The Work And Byron Katie: Reviews?

[Hashi]

justmeagain, I'm very interested in what you posted. I want to say that I'm not posting this in an antagonistic way because, interestingly, I'm struggling with some things that you touch on. To be honest, I'm struggling against some of the ideas you talk about but it's interesting to me that I've seen your post when I have. Maybe after clarifying, we will have different points of view. If so, then I don't mean to step all over what your experience is and I don't mean to step on how it might help other people. I'm only talking here about my own take on things. Maybe after clarifying, we will have similar views - who knows?

I already posted what I think of what Byron Katie said about torture. To my knowledge, she has not been tortured herself, so I would very much like to know why she feels qualified to comment. I've been tortured and I am not going to mince words here - I think what she said was ignorant, patronising, self-serving, fake, despicable, disgusting and completely irrelevant to anyone who has actually experienced torture rather than mouthing off about it in a deeply ignorant, patronising way when she has no idea, no business and no right to open her mouth and will answer for it when the universe reconciles it's accounts with this particular individual. Good luck to her then, because I really wouldn't like to be in her shoes when something much bigger than her asks her to account for what she said. That probably gives you an idea where I'm coming from.

I'm not clear about some things about your point of view. What is "The Work" if it isn't Byron Katie?

I think what you posted here is thoughtful, so please, please be at the same level of thoughtfulness if you respond. This thread is about Byron Katie in relation to "The Work". She is the person who has associated herself with "The Work". Please could you clarify whether you are talking about Byron Katie, how exactly she can be separated from "The Work" and what that leaves us with.

 

[dharmaBum]

For the mind afraid of being alone, even if moving to the ALL ONE would end suffering, it will pick the suffering rather than take the chance of being alone. This is a fundamental aspect of the shift from separation to unity. It is based on a belief in separation and an inability to understand that separation does not, cannot, exist. There is plenty of company in ONENESS. It is the company of seeing yourself everywhere you look, of constant love, of acceptance. But a person standing on the brink of the abyss, letting go of what is familiar, taking a leap of faith that he or she will survive to the other side--from Aloneness to All-one-ness, continued suffering may seem preferable.

Your post has been intriguing, but I cannot say that it has clarified much for me beyond the concept that embracing non-duality has helped you live life with less experience of suffering- or perhaps more awareness that you are not alone.

For me, the bolded in your quoted text above distills what continues to disconcert me regarding The Work, Byron Katie's theories, non-duality- whatever you want to call it. "For the mind afraid of being alone," so- like Byron Katie, it seems to appear to you that responsibility for not being relieved or able to "grasp" the beauty of non-duality lies in a flaw or "unreadiness" in the mind of the suffering person.

 

[justmeagain]

Hello, Hashi. I will try to respond with thoughtfulness. I did not stop by to defend Bryon Katie, and do not wish to do so. I became engaged because I have checked out her stuff and personally found it to be brilliant, and also was touched by the struggle those on this forum are having with the concepts. I hear what you are saying above about what she said about torture. I think I can understand why you feel that way. These are thoughts I have expressed myself when I felt someone did not know what he or she was talking about. Before I say more, could you elucidate about the torture you experienced so I can better understand it. Thanks for getting back to me.

 

[justmeagain]

dharmaBum, hello. I have never seen anything in Byron Katie's work about a flaw or "unreadiness" in the mind. I myself do not ascribe to that belief. My experience is that everything is perfect as it is, and yet suffering may occur. I stated that I had a profound experience 35 years ago that I was not expecting, and it changed the way I saw the world--very very dramatically. it essentially turned around everything I had thought. I remember thinking afterwards, "Why, this is as easy as falling off a log. How could I not have seen that sooner?" And then I proceeded along a path of suffering. But I always knew (after that point) that my suffering was perfect for what I needed to understand, and that I was never at risk, so it was more of an adventure. So I have added a great deal of suffering in the last 35 years, felt the weight of it, examined it, and eventually moved on from it. I know guilt, shame, anger, sadness, etc. etc. I'm not greatly affected by physical pain--but I haven't experienced a lot of it, just broken ribs, wrist, the usual stuff, minor cancers, which I embraced for the learning, searching for the sensations in my body, trying to be present with them. My suffering has primarily been emotional--I think I noted some of my suffering above. Certainly there are those who must have suffered more than I, so if that is a criteria for you, I probably won't make the grade. I have been lost in my miseries, a whiner, a complainer, lost the will to go on, exhausted, heartbroken, etc. etc. I've beaten myself up for being a bad parent, closed myself off from those who I believed were 'dangerous' to me, been homeless (with children), etc. But I'm fine at this moment, comfortable, happy to be talking to you--I can't imagine anything more fun. Why would I want to drag all that baggage with me? It takes the pleasure out of the moment. But I have the EXPERIENCE inside me. "Been there, done that" we say. Right?

