Byron Katie's School For The Work March '09

In my School, she was alone on the stage, too. It was a big surprise, as all her videos showed her with someone else. For the day that was open to the public, which was just her working with people the whole time, she did have two chairs.

Was this School in the Los Angeles airport Sheraton(?)? That's where mine was. I don't recall the need for video srceens, but since I usually sat up front, I may have just tuned them out since she was close enough to focus on directly. (This was also a few years ago and I may be misremembering.)

Though I didn't notice it at the time, now that you mention it, I believe she only came into participant space once the whole time. She stayed physically separate, arriving and leaving by a stage door. I've seen presenters do that before, though at the few workshops I've attended (mainly business workshops with a smattering of self-help here and there), the presenter is very accessible. My School was held when she couldn't walk more than a couple of steps at a time, and used a Segway to get around. I figured she stayed on stage due to a physical inability to walk. Do you think it means anything (other than she doesn't want to get mobbed after a 12 hour day) that she stays separate even when there's no physical barrier?

Maybe my a-typicalness as a participant is just that I was coming from a psychological, technique-seeking approach. Your messages use words like "Messenger," "shaman," and "guru," so it sounds like you were coming from a spiritual seeking approach.

When Katie talks about how she perceives reality, I'm hearing it as, roughly, "here is how a woman lives whose time perception mechanism has turned off and who has lost her sense of identity(*)." I'm not hearing her words as a message, a philosophy or as "enlightenment" or as spiritual. So perhaps I am less inclined to look to her for any answers. I just like her questions, and they're always the same, so I don't need her to be the asker :-). In fact, my understanding has gone in the opposite direction: I'm now wondering if "enlightenment" in the non-dual sense isn't just a state of bliss/oneness that happens when a few select individuals in history have had their language centers disrupted. Maybe the non-dual experience--as attractive as it may be--has no spiritual component at all and is just the result of a brain glitch.

(*) More bluntly: whose brain centers controlling such functions operate differently or don't operate. Read Jill Bolte Taylor's book, "My Stroke of Insight" and you'll hear all the same experiences Katie describes -- living in a frozen set of "now"s, extreme bliss, a sense of non-identification with the body and identification with everyone and everything, etc. Only Taylor chalks it up to the trauma caused to a specific brain region during her stroke. 

When Katie talks about how she perceives reality, I'm hearing it as, roughly, "here is how a woman lives whose time perception mechanism has turned off and who has lost her sense of identity(*)."

-jgf75

There's an interesting assumption embedded in your use of the phrase "who has lost her sense of identity." Maybe some people think of this "identity" as something that by default exists as a substantial thing, but may sometimes get lost. On the other hand, we could say that we live the great majority of our lives without a sense of identity. Whenever we're immersed in what we're doing, there's no thinking about I/my/me. At other times, the I/my/me thinking appears, we hold it and believe in it, and that's our "identity." From this viewpoint, we might phrase it instead, "here is how a woman lives... when she's not making and holding a sense of identity."

Maybe the non-dual experience--as attractive as it may be--has no spiritual component at all

-jgf75

Two important questions here. What's "the non-dual experience"? If "non-dual" means that everything is already Truth, then whatever you're experiencing right now is "the non-dual experience." So perhaps you're using the phrase to mean something like "Big, Special, Blissful experience"? If that's the case, yeah, it's attractive, just like getting drunk or watching a movie or eating pizza is often attractive... but it's an experience that appears sometimes and then disappears, and clinging to it as if it granted you a Special Status may well be counter-productive.

The other question is: what's a "spiritual" component? It's true that lots of people adopt belief-systems in which they divide the world into "spiritual" and "mundane"... different belief-systems create this split in different ways, so there's no clear meaning to saying anything is "spiritual." Beyond that, it's a serious question why anyone would want to create and hold this spiritual/mundane split at all.

(FWIW, I wrote about Jill Bolte Taylors stroke/enlightenment here: http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/03/is-enlightenment-brain-state.html)

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

jgf75,

Yes, I love Taylor's book.  I watched her Ted Talk presentation a couple of times, read her book, and read some articles and reviews about both.  I agree with you, there are neurophysical "locations" for "enlightenment,"  and I love studying the things our new imaging capabilities are teaching us about aspects of human behavior and consciousness that were previously relegated to the realm of mystery. I, too, come from a bio-psycho-social perspective, but also have a strong interest in the history of myth, religion, and mysticism.  I did not expect Katie to be guru, but I was hoping she would inspire more trust and confidence.  Before the school, I was considering certification with her program.  And, personally, I have used her teachings (along with many others, Buddhist, Confucian, Taoist, etc.) to soothe my anxieties or help me keep perspective.  The School irritated me, however.  I think it could have been done better and that something has been changing in her organization that negatively affects her work.  And I am unlikely to find much solace in her teachings or The Work for a little while.  I'll turn to others among my favorite teachers now and try to let my irritation subside. 

