Multiplex: What's New | Site Map | Community | News My Multiplex Account | Sign In 
in Search

Myth of the Given and the Work of Byron Katie

Last post 07-30-2007, 4:12 PM by monkmonk. 19 replies.
Page 1 of 2 (20 items)   1 2 Next >
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  07-26-2007, 10:14 AM 26402

    Myth of the Given and the Work of Byron Katie

    In Appendix 3 to “Integral Spirituality”, Ken states that The Work of Byron Katie does not consider the Myth of the Given.  The section below explains my understanding of the Myth of the Given as it relates to the Work.  Being familiar with Ken’s books and as an avid practitioner of The Work of Byron Katie, I decided to enquire into some of the stressful thoughts that arose in my mind when I read the book.  Why not do the Work on the Work and see what comes out? I would welcome any comments that you may have and look forward to your replies.  In fact, I wonder if anyone in this forum has asked whether the 1-2-3 process is limited by the Myth of the Given. 

     

    Elements of the Myth of the Given: 

    1. My reality is at least partially constructed by cultural elements that I was born into which I take to be Given (Truth). 
    2. The first two questions of the Work ask if a thought is true.  Any truth that I find is only partial and based upon my existing frame of reference which is constructed. 
    3. My consciousness cannot deliver absolute Truth.  The Tibetan will see a goddess with a thousand arms.  The christian mystic will see Jesus.  Both take their visions to be absolutely true. 
    4. My consciousness evolves (AQAL Zone 2).  Therefore the truth that I assume to be given at any time is only partial.  This is a major element in the myth of the given. 
    5. Meditation, being a solo act (monological), ignores the truths of inter-subjectivity (dialogical Zone 4).  The Work, being meditation is subject to this criticism. 

     

    My stressful thoughts:  The Work is limited by the Myth of the Given.  The Work can never show me the Truth.  The truth that it shows me is partial.  The Work ignores the evolution of consciousness.  The Work (like meditation) ignores the truths of intersubjectivity.   

     

    Belief:  The Work is limited by the Myth of the Given. 

    1. Is it true?  Yes. 
    2. Can I absolutely know that it is true? No.  I have not done the Work sufficiently to know that the statement is absolutely true.  Nor have I investigated Ken Wilber’s understanding that the Myth of the Given sufficiently to say that the statement is absolutely true. 
    3. How do I react when I believe the thought? I feel dejected and hopeless.  I believe that I am wasting effort and stop doing the Work.  I am distracted and not present.  My mind travels to the past and all the methods that I once thought would make me happy that failed.  I get afraid that I am deluding myself with the Work as well.  I feel cynical and approach all helpful suggestions with violence – trying to tear it down to avoid disappointment and self blame when I find that I have fed myself with lies.  Worst that will happen:  I would have spun my wheels and deluded myself.  Payoff for holding the thought:  Protection from deluding myself. 
    4. Who would I be without the thought? Just doing my Work on stressful thoughts as they arise.  Present.  Available.  Happy in the moment.  Seeing that my suffering in this moment is based on resistance to what is. 

     

    Turnarounds for “The Work is limited by the Myth of the Given”.

    1. The Work in not limited by the Myth of the Given.  The Work (4 questions) investigates any myth (beliefs) that I take as given (true).  For example I believe the myth that my father is dead when his genes are alive in me, his memory is alive in me, his image is alive in me.  By investigating every story, the Work leaves me as what I am (truth) in the moment.    As Katie says, the Work takes nothing away and gives nothing.  It’s only 4 questions. 
    2. I limit myself by the Myth (lies) that I take to be Given.  There is no question in my mind that I was suffering from the myths that I believed.    The energy that I use in holding on to beliefs that conflict with reality limits my creativity and action. 
    3. I believe the myth of the other/(s) to be given.  I project my thoughts (myths) on to others and think that my image of them is real (given).  Who is an Other without my story? 

     

    Belief:  The Work can never show me the Truth.

    1. Is it true? Yes.
    2. Can I absolutely know that it is true? No.  I have not done the Work sufficiently to be able to say that the statement is absolutely true. 
    3. How do I react when I believe the thought? I feel dejected, depleted of energy, depressed, hopeless, going through the motions.  I am cynical about others and their experience – I believe that they are fooling themselves.  Worst that can happen:  I can never be happy and fulfilled.  Payoff for holding that thought:  I use it to rationalize not enquiring – there is a reason why the Work is called the Work. 
    4. Who would I be without the thought? Fully present in the moment.  Alert.  Calm.  Fearless.  Enquiring.  Open to anything that comes up.  Willing to question.  Grateful.  Happy.  Look forward to every opportunity to do the Work. 

    Turnarounds for “The Work can never show me the Truth”:

    1. The Work always shows me the Lie.  In my experience, the work shows me the lie that I have believed to be absolutely true - to be what it is – a lie.  My partner is selfish – lie.  I am stupid – lie. 
    2. The Work always shows me the Truth – me without the story after the lie is exposed. 
    3. The Work needn’t show me the Truth.  Because I am always, already Truth.  I cannot be other than what I already am.  Why should anything show me what I already am?  The Work helps by exposing the delusion of what I am not. 
    4. I/My thinking will never show me the Truth.   I am afraid to let go of the myths that I believe give me comfort and an identity.  I am afraid of what I am without my story.  I am afraid to die to my story. 

     

    Belief:  The Work does not take into consideration the evolution of consciousness. 

    1. Is it true? Yes
    2. Can I absolutely