What annoys me about Landmark Education. First rule, do no harm.
Date: September 17, 2009 10:58AM

No wonder scientific studies are not published on the the so called leading edge techonology. how can they know it's leading edge then????

Do no harm. The beginnings of what it means in all walks of life for human existence. Hello??? if people are dieing and suffering mental probelms as a result of your programs don't you think that says something? no, you probably say your programs are not harmful. use your own "distinctions" and realise that its happening in your own clearing.

Re: What annoys me about Landmark Education. First rule, do no harm.
Posted by: Lars Bergwik ()
Date: September 17, 2009 11:35AM

Landmark and its leaders are themselves caught in a mindtrap that make them shy away from reality. They do not believe in an objective reality so they believe in a subjective reality - thus making it a very lonesome reality.

I have not met any landmarker that is truly happy. When you do the ILP you train to fake happiness. That is because you have to put a veil over the state you are in - stress. Stress to enroll other people into the cult.


Re: What annoys me about Landmark Education. First rule, do no harm.
Date: September 20, 2009 06:39PM

I agree, in ILP i had "the best life", looking back, i don't see what was so great about no free time, lacking in money, and extreme stress.

Re: What annoys me about Landmark Education. First rule, do no harm.
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: September 21, 2009 10:14PM

'psychological damage' wrote:


agree, in ILP i had "the best life", looking back, i don't see what was so great about no free time, lacking in money, and extreme stress.

Here's a question to those persons who did take the ILP course.

What was the age range of the people who seemed to be thriving in it at the time you were there?

Do the people in ILP tend to be younger and more resilient and then, as they get older, become less able to tolerate the high octane ILP/LEC scene and burn out or drop out?

I knew a guy who in his early twenties had actually survived as a street hustler and lived on the streets for awhile.

'When you're young' he told me, 'at least if you're a guy, you can be incredibly resilent and bounce back from sitautions that would scare the hell out of you when you're older. I landed in all kinds of weird and dangerous situations, but when I was just a kid, I thought it was all a big adventure.

'Then, one night, I was in my sleeping back, and I woke up from raindrops falling on my face. All at once, I realized I was sick and tired of the outdoor life.'

This was long enough ago that there were resources available. And my informant had
preserved his mental and physical health. He found an entry level job, got an indoor living situation and went on to become an undergradate at an excellent university.

But I recall his comment about stressful situations seeming to be grand adventures for him when he was young, and becoming less enjoyable for him when he got just a little older.

Is it only the bouncy young, enthusiastic people who seem to thrive in ILP, and then they quietly slip away when tired, drained and worn out?

If you're indoctrinated to consider the program itself as perfect, you'd be unable to think of the program itself as a source of burn out. If you got tired, you'd be socialized to take all the blame for yourself.

By contrast, in high demand fields like medicine and especially, social work, it is well understood that there is a risk for burn out and preventive measures can be taken.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2009 10:16PM by corboy.

Re: What annoys me about Landmark Education. First rule, do no harm.
Posted by: Lars Bergwik ()
Date: September 24, 2009 12:21AM

In my ILP there was a mix of people of all ages. I do not think age has anything to do with it.

However the older you are the more likely it is that you will be aware of cults....I hope :-)

In the morning shortly after waking I had to read the landmark leader charter - then I was supposed to live by the text in that charter.
Sometimes we had telephone chaincalls where we tried to wake ourselves up and become a landmark leader (at six o'clock).

I seldom lived by the charter during the day but when I had to go to a landmark event I shaped up. It is impossible to live up to the standards of the landmark leader charter for most people.


Re: What annoys me about Landmark Education. First rule, do no harm.
Date: September 27, 2009 08:20PM

Lars Bergwik
In my ILP there was a mix of people of all ages. I do not think age has anything to do with it.

However the older you are the more likely it is that you will be aware of cults....I hope :-)


I think older people are more aware of "human potential" programs, all the types over the years that use similar strategies to the landmark forum.

In my ILP there were all ages as well, however i think as you pass through landmark it gets impossible to "deal with yourself" as they say, and be everything that their distinctions say and all the contradictions this involves.

Lars, i watched your video on youtube. In my recovery from the landmark forum i realised what you were saying about the two identities, your own and the landmark identity. I spoke to my ex-bf about it (who moved away from me because of this). When i came home from the landmark forum he didn't understand who i was and said he loved the old me. Then as i progressed through the courses the way of think, he said, couldn't be broken through. I became so isolated from myself and obsessed with the landmark me that people didn't want to listen to what i had gotten because they actually did love me. I wasn't successful in registering people into the landmark forum, i think, because the people in my life loved the old me and weren't inspired by this new personality.