I like your input.  In the end, nothing is more soothing than further evidence that 1) none of us is alone and 2) my brain isn't the only one experiencing the universe.  I guess I like talking to the other people who "have agreed to share this projection."  Shoot, if what my brain perceives was all there is to it, I'd have every reason in the world to be alarmed and stay alarmed!

... your use of the phrase "who has lost her sense of identity."

-randomstu

Katie said that she didn't think of herself as an "I." Her stories about the early days after her incident included several stories where she identified with other people's bodies or with a bird flying overhead. My takeaway from the gestalt is that the brain region Jill Bolte Taylor talks about as how we define ourselves and our body boundaries was damaged or stopped working in Katie.As to the existential questions is there identity and what is it, I'll leave that question for more learned folk than I.

... what's the "non-dual experience?" ... what's a "spiritual" component?

-randomstu

My use of "non-dual" is based on my extremely, extremely limited understanding of Taoism and Buddhism that there's a mindset where you divide the world up into pieces (black & white, computer keyboard and non computer keyboard). That's "dualism." There's another mindset where you simply experience everything without labeling it, or if you label it, you realize you're labeling it and still perceive the raw, undifferentiated experience behind it.

What do I mean by "spiritual?" I haven't the faintest idea. People call Katie a "spiritual" leader and then tell stories about "walk-ins" from another dimension, multiple lifetimes, healing powers, whatever. "Spiritual" seems to have something to do with a suspension of critical thought and/or resorting to non-provable thought. Everything I know and have experienced with Katie seems explainable and understandable without resorting to magical thinking.

When I say my attraction to Katie is "non-spiritual," I mean that my attending her workshop had nothing to do with that word, or the surrounding magical thinking. I think she's a woman who thinks in a way I find novel that seems to be more enjoyable than how I think, yet doesn't impede her ability to function in the world. She seems to have a technique that helps people get some of that "more enjoyable" part. I came to her workshop to get a deeper experience with that technique in more areas of my life.

(My first editing of this message read as being somewhat snide/dismissive of spirituality. That isn't how I feel. I believe there's value to spirituality, and that there are things that are true that we can't prove through science. But that doesn't mean that anything someone thinks is spiritual is automatically true.)

I don't want to get too far afield here. Let's not get pulled into some philosophical discussion about provability or spirit or identity.

To recap: I'm talking about my experience with Byron Katie's School, and why I believe it's totally secular, was psychologically valuable for me, may be (too?) shocking for some, and is run by a woman who thinks differently from how I do and who developed The Work but whose presence is not needed to get the value from it.

Hi, gimmeshelter. What you say here is what I believe is generally called "argument by assertion." I used a metaphor that compared our judgements about a book or an herb, to the judgements we make about therapies or religions. You assert that it's riduculous, and you offer absolutely zero in the way of supporting your assertion with evidence or logic. It's as if the mere fact that you assert that it's ridiculous should carry some weight... in the absence of the tiniest shred of reasoned argument. Argument by assertion is a key factor in cult mind-sets. It's vital to somehow avoid clear, reasoned, critical thinking in order to maintain such a mind-set. Demonizing and ridiculing others, WITHOUT any reasoned support, is one way the cultish mind protects its dogmas.
(By the way, if you're suggesting that a book or an herb can never be "destructive," that the way you use the ideas in a book or the effects of an herb can't have dire consequences... that's also an assertion that I'd question profoundly.)
Stuart[url]

-randomstu

Stuart, I don't claim to be perfectly logical! Emotions can run high when discussing this sort of thing.

I'm wondering....do you believe that cults don't really exist? I ask because it seems like you might not, since you seem to completely disagree that Byron Katie could be considered to be culty in any way.

As far as I'm concerned, she beeps all over my cult-o-meter! I would never, after reading reports like the ones on this board, subject myself to any Byron Katie event, ever. Plus I tried out her method for myself and found it decidedly unhelpful.

Stuart, I just read another post of yours, so it does seem you believe there is such a thing as cults, although you say their power is "wildly overstated".

I sure don't know about "wildly". Or overstated, for that matter.

I would find the power of cults to be formidable enough that they can bring about such things as a complete change in personality, suicide, murder, etc.

That's powerful as far as I'm concerned.

I'm wondering....do you believe that cults don't really exist?

-gimmeshelter

Hi, gimme, thanks for your responses.