To get more specifically to your question, I don't see how "being afraid of being alone" is a flaw. Fear is not a flaw. For goodness sake, people go to scary movies (not for me, personally) to get scared and experience fear. And they enjoy it. I like syrupy girly movies that make me cry. So, in my world, "the mind afraid of being alone" IS the mind afraid of being alone. Cool. I'm a little scared right now, because I'm not used to speaking my truth. I can feel the sensation in the pit of my stomach. Going out on a limb. So right now I'm experiencing the mind afraid of speaking its truth and getting shot down. Don't know what's going to happen next. Maybe you'll call me some names. I don't know. Anything could happen. So is "the mind afraid of speaking out", the "mind afraid of coming out of the closet", "the mind afraid of heights" a flaw? I don't think so.

I don't know if any of this is helpful to you. But it has been a great pleasure to visit with you in this way.

 

[Hashi]

No, I won't elucidate about the torture I experienced. Why did you ask me to?

justmeagain, I would find it helpful if you would answer three questions:

1) Have you been diagnosed with PTSD, or are you a supporter of someone diagnosed with PTSD?

2) Are you talking about The Work from the point of view of dealing with PTSD as a diagnosed condition?

3) Do you have some connection with The Work other than having been personally helped by it? For example as a facilitator, writer, therapist or in some other way drawing on The Work other than for yourself alone?

 

[dharmaBum]

From my brief reading of The Power of Now, and various readings and interviews regarding Byron Katie, it is my understanding that both Katie and Tolle experienced their transformations after being no longer able to tolerate their self-suffering caused by their own actions. For both it is very convenient that they should awake with a new self open to the miraculous present. And as you have said somewhat yourself, justmeagain- who would "want to drag all that baggage" with them.

I've studied non-duality a fair amount and completely understand the concept that there is no separation between beings, only the illusion of separate selves and consciousnesses. I personally don't agree that the universe is inherently love/beauty/good and find it to be neutral myself.

The sticking point for me is that in the diagnosed situation of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, medical science and western psychology seem to agree quite wholeheartedly that it is not a matter of will-power or choice that causes those with PTSD to be caught in cycles of fear and suffering, but rather it is a natural physiological and psychological response that simply happens to some people in the face of trauma.

I'm really happy for justmeagain and others who are comforted or relieved by embracing non-duality.

Am I wrong in understanding though, that the prevailing notion is still, in the face of non-duality, that those who suffer do so because they choose to suffer? Of course, justmeagain is saying that suffering or fear is not a flaw- it just is- which is the radical acceptance one finds as the basis of much eastern thought and is the "loving what is" of The Work. Does this mean that from this perspective people who suffer with PTSD symptoms choose to have those symptoms- because they could just choose to embrace non-duality/love/beauty/goodness/god and they don't because of "fear" which is fine because that is just how it is sometimes?

This is definitely where I feel confused and believe that it is a philosophy which just doesn't have to be a part of my toolkit, but I also do think I understand it.

 

[justmeagain]

Hashi, you have chosen not to elucidate about the torture, and I respect that. I have no connection with Byron Katie or The Work.

 

[justmeagain]

dharmaBum, I can only answer from my own consciousness. One of the things I love about what Byron Katie says, with which I myself agree, is that it is NEVER about the other person. It CANNOT be. It is always about the one sitting with its own mind.

Now, I can speak only from my own awareness. It may be that there are paradigms in which somehow, in some way unfathomable to me, a consciousness can know that there is something outside itself. But within my world I ONLY become aware of something when it appears in my consciousness. I don't know where it comes from, that it has any relation to anything outside myself. How could I ever know that? How could I know that if there WERE something outside of my mind, that what appears in my mind is an accurate representation of it. I have observed no way to do so, and to the contrary, every experiment of science that I have every encountered points back to this--what I will call a fundamental truth. It may or may not be one, but it is where I'm at. What I do observe is that even the scientist who claims ownership of the experiment will often stop short of applying it to himself, as if the EXPERIMENT were outside himself. This seems to me to be an inherent "flaw" in the scientific method (although the brilliant and truest scientists have recognized it). It's not really a flaw, of course, because it is a perfect mechanism for keeping the illusion going, hiding the ball, so to speak. It works quite well, so where is the flaw? I don't understand the mechanism of how the pixels on my screen allow me to become immersed in dramas that seem to affect real characters, but that mechanism is clearly not a flaw, nor is it a flaw that I am able to allow myself to believe for the moment that these are real people with real dilemmas, soliciting real emotion from me. In fact, it's just fun. I love it. It works!

So, from my perspective, to let medical science and western psychology dictate my belief system is no more to say than I give up some of my power of reality for the moment. Those talking mouths are all in my head, they are part of me, and I can PRETEND we are separate, they are outside me, but the fact is I--and only I--am responsible for what I hear and how I represent it in my mind. If I really broke it down, its just sounds--THAT'S the reality--or squiggles and lines on a white screen. I give all the meaning there is to those sounds and those squiggles. Therefore, for me, what is the difference between the television drama and the television news? Not much.