The subjective reality you talk about is part of what caused my psychosis. Landmark is very unatural, what ever breakthroughs and whatever it was that i "got" it is no longer with me and i have no recollection of it being real. It's all part of the brainwashing.

Re: What annoys me about Landmark Education. First rule, do no harm.
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: September 28, 2009 10:14PM

You guys might find something in these URLs. They relate to two different groups, and using different language, also describe creation of a split between ones core self and a newly created cult self--and the dissonance causes tension.



(a small excerpt quoted from a longer article.)

Cult belief systems present a vision in which any individual, through following the group's teachings, can begin to realise their own higher potential. Believers begin to aspire to a 'new life' or a 'new self', based on these ideals. At the same time as they begin to aspire to this improved new self, believers begin to see their old self, their pre-cult personality, as having fallen short of the ideal. An old self - new self dichotomy can grow up within a cult member's mind, as they gradually eschew beliefs and behaviour associated with their old self, and adopt attitudes and affiliations that seem appropriate for their new self. They may even come to see their unreformed old self as the enemy of their emerging new self.

". Effectively, a cult uses a person's own energy and aspirations against them.

This analysis proposes the term 'Bi-polar mind control' to denote a generic class of 'devious psychological techniques' used by cult organisations to gain and control adherents. Essentially, bi-polar mind control works by encouraging an aspirant to identify with an imagined ideal new self, and then, from the perspective of this new self, to see their old self as comparatively inferior and flawed. It is ego-utopia or hubris for the new self, and ego-dystonia or shame for the old self. [8]"


[www.adidaarchives.org] (a small excerpt from a longer article)


'Hartley' is describing how he found himself lonely, unable to buy into what the others in the group seemed to swallow whole.


The post about Adi Da taking credit for the Berlin wall coming down but not for Iraq was making me remember that it was considered to be DEVOTEES who were causing the war (in Iraq) when I was in Fiji. I'm not sure who this talk originating with, but I remember everyone jammed into I think it was the dining area quite late at night, summoned in panicked tones for an urgent meeting. People were weeping with apparently broken hearts about this talk (that we were causing the war) -- or maybe the broken hearts were over their abuse of the guru.

I remember sitting there, watching a room full of largely very high IQ people actually believing they were causing a war in the middle east because they could not please their guru. It was one of those moments in my time in the community where I was stunned beyond speech or any response whatsoever. It was like being in an insane asylum -- a very distant one, with the inmates in charge of all exits! If I had not actually witnessed this scene, I don't think I would have believed that it was possible to create this level of thought distortion in the human mind. There was such a terrible loneliness about it too. I kept wondering: why is this not "taking" in my mind? Why is this working on everyone else? It almost felt like my brain had to be structurally different from all those other people who were sitting there listening to the very same words and drawing such profoundly different conclusions.

And now I'm wondering: were some of those people faking?

This is especially a question for people on this forum who were there in these kinds of meetings where the most preposterous claims were being made (no guru at the front of the room distorting people's grip on reality by dissolving their minds in bliss, instead him off "in jail" or somewhere and everyone else wringing their hands with worry). Did you believe these assertions and threats?

When I was a devotee, whenever I questioned any of these things, it was as if I was proposing ideas so off the wall, so BIZARRE, that the other devotees could not even begin to imagine how my mind could go along such strange paths.

I remember the blank stares, and the stunned bewilderment, when I said I thought Adidam was a cult. It was literally as if this thought had never once crossed the minds of the other people. And we are talking about people who had been in the community for years and had graduate degrees. What does it all mean??!!

('Broken Yogi' is a former inner circle member of this particular group. This is his attempt to make sense of what Hartley described.)


My experience was that there was a wide range of opinions, not just among devotees, but in devotees' own minds, but that range was always flattened out in any open discussion, and only the most banal, orthodox view was allowed to be voiced or affirmed in those kinds of gatherings. In private, afterwards, devotees might privately voice other views, or at least acknowledge that they didn't have any way of knowing whether these crazy ideas were actually true, but knew that they had to "play along" not just to avoid conflict, but because that was somehow "our sadhana".

There's this strong notion even among the most intelligent devotees that for some reason they can't begin to comprehend, it is somehow necessary to go along with all this crazy stuff because it is in some bizarre way working a purification of themselves*, of the world, of the spiritual process, and they just decide not to question that, but accept it and go with the flow of it, even participate in it to some serious degree. They have such a strong conviction that Adi Da is the Big Kahuna that they give license to just about anything, at least in their own minds, and give a huge benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, what people are actually willing to do is quite different. Amazingly, a lot of people do take this shit very seriously and even act on it, making complete life plans on the basis of it. But many, many others only let it take only a relatively small bite out of their practical life, or even just give it lip service. Which is of course something Adi Da endlessly complains about as well - the lack of commitment his devotees show.