What if someone asked you, "Do you believe that creeps really exist?" You can't really say that they don't, because most of us know someone who we think is a creep.

But who we call a "creep" is different for each of us. It all swings on our own judgements. We all want different things from the people we meet, and have our individual ideas about how others should act. People who stray too far from the desired behavior are labeled "creeps" (or harsher names). In a forum like this, made up of anonymous strangers, it doesn't convey much to say someone is a "creep." To make it coherent, we'd have to be clear on exactly what our standards and desires are, behind making this judgement.

The exact same person who I call a creep, you may say is wonderful. Neither of us is right or wrong, it's just that we seek different things from others, and thus have different standards with which to judge them.

All of the above applies to labeling Katie's group or other orgs as a "cult."

I would find the power of cults to be formidable enough that they can bring about such things as a complete change in personality, suicide, murder, etc.
That's powerful as far as I'm concerned.

-gimmeshelter

I was with Swami Muktananda for years, in an org that many would label a "cult." On his American tour in the late 70s/early 80s, there were often over 1000 people who'd come to the evening programs. I saw how few of these people found the experience interesting enough to return. The small percentage who were affected stuck around, while the vast majority disappeared forever.

The <1% of the attendees who were affected and stuck around... became the core ashram population. Snagging just a few new devotees every day eventually resulted in 1000s of committed followers. (The secret is volume.) Newcomers would see an ashram filled with committed devotees, and fall under the delusion that it meant the org was so powerful, to attract so many followers. They never saw the 99% who walked away.

I'm not questioning that some people can join a group like this (or Katie's) and undergo a complete personality change. But it's only a minority of the population that gets so affected. People can easily get fooled into thinking that the org affects most or all of the people who encounter it... when it's really a small percentage.

The group dynamics play a huge roll in this. Some of us are highly affected by being among people who all think and act the same way. They (this includes me, at least in the past) feel a strong pull to "follow the crowd." Once the Teacher builds a core group, this herd mentality has a power on some newcomers. Yeah, it's a real power... but it only works when we're too immature to think for ourselves.

I see this as a dynamic that applies to all groups of this sort, including Katie's.

Assigning causality is a tricky thing, and can only be reliably done with controled studies. Maybe someone is deeply suffering in life, is looking for any excuse to take on a new personality and radically new life. They encounter some group like Katie's, and that's their opportunity. It appears that Katie and her org has power, but maybe they just provided the opportunity for the student's pre-existing wishes to manifest.

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

Randomstu,

I think you make a good point about the 1% who begin to seem like a swarm to the newbie.  I don't have a count, but there were a very large number of staff at Katie's School, most of whom (we're told) are volunteers who actually pay for their own travel and room/board...they are what I thought of as the Bigtime Recidivists.  Then there was a fairly large percentage of second-timers, the Average Recidivists.  This group made up more than a third of the population of the school, I'm estimating.  Maybe much more than a third!  Then there were the ones I thought of as the Bliss Ninnies: almost entirely new to Katie and The Work, but so eager to follow a leader, they promptly plopped down $5000+ for yet another guru and another Spiritual Hit.  Then, there were the Plants: the folks who made Katie's School newsworthy, the folks you don't expect to have turn up randomly.  Their stories were too pat, or they were celebrities everyone thinks of as having their act together, or they were matches made in heaven for Katie's website (two people from warring countries who fall into each other's arms through The Work, for example).  Then there were the Scholarships: folks who applied declaring they would take The Work (and, presumably, the profit-making BKI corp) back with them to their hives and hills to promote Katie...er, uh, I mean The Work.  Tongue in cheek, I declare that left about five of us unaccounted for. 

As one of the Unaccounted For, I felt greatly outnumbered.  I also often felt WRONG, somehow, for not wanting to join in wholeheartedly, for filtering and setting boundaries, for being a spoil sport and a wet blanket.  I was a little embarrassed to find out, yet again, that I'm just not a joiner. And I often felt mildly sad that I couldn't share in the apparent bliss...or at least in the intensity...the majority seemed to be experiencing.  It was a struggle to remember that I actually didn't WANT to stop trusting my own perceptions, my own mind.  Katie's mixed message was 1) Never believe your thoughts, and 2) Think for yourself.  In the struggle to decide which message made sense to me, I often felt exhausted mid-way through the first session of the day.  In the end, I pretty consistently chose Option 2.  And, the further I travel in time away from The School, the more sure I am that I made the right choice for me.  And I was one of a real minority if I only judge by the participants in The School.  I was in a vast majority if I judge by the population of the US, Europe, Africa, and the Far East who have ever heard the name Byron Katie and who have already opted out. 

Thanks.  You've added to my perspective.