So--do people choose to suffer. Well, since I can project onto "people" my own conclusions (beliefs), I could answer that either yes or no. My choice. Free will. I extend that right of free will to every element of myself, which includes the creations of my mind. I don't need to kill them. But I may choose which ones to focus upon.

I agree with you that everything is neutral. We give it all the meaning it has. However, I haven't been able to find any "thing" called God. I long ago formulated the definition of Love as "seeing and being seen". Just sitting and looking at a blade of glass, or that cancer cell, without any need to assign it all kinds of meaning. Have you ever gotten that jolt of euphoria when someone really SEES you, understands you, accepts you as perfect just the way you are. We equate that with love. It is the sense of harmony that one feels that gives us that message "this is good" and the sense of disharmony that gives us the message "this is not good". When I speak of God as GOOD, which I could also say, as many have, God is LOVE, is the reality of that moment when the sense of wellbeing and harmony hits. It is that which floods through us with that feeling of perfection of which I speak when I say God is Good. We are in alignment with it, and our bodies (beautiful instruments that they are) tell us so.

So if this is not for your toolkit, I find that interesting and genuine, and truly wish you well on your particular journey. Thank you very much for this conversation.

 

[Hashi]

justmehere, do you have a connection to PTSD?

Because what you believe is all very well, but this is a forum for PTSD sufferers and their supporters and for discussions relevant to that. If you are in one of those categories, then I'm not clear why you didn't answer before. Perhaps you could clarify that point, alongside talking about your beliefs.

Straightforward answers to my questions about PTSD would be appreciated, so that the context in which you're posting is clear.

 

[justmeagain]

Hashi, I do not see how I can answer your questions, as I do not have a definition of PTSD, although I recognize that others do. Therefore the question is meaningless to me--even nonsensical. I can say that I am not a supporter of PTSD sufferers, nor do I choose to suffer it.

 

[justmeagain]

I wanted to take a moment to say good-bye to Hashi and dharmaBum. I got some kind of message that I wasn't following some rule about paragraphs and readability, and I don't have the time to try to figure out what that means, so I will just move on.

Best wishes to you both. I would like to offer this last thought in response to Hashi's post. Hashi, this is not meant to take away from anything you say. Think of it more as me talking to myself, and as I go my way, it helps me to formulate my thoughts on these matters in writing. If this were a forum only for those who suffer PTSD, a sort of closed room as it were, and someone suddenly (or not so suddenly) came to the realization that he COULD heal from PTSD because it was only a belief he held, and he came to believe he had the power to change that choice, so that he no longer suffered from that belief--then that person would no longer have PTSD and no longer be welcome.

My conceptualization would be of a closed room where the inhabitants believed the door out to be locked or closed to them. If someone discovered that it was open and went out of the room, it would leave only those in the room having a similar belief that the door is locked. The one who left, as a non-believer, would no longer be welcome in the room--and those in the room would no longer have access to him. However, the inhabitants would have the company of each other and the comfort of a place where they feel supported and that they belong. They share a common belief.

Is that a flaw? Or perfection?

 

[Hashi]

In my view, it's misguided.

If you don't have a definition of PTSD, I wonder why you felt it was appropriate to join a PTSD forum where the rules and the definition of PTSD are very clear.

I got some kind of message that I wasn't following some rule about paragraphs and readability, and I don't have the time to try to figure out what that means, so I will just move on.

Time, or respect for the rules of a forum that you have decided to participate in? It's really not very hard to figure out what it means if you understand the mysteries of the universe. Also, surely your views don't see time as a limited concept anyway... do they?

No-one chooses to suffer PTSD, justmeagain. I think this is the fundamental issue that I have with what you've been posting, and it's not what you might immediately think. I don't believe we choose to suffer it, but I do believe we can get stuck. I believe that PTSD can be part of a spiritual path. However, I don't think the spiritual path that you outline is sophisticated enough to allow for the fact that mental health issues, rather than being seen as an illusion, could instead be seen as a particular spiritual journey that some of us need to make. Not by disregarding or dismissing PTSD but by understanding it on a spiritual level, which you do not seem to do. By saying what you have, you are dismissing a vast potential for healing energy to be contributed to the "oneness" you seem to like the idea of so much.

If you disregard the human experience, then I wonder how the human experience fits into your view of things. I wonder why you think we have any human experience at all, and what we are intended to do with that, if you want to skip straight to transcendence. Maybe we have human experiences because we're meant to, because we're meant to work through them on a human level in order to access them on other levels that are more appealing to you.

I have read a few posts like yours, that want to present transcendence/non-attachment/all-is-one as the answer. I think this is an extremely limited spiritual/metaphysical viewpoint. I think it completely misses what PTSD and spirituality is all about. I think it shows a deep lack of understanding of the metaphysical (or spiritual, if you will) forces at work. To immediately dismiss PTSD as a concept of "Western psychology" or choice to suffer, or whatever, is throwing away a potentially deep and potent contribution to the collective healing of a very confused and complex human experience.

But, you know, if you as an enlightened being want to blame it on how you divided up your paragraphs.... enough said.