*(corboy note: the misery of cognitive dissonance is re-framed as a spiritual discipline aimed at self purification. In the film Outrage, one person suggested that politicians who are closeted homosexuals may rationalize their in-the-closet misery as a voluntary disciple that proves their own toughness and validates their superiority, and they tell themselves that persons who come out of the closet are the ones who are weak and inferior. This is similar to how persons who endure abuse from a guru often rationalize cult defectors as being too weak to endure it.)

But to be honest, a lot of what you hear in those open gatherings is meant for the "little fish". You might notice that very often the community leaders themselves don't even bother attending such meetings, and don't speak out if they do. Most of them don't take this apocalyptic talk seriously, or only half-seriously. They've become too jaded from seeing too much of the inner circle, and hearing this shit too many times. Half of them know it's crazy, the other half knows they ought to take it seriously, and the third half is looking to see what's in it for them. (devotees are almost all multiple split personalities, composed only of fractions of fictional people).

Are some people faking it? You might as well ask if the people in pentecostal churches are faking it when they speak in tongues or writhe on the floor in ecstasy. It's almost exactly the same phenomena. Yes and no is the only coherent answer.

'What's going on is that the person is so split into so many different characters, that some of those characters actually believe what's going on and some of them actually lie to their other internal personas about it. Trying to talk sense with such people is just impossible.

You can't even get all their personalities to come out at the same time and hash it out.

So the answer you get from them depends entirely on which persona is dominant at the time you are speaking to them. This is why devotees who might be your best friend one day are suddenly condemning you as a crazy heretic the next (are you listening, Randog?) It's not that they actually changed their minds about you suddenly, it's just that a different persona became dominant that previously was only partially seen, or even entirely hidden from view.

Cults thrive on the old motto: divide and conquer. Except that the primary divide they encourage is an internal one in the minds and hearts of the cultist.

Re: What annoys me about Landmark Education. First rule, do no harm.
Date: October 05, 2009 06:45PM

The first part from www.fwbo-files.com, is exactly what landmark does! a-holes. thanks very much for posting.

Re: What annoys me about Landmark Education. First rule, do no harm.
Posted by: Hope ()
Date: October 06, 2009 07:18AM


What blew me away, and still does, is the amount of doctors and psychologists who are into LE. Talk about breaking the oath! It's not only the alternative docs like naturopaths (LE is very big on Bastyr University's campus) but also mainstream ones. Age has nothing to do with it.

Re: What annoys me about Landmark Education. First rule, do no harm.
Posted by: newfuture ()
Date: September 19, 2012 12:41AM

Lars Bergwik hit the nail on the head above when he says that landmark operates from a subjective reality only. They do not believe in an objective reality. I remember in the advanced course when the leader was shouting "there is nothing out there" and "it's all you - life is a mirror". She kept saying "there is nothing out there" over and over again.

Another time, a landmark forum leader - an australian woman - said that whatever you think of the world is just what you made up. That there is no world 'out there'. It is all just your 'story'.

A communications course leader (i hate calling them leaders because they are not, in any true sense of the word) said that we had made up a 'sentence' that we'd imposed on ourselves and then designed our entire lives around it, and that whatever we see in the world is just our 'sentence'.

Even more crazy is that when people were talking sense, I saw leaders shouting at them saying "that's crazy talk" - so they make you believe that sense is nonsense, and that their own nonsense is sense.

That stuff really did my head in. In essence, if there is no objective reality then you are actually God. Now I remember, the same advanced course leader would say "you are the creator of creation" which I found offensive actually, and bizarre - because in no way could any human being be 'the creator of creation' - whatever that even means. I used to wonder - ok, if I created the world, if i am the creator of creation then why would I have created a world with suffering? Wouldn't I have created utopia? they would say I created it because of some story or some incident that happened to me, so that I could be a victim - but if I can create anything why would I want to create myself as a victim? Then they say that you made everything up and your forgot that you made it up. Confusion.com

In one course you sit opposite a person, stare at them, and then say something like "i see you, seeing me, seeing you" and then at one point you realize you're saying the words together and in that moment it feels like you and this other person are 'one'. It's bizarre.

There IS an objective reality. And there is how you perceive things and your own view of the world, which is based on your experiences and your life and more. But the world does exist. And it is OUT THERE. Thank God it is!!!

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
This forum powered by Phorum.