Hi, gimme, thanks for your responses. What if someone asked you, "Do you believe that creeps really exist?" You can't really say that they don't, because most of us know someone who we think is a creep.
But who we call a "creep" is different for each of us. It all swings on our own judgements. We all want different things from the people we meet, and have our individual ideas about how others should act. People who stray too far from the desired behavior are labeled "creeps" (or harsher names). In a forum like this, made up of anonymous strangers, it doesn't convey much to say someone is a "creep." To make it coherent, we'd have to be clear on exactly what our standards and desires are, behind making this judgement.
The exact same person who I call a creep, you may say is wonderful. Neither of us is right or wrong, it's just that we seek different things from others, and thus have different standards with which to judge them.
All of the above applies to labeling Katie's group or other orgs as a "cult."

I was with Swami Muktananda for years, in an org that many would label a "cult." On his American tour in the late 70s/early 80s, there were often over 1000 people who'd come to the evening programs. I saw how few of these people found the experience interesting enough to return. The small percentage who were affected stuck around, while the vast majority disappeared forever. The <1% of the attendees who were affected and stuck around... became the core ashram population. Snagging just a few new devotees every day eventually resulted in 1000s of committed followers. (The secret is volume.) Newcomers would see an ashram filled with committed devotees, and fall under the delusion that it meant the org was so powerful, to attract so many followers. They never saw the 99% who walked away.
I'm not questioning that some people can join a group like this (or Katie's) and undergo a complete personality change. But it's only a minority of the population that gets so affected. People can easily get fooled into thinking that the org affects most or all of the people who encounter it... when it's really a small percentage.
The group dynamics play a huge roll in this. Some of us are highly affected by being among people who all think and act the same way. They (this includes me, at least in the past) feel a strong pull to "follow the crowd." Once the Teacher builds a core group, this herd mentality has a power on some newcomers. Yeah, it's a real power... but it only works when we're too immature to think for ourselves.
I see this as a dynamic that applies to all groups of this sort, including Katie's.
Assigning causality is a tricky thing, and can only be reliably done with controled studies. Maybe someone is deeply suffering in life, is looking for any excuse to take on a new personality and radically new life. They encounter some group like Katie's, and that's their opportunity. It appears that Katie and her org has power, but maybe they just provided the opportunity for the student's pre-existing wishes to manifest.
Stuart[url]

-randomstu

Stuart, you have completely lost me. I'll just pick one of the things you said regarding cults.... "Yeah, it's a real power... but it only works when we're too immature to think for ourselves."
So people who get involved in cults are "immature"?  And that's the "only" way the power of cults works?   To put it politely....I find this assessment shockingly simplistic, and heartless. 

Here's to the memory of those 913 people who died by suicide at Jonestown. Here's to the relief of the suffering of ANYONE who has EVER suffered in any way in the course of participating in a cult.

Yep, I believe cults exist. Along with "creeps", to cite your conceptual example.

Sorry if I am being strong and "emotional" here. But I'm feeling really creeped out right now!  That's the truth.  I'm done with stuff like Byron Katie's that tries to rob me of my normal range of human emotions.

Gimmeshelter,
Boy, this is some strong stuff, isn't it?  I'm not always clear what randomstu is saying, either.  What I do know is that, despite my scientific and professional background, I have longed for a benign universe, a kindly set of wisdom teachings, a lovable teacher or role model (seen or unseen), and a pervading sweet truth to rest my head on at night.  The human brain seems built for that and the human heart has to follow the dear breadcrumbs into whatever forest they lead us to.  Often, it gets scary in there and we have to bolt or blindly find our way out (hence, my screen name).  You've done it; I've done it; Stu's done it. 

And, you know, I might do it again.  In terms of time, I haven't got enough left to forget my recent experiences so thoroughly that I tumble head-over-heels for a whole new schema.  But the sweetness.....the sweetness at the first, when we think we may have come home....that nectar could beckon again someday, for all I know.  I'm older, wiser, but not invulnerable.  Katie does say that sweetness belongs to me.  She would say, if you love me, what's that got to do with me?  She would say, if you're angry with me, what's that got to do with me?  I'll take that with me, then.  It always did make sense, anyway.  If I love the sweetness, the rest of meditation, the tenderness of a sense of belonging when I perceive my connection to all things, what's that got to do with Katie and her screwy School?

I'm with you on hanging onto my range of emotions.  And, when I try to feel only peace, it doesn't work anyway.  My brain evolved to notice when something isn't right; that's apparently a trait that Natural Selection is fond of in humans.  The Work and other methods can give our brains a nano-break and that's worth something.  But nothing short of a cerebral accident is likely to make a permanent and sudden change...my brain tells me.

