you go again.

This thread is a discussion of how Byron Katie may hurt and/or mislead people.

You admit that you "really don't know much about those things..."

OK.

Keep in mind that this thread really is not about religious philosophy.

Believe whatever you want.

The point is how people behave (i.e. Byron Katie) in the name of those beliefs and how that my hurt people.

All right...looks like I'm definitely in a minority on here...

Just some background on me, I have a joint MA in Religious Studies from UNC Chapel Hill and Duke, and an undergraduate degree in the topic from UC San Diego. I also teach religion and philosophy, including Intro to Atheism, at Sierra College in California. So I've been interested in topics like religion and cults my whole life.

I'll do my best to express my dissent from the general consensus here in a civil and respectful manner.

You have told me that "This thread is about how Byron Katie may hurt or mislead people." Let me ask you a question, is this a thread or a group of posters where dissenting opinions are welcomed, and treated with the respect due to a particular post's *content* (or lack thereof?). If so, I'd point out that defining a cult depends to a great degree on the *content* of what they teach. If the content is secretive and they make you pay money for it, then that's cultish. Or if they foster leader-worship, then that's cultish.

If you want to have a discussion about how BK's group hurts people, then fine. But wouldn't a deeper understanding of it also incorporate how it might help people? The reason this thread is 300 pages has I guess little to do with Eckhardt Tolle...the energy behind the BK thing seems to come directly out of the efficacy of the work itself. I've done some of it myself, and it definitely leads to some interesting points of view.

Obviously, I'm in the minority here. I guess you can call me a sock puppet or a troll, or ban me for voicing an opinion which seems to dissent from what most of you seem to be committed to. Either way, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. But I do find this topic interesting, and I'd find talking about it interesting, too.

Quote
The Anticult
Its important to remember that this thread has hosted probably several dozen shills for Byron Katie, and a few internet posters who have nothing better to do, that to deliberately try to get a rise out of people.

The poster above says, BK is simply having people examine their "stories" about "facts" that happened.
That is false.
That actually shows that either this new poster knows very very little about what Byron Katie is actually doing, or is being dishonest on purpose, or is just trying to make confusion for self-entertainment.

Byron Katie's entire program, is not about just modifying interpretation of events.
Eventually as people get further down the rabbit hole, its about literally saying that those events DID NOT HAPPEN, on some type of "spiritual level". That has been covered in detail in the thread.

This may be another reincarnation of the internet sock-puppet situation that happened a while back.

Not really. I've never been on this board before, and I'm just someone who is genuinely interested in the topic. I've never been to a BK event, and won't ever go to one. I have read one of her books, though, and found it very interesting. In that book, she gave no indication that the crowning achievement of the process was to come to the "spiritual" realization that "those events DID NOT HAPPEN." I've always thought that her main point was that those things didn't happen in exactly the same way we tell ourselves that they happened...that our stories about the events are pre-loaded in our own favor. In my experience, I've found that to be a true statement that she points out.

Quote
TarSpiel
(...) I guess you can call me a sock puppet or a troll, or ban me for voicing an opinion which seems to dissent from what most of you seem to be committed to. Either way, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. But I do find this topic interesting, and I'd find talking about it interesting, too.

Dear TarSpiel,
For your info: there’s another ‘TarSpiel’ posting on Scout.com. Although older entries have been deleted now, his posts (eloquently signed with: “Though we live in what is, we think ourselves into what isn't”) have included blatant PR-expressions for a certain Stephen Mitchell. The kind of PR you would like to write about yourself, if that were appropriate of course. Ain’t that funny?

Quote

Scout.com: What is your FAVORITE book of the BIBLE?
TarSpiel wrote: Job's final words are often mistranslated: I had heard of you with my ears ... 68, it's a translation done by a guy named Stephen Mitchell. ...
forums.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=78&f=1414&t...p=4

Scout.com: poll question: your definition of "Christian"
TarSpiel; All-American; 13751 posts this site. Posted: 5/2/2009 3:36 PM ... called "The Gospel According to Jesus", by Stephen Mitchell. ...
mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=78&f=1414&t=4289920...

TarSpiel:

You admit, "I've done some of it myself," which puts you in just a bit of a biased and less than objective position here.

You seem to argue that if your personal experience is good, than somehow Katie is OK, or people should go easy criticizing "the work."

Again, the issue is who has been hurt and/or deliberately misled and/or deceived by Byron Katie?

You state, "I'd point out that defining a cult depends to a great degree on the *content* of what they teach."

Not really that much.

The issue is not what groups believe, but rather how they behave, which define them as cults.

See [www.culteducation.com]

According to Robert Jay Lifton, noted author, psychiatrist and educator, the most objective identifying features of a cult are not based upon "content" or group beliefs,' but rather rely upon the structure, dynamics and behavior of a group.

Lifton says that cults can be identified by three primary characteristics:

1. a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;

2. a process I call coercive persuasion or thought reform;

3. economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.

Katie and her followers may believe whatever they want, freedom of religion is a guaranteed right in the US and many other countries. But she may not do whatever she wants in the name of those beliefs, either legally or without expecting some criticism, if she hurts or cons people.

Quote
rrmoderator
TarSpiel:

You admit, "I've done some of it myself," which puts you in just a bit of a biased and less than objective position here.

You seem to argue that if your personal experience is good, than somehow Katie is OK, or people should go easy criticizing "the work."

Again, the issue is who has been hurt and/or deliberately misled and/or deceived by Byron Katie?