'Course, I do hope to hell I've learned not to plunk down big money, again!!!  What was I thinking?!

I'm with you on hanging onto my range of emotions.  And, when I try to feel only peace, it doesn't work anyway....

-arienariadne

This post really got me wondering. 

What do you mean by wanting to feel the "whole range of emotions?" I know that certain chemical solutions (e.g. lithium) blunt the range of emotions, but you aren't complaining about such traditional psychiatric solutions. You're disapproving of The Work as agency of emotional bluntness. Does that disapproval extend to any other non-medicinal technique that calmed down your thinking (e.g. Zen meditation, etc.)? Do you only object to the psychological approaches, or the medicinal approaches as well?

Your message seems to be contradictory to me. You want a "pervading sweet truth to rest your head on at night." And during the day...? If you're feeling a pervading sweet truth, doesn't that just mean you laugh/smile at things that used to upset you? Does that constitute a reduced range of emotions?

Less upset and more sweetness is why I was looking for self-help technology in the first place, and it sounds like you were also looking for something like that. I haven't found that The Work decreases my range of emotions; it's only changed which emotions I feel when. It's much more appropriate, now. Yes, stuff that used to piss me off doesn't any more, but that's a good thing. In fact, that's the point. Flying into a rage at dirty dishes in the sink was making me and everyone else miserable. Now when I smile and ask nicely about cleaning up, it doesn't feel like that's somehow more limited than the previous response.

Anger, rage, and depression are very intense emotions for me. Peace, joy, and love aren't as immediately intense. That makes a lot of sense, as they don't activate the adrenaline the way the others do, etc. So anything that reduces the anger in my life will almost by definition reduce the intensity. Is that how it is for you, as well? Is that what you mean by "not feeling the full range of emotions?" (Geniunely curious. I've thought about this before. Is the color I see as blue the same as the one you see as blue? Is my anger the same as yours? Is my love the same as yours? My peace? My gratitude?)

You're right about contradictions.  They abound in my world.  I'm not likely to turn to The Work as readily now, since attending The School, as I was before, although I'm sure it has little to do with the utility of The Work.  It has more to do with the post-stress avoidance response I'm experiencing after the The School.  That is waning and will continue to wane.  I'll get over it and be able to evaluate The Work on its own merits again, I'm sure.

I am in no position to deny the value of meds, of psychiatry, of psychotherapy, or of using The Work.  I'm speaking very personally when I say that I've often longed to feel fewer negative emotions...less anxiety, specifically.  The Work does help briefly, and that's an excellent result, since I don't know how to make permanent change in the less desirable parts of me without permanently sacrificing some of the better parts.  And for anyone who experiences fear, anxiety, negative emotions, I think anything that gives respite (while imparting minimal undesirable side-effects) is worthwhile.  Most psychotherapy interventions that are well-delivered by licensed psychotherapists serve to interrupt the painful thought-looping and get the "patient" thinking about the negative feeling state, rather than being hung in the negative feeling state.  Carefully prescribed anxiolytics are very helpful, although most, at this stage of development, have side effects that can cause people to discontinue them, whether they be benzodiazepines or serotonin reuptake inhibitors. 

And I love meditation, yoga, Zen.  I haven't tried acupuncture, chi gong, etc., but I'm not opposed to any of them.  I just mean that, since my emotions seem to be part of my spacesuit, I might as well accept them.  I wish they were a little less disruptive, that the body alarm had a volume knob that was entirely under my control, but just t'aint so.  I'm not suffering from any mood disorder, no out of whack amygdala, to my knowledge.  It's just good ol' human angst, the existential variety.  I had some faint hope that, by this particular decade of my life, I'd mellow right on out and wear that little Buddha smile most of the time.  Since that doesn't seem to be showing up in a timely fashion, I might be trying to nudge the process along a little quicker.  I was hoping Katie would act as a booster shot.  Instead, I never felt more like my old, familiar, independent, stubborn, resistant self as I did at The School.  I've got my bottom lip stuck out, here.  I had half-promised my beloved family a Whole New Me after the School.  My son in law even suggested that I hadn't entered into the thing fully....duh, ya think?  Bless his heart, he's a gung ho boy if there ever was one.  And I am a Hide-Bound, Unreconstructed, Smart Alack Individualist.  Ah, well.  Whatcha gonna do?  At least my sense of humor got a workout.

I know what you mean about wondering if my universe actually resembles your universe.  If you ever want to cast doubt on the possibility of a shared reality, fall in love with a man and then wonder why the heck he does certain things while declaring confidently that HE LOVES YOU.  I am so grateful to my husband for allowing me to visit another human brain regularly over a long period of time.  My anecdotal research indicates that we share about a third of the products of perception...usually those having to do with sensory inputs, like color, size, shape...the measurable parts.  It's those fuzzy concepts that trip us up repeatedly: love, peace, reality, truth, etc.

I love your contributions!  Am I answering your post, here, or just wandering off into my own gray matter?

 Where is our Moderator, btw?  I've not seen hide nor hair of Jody.  Yoo-hoo....

  ...contradictions.  They abound in my world... not likely to turn to The Work as readily now... I've often longed to feel fewer negative emotions...less anxiety, specifically.  The Work does help briefly, and that's an excellent result... And I love meditation, yoga, Zen.  I haven't tried acupuncture, chi gong, etc., but I'm not opposed to any of them.

-arienariadne

I've found The Work is my #1 tool these days. I sometimes need to work 10-20 one-liners to flesh out an issue fully, though. I was getting so hot during the Presidential election that it took dozens of inquiries before I could watch candidate commercials without wanting to put my foot through the screen. I go for overkill when it comes to pouncing on an issue.

Other things that worked well for me before The Work: progressive relaxation, self-hypnosis [though always tend to fall asleep], EMDR [informally did it just by reading a description of in], and then the "energy" ones: Emotional Freedom Technique and Brain Gym. I don't believe in "energy," the way these alternative health things talk about it, but I tried EFT just to see if the horribly written manual and absurd concept seemed to work. It did, much to my dismay as a left-brain obsessed science type who really hated the explanation given. http://www.emofree.com (the manual is free). Brain Gym is a technique for dealing with learning disabled kids, but it turns out you can use it to attentuate adult emotions too.

My son in law even suggested that I hadn't entered into the thing fully....duh, ya think?

-arienariadne

Could be. As I said above, I investigated first, but after deciding to go, I jumped in as fully as possible. Even on the per-exercise level, I would commit fully or not at all. If I was even slightly uneasy about an exercise, I would do The Work on all my objections. If I wasn't totally committed by the time the exercise started, I sat it out.

I am also enjoying our conversation immensely.

I am still wondering, though: if you had less anxiety in your life, would that mean you had less of a range of emotions, and you would want to re-introduce the anxiety? I can't quite wrap my head around what the limited range of emotions means.

hello - first timer here.
I attended the school for the work a couple of years ago. I enjoyed reading your post arienariadne, I found myself in some of the descriptions you mention - borderline personality disorder and other labels. Not sure which label in particular I came under but I'm definitely there. I agree with your descriptions - all of them; I had no idea what I was going to and felt like I had landed on planet odd. I also found that a lot of the participants were therapists; my room mate was one and I found the therapists the most estranged of all; but that could be because I was one of the fruit and nuts. I went to the front desk of the hotel many times to ask if there were organised trips to nearby city sites (European hotels provide this service) I was convinced BK was a cult and as I'd spent all that money to get to the US I may as well go site seeing.

I spent many days trying to get people to talk to me, to rebel the 'follow the simple directions' and found it confusing when people wouldn't smile back at me, or would sit in 'my' space or take 'my' pillow or comforter. It took a lot of getting used to. Then it kind of sunk in. I surrendered (fancy word and a bit of an exaggeration) A lot of the things I identified as being 'me' I saw as not really being me at all; they were infact stories I had constructed to live my life by. Some of the staff were amazing and i'm very grateful to them for their patience and realness. Others were robotic and plastic and quite frankly, frightening. One in particular I just clashed with - she was just way to joyful for me but not in a grounded way. Others I felt just didn't like me - my projections?

I got so much out of the school - I saw my need for approval and love as my over riding life driver. I saw how I used food to numb feelings of pain. I saw that people will do what they do and think what they think and that shouldn't stop me smiling at them, before my purpose was a need for approval now I smile at people or I don't and if they smile back - what a bonus.

As for Katie - I never approached her. I saw many people around me idolise her and I'm self aware enough to not go along that road. So I decided after about 5 days to get what i came for. I participated in the exercises and really learned so much about myself in the city visit after the fast. I met a man who looked at me like I was shit on his shoes (i've done that to people) and another who sat with me and fed me (i've also done that) so in both circumstances I met me. That's what I got from the exercise, that we're all each other.
 
When I returned from the school I was full of 'is it true'; everyone was sick to death of me   It was difficult to fit into relationships again but that was no bad thing as I no longer sought advice or approval and did feel less of a victim of life.