You state, "I'd point out that defining a cult depends to a great degree on the *content* of what they teach."

Not really that much.

The issue is not what groups believe, but rather how they behave, which define them as cults.

See [www.culteducation.com]

According to Robert Jay Lifton, noted author, psychiatrist and educator, the most objective identifying features of a cult are not based upon "content" or group beliefs,' but rather rely upon the structure, dynamics and behavior of a group.

Lifton says that cults can be identified by three primary characteristics:

1. a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;

Yea, good point. Actually, one of the reasons I'm interested in this particular topic is because BK does seem to be becoming an "object of worship" to people who follow her. That's why I think your thread here has some meat on the bones, and I'm interested in that part of it.

Cruz, yes, I post a lot on North Carolina message boards, and yes, I do think that BK and Stephen Mitchell both say some very profound things. That's my opinion. I wouldn't force my opinion on others, but I would argue as to *why* I believe the things I do.

The quote "Though we live in what is, we think ourselves into what isn't" is true in my experience. As I said in an earlier post, I'm clearly going to have a different take on these things than the rest of ya'll. I'll try to be civil about it.

Back to the point made by RR...it makes me wonder, does the leader of a cult have to actively foster that sort of slavish devotion amongst their followers to qualify? Because putting people up on pedestals and making them an "object of worship" is something people do with some regularity, in all sorts of different contexts. Is BK fostering that? Maybe...I don't know.

Quote
TarSpiel

In that book, she gave no indication that the crowning achievement of the process was to come to the "spiritual" realization that "those events DID NOT HAPPEN."

Byron Katie on Twitter:

Quote

Forgiveness is realizing that what you thought happened, didn't.

TarSpiel:

Putting people on a pedestals isn't the only point.

The leader also typically has absolute authority and no meaningful accountability.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Here are some "warning signs" regarding potentially unsafe groups.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.

4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".

9. The group/leader is always right.

10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

Ten warning signs regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader.

1. Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.

2. Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.

3. Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".

4. Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior.

5. Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement.

6. Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests.

7. A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.

8. Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader.

9. Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful.

10. Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided.

Quote
rrmoderator
TarSpiel:

Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.

4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".

9. The group/leader is always right.

10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

Hey RR...interesting list. It seems that the list was formulated with somewhat more of a Jim Jones or Scientology group dynamic in mind, and so some of those things don't exactly match up to BK's movement (e.g. "leaving the group"), since her thing is so diffuse, and outside the schools, there isn't really any hierarchical structure (at least that I can see).

Interesting that number one is absolute authority without accountability. Does that apply to BK? I guess one way of answering that question would be if she demands that people do more than just her four questions. I'm not aware of anything she's said that indicates there is really anything to her POV other than those four questions, and she basically gives those away for free on her website...and through the various videos available in a lot of places on the web. In other words, she doesn't really come across as an "authoritarian" figure who makes repeated demands on her followers.

One thing that did strike me as odd was that forced-fast thing. I read a number of pages on this thread...some of the complaints against her (like the fast) struck me as legit, while others seemed to be not much more than histrionics. Seems like a mixed bag of critiques against her. But the forced fast was interesting...as is the marketing and for-profit department of the enterprise (run by Bernstein?, is that his name?)

Quote
Meadow

Quote
TarSpiel

In that book, she gave no indication that the crowning achievement of the process was to come to the "spiritual" realization that "those events DID NOT HAPPEN."

Byron Katie on Twitter:

Quote

Forgiveness is realizing that what you thought happened, didn't.

I've seen her make that point on a number of the videos up on youtube, and in none of those cases was the take-home lesson that the objective events did not happen.

It's a point that is made in the context of someone who thinks they've been a victim ("Dad made me do this...") She points out that, no, dad did not *make* you do anything, you *chose* to do it. You had other options, but chose to do what dad wanted you to do. So what you thought happened ("Dad made me do it") didn't happen (what happened was "I chose to do it.") From that latter point of view, forgiving dad gets easier.

Again, in none of the cases where I've seen her make that point is she drawing the inference from it that you are drawing here. There may be very important critiques of BK and the work, but I don't think this is one of them.

TarSpiel:

It would be interesting to see how others following this thread feel Byron Katie might fit those ten warning signs.

My impression is that she fits many of them.

For example, Ms. Katie is not accountable to a licensing board, professional board or democratically elected corp. board, that I am aware of through her business. She seems to be an absolute authority in this regard, unlike licensed mental health professionals, or for that matter most clergy.

Does Katie actually allow direct questioning of the basic assumptions of "the work"? Is that evident in her workshops? What happens when people directly disagree with her and say she is "wrong"?

Are Katie's finances transparent? Where is a fully disclosed statement regarding the budget, salaries, expenses and compensation filed and publicly available regarding Katie and the work?

It seems that there is a pattern of grievances about Katie as seen through this thread.

Though Ms. Katie is a relatively small time and little known guru, there is growing concern expressed about her, which is evident here and elsewhere through the Worldwide Web.

How does Katie react when people say she is wrong and her basic assumptions concerning the work are wrong?

Does Byron Katie openly acknowledge that she has been wrong regarding how she runs the work?

If someone involved with Katie does have grievances and leaves her workshop or lecture unhappy, does she characterize this as something they did wrong, or the result of her mistakes?

But more on point regarding Katie is how she fits an LGAT profile.

If you have been reading this thread you should know the 13 liabilities of an LGAT, the four danger signs and the four criteria for coercive persuasion.

Have you been through that material?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2009 07:00AM by rrmoderator.