I don't do the work anymore - but something has changed in me - a sense of being aware of my irrational thoughts and that they're prob not true should I care to do the work on them. I also feel quite sane, not all the time, but when I do start to feel anxious, I'm aware of it now and watch it - you can't have the emotion if you're watching it, and sometimes I'm as mad as a hatter and that's fine too. The school was an incredible experience and I went along for the ride eventually but then, I had nothing to lose. I've thought about doing another, many times, and yet I don't.
 
It was weird, stressful, full on (with people to match), clique-ish, big brother-ish, quite wonderful and also the hardest things I've ever done. I've read Janaki's blog and I get totally everything she says; I saw flashes of irritation with Katie, and I saw detachment and to be honest, vulnerability. She told the story of how she told her grandson not to play near the street as she wouldn't want him to get hurt - and she tailed off as though she had just admitted to something; something any other person would drill into our children and grandchildren. Her husband freaked me out and that's a totally random thing to say, however, it could be because she told the school that he had burned all the copies of her first /second book and all the copies stored in Europe, and I remember thinking "and who's business was he in?" He said it was because it was very anecdotal and not based on evidence - jumped about too much. Indirect aggression?  

I think TheWork is a business and a money making machine. I think Katie is looking to leave a protected business for her children to run in her demise; she was a business woman before she 'woke up' so maybe she's just switched businesses. That process is repeated in many families across the world, and there's nothing wrong with that, except ... it feels incongruent. It smacks of something not being quite right - I've read things about her in the past when she found it hard to communicate with people, to find the words and I think I read somewhere that she chooses to connect with 'us' and therefore had to relearn language etc. Perhaps she's connected a little too much and is now indeed 'one of us'.

What a show!

jgf75,

You know, with that comment about hanging onto my full range of emotions, I was mostly trying to say something validating to gimmeshelter.  I probably haven't given this as much thought as I should.  I do think I've tried to tamp down the negative emotions all my life.  They are so uncomfortable physically and they often lead to conflict when expressed.  Conflict is scary.  That's a story developed from a time when I was small and unlikely to be able to defend myself physically if a conflict got out of hand.  Little girls learn to reign some of those things in and substitute less aggressive ways to get needs met. 

When I experience anger, I often have the thought, "I shouldn't feel angry."  Sometimes, like Katie, I have imagined that I no longer even experience anger...but that's no more true for me than it is for Katie.  I just have a short form of redirecting that emotion, doing some quick Work on it, turning it around, calming it, etc.  Katie claims she hasn't been angry since 1980-something when that Cockroach of Clarification showed up.  But, of course, anger was apparent more than once in Katie's face during The School.  Sandyfeet got it right, she's just one of us, now.  Probably always was...definitely always was according to Janakis blog.  Bless Janaki!

A few of years ago, when I was making The Work a part of my thinking so much of the time and convincing myself that I rarely if ever experienced anger (fear was another matter...it was tougher to tamp down and, in fact, seemed to strengthen and grow as I wrestled anger to the floor), an astute friend of mine was commenting on an ache/pain I'd acquired.  He said, "Well, the rage has to go somewhere."  I immediately mentally defended myself and thought, outraged, "There's not an OUNCE of rage in me!"  Oh, brother.

As a social mammal, I am well-served by behavioral moderation.  It's not a good idea, as our numbers grow on the planet and we rub elbows constantly with others of our species, to let fly with expressions of emotion.  When there were fewer of us and more space, we could avoid conflict by walking away.  Nowadays, that's getting tougher.  I think of how the Japanese have developed a very elaborate system of communication, civility, self-effacement, complicated manners, etc., in order to live more peacefully on a very crowded, small island world.  Now, the whole planet is our island world. 

So, the trick, I think, is to: 1) try to feel whole by admitting the full range of humans emotions, positive and negative, because...well, there they ARE, operating continually in either the forefront or the background of our lives, just as they evolved to do; and 2) try to feel connected by any means we can short of self-destruction, because...well, we NEED each other for our health and well-being.

So...I guess that means The Work stays in my toolbelt, the emotions stay in my meat computer/spacesuit, and there's really not a problem, here.  Ah, here comes Katie again...let's face it, she's WISE, if not perfect..."Forgiveness comes when you realize that what you thought happened, didn't."  I don't think I quoted that exactly right, but that's the gist of it.  And, paraphrasing so much of her teaching, I try to let this thought surface frequently: What if there really isn't a problem here?  That one works on me like a charm!

Shoot.  Once again, not sure I responded appropriately, but hoping....

And, Sandyfeet,

Boy, it is great to hear from you!  That was a very balanced picture of your experience you painted.  And with a very honest brush.  Like you, I did the exercises I could endorse.  And I wish I could have had the courage to do more of them, but I began to lose trust rapidly.  I was getting too many warning signals from my cautious mind.  There's a building process in the design of the exercises and elements in The School, as there are in all such immersion programs (What's with NINE DAYS?!  Everybody seems to use that number when they design these kinds of programs, I'm learning). I think, if one can't enter into what's happening on Day Four, for example, then Day Seven isn't going to mean as much.   It sounds like you did, indeed, get what you came for.  I was frustrated with myself that I couldn't get past my fears and be a little more open to some of the experiences.  But I do have to thank myself for working so hard to protect me.

And I have to say, I also got what I went for.  I learned an enormous amount about myself.  The lessons weren't entirely pleasing, but I did feel more compassion for myself in the process, more acceptance of the way I'm constructed.  I went to The School with the intention of finding out if it was something I would want to pursue toward Certification.  And I had a covert, wispy, curiosity and hope that the experience might magically, gently, seduce me into more happiness, into a sweeter, more pleasing nature, so my friends and family would be more comfortable with me...and there's a Story if I ever heard one!  When I started getting NO signals on Goal #1, I gave up on Goal #2.  There lies disappointment.  And resignation.  Which is kind of peaceful. And self-accepting.  Uh-oh...next thing you know, this writing is going to start sounding like Katie's Newsletters!  Who edits those things?!   Her thoughts loop around so, I usually can't read more than a few sentences without getting crosseyed.

Anyway, I loved your post!  Please write some more.

I like your analogy about Japanese formalized communication to let us live together in a crowded space. And by the way, little boys (at least this little boy) also learn to avoid conflict, often by saying Yes even when they mean No. I'm still working on learning to say No when I mean No. 

I admit to my whole range of emotion, though I actively try to change some of the most negative. The kinds of techniques I've found most effective are the ones that take the position that there are "us" and there are "our thoughts" and we can be good human beings and harnass our thoughts to our benefit. That's one reason meditation practices have appealing attributes; at least the ones I've tried are about examining my thinking and ferreting out the thinking that isn't working for me. (I believe "people should be nice to each other," so I was nice to Jeannie even after she stole $5,000 from me. Then she came back for more. Maybe next time, I'll double-check that thought.) 

I wonder what a better workshop would be like that would address these things? I don't think lecture would make one whit of difference, so it has to be experiential. What kind of experiences and exercise would work?

My big turn off is the worship effect. I like being able to talk to fellow participants about what's going on, learn from each other, and use each other as resources. Worshipful fellow participants are too caught up in their worship to make good exploration partners.

jgf75,

Couldn't agree more about the "worshipful fellow participants."  I was desperate to talk to people about their experiences at The School...that sharing of minds is so attractive to me and has been all my life...but there was little talking permitted or encouraged.  Silent meals, people with "Silent One" name-tags.  I used silence, too, but I couldn't keep it up very well.  I'd start to speak to someone and I'd get a tap on the shoulder by Staff or the person I spoke to would flash their "Silent" tag at me. 

Here's a link for my fellow neuroscience fans...just read this over breakfast today.  I'm a big fan of Gazzaniga.
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/26-unlocking-brain-secrets-and-powers

sandyfeet,

I get so excited when "Scientific American Mind" shows up at my house, too.  There's a great article in this month's edition on Borderline Personality.  I've been holding out for years on endorsing the old Personality Disorders saw that says they are caused by early life experiences...the Nurture argument that ignored the Nature side of things.  Lately, we're learning it's never an either/or with this or most any other DSM-IV diagnosis.  Better treatment and better understanding are so needed with this "label."  You mentioned an interest in the subject....
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=perturbed-personalities

Whoa, don't get me started! 

So people who get involved in cults are "immature"?

-gimmeshelter

I've read of Katie explicitly saying that people who come to her programs are like her children; I've read students of Katie say she's like their mother. This is a very common dynamic, where the followers treat the leader like a mother or father. When people are driven by dynamics from their childhood, I don't think it's that off-base to call it "immature."

Yep, I believe cults exist. Along with "creeps", to cite your conceptual example.

-gimmeshelter

It's not a problem if you hold opinions about what's a cult and who's a creep. If you forget that they're just your opinions, reflections of your own beliefs and wants, and start labeling cults and creeps as if that were the Truth... then that would be nonsense.

I'm done with stuff like Byron Katie's that tries to rob me of my normal range of human emotions.

-gimmeshelter

I believe that others have already responded to this idea. I don't buy that Katie or anyone else has the magical power to rob you of your emotions. Whatever concerns you have about your emotions -- if you want a wider range, a narrower range, a different range, whatever... I think that it's up to you yourself to look into it. I question whether it's helpful to project this power onto Katie or anyone else.

Hey, guys!  Everybody, repeat after me:

randomstu, you could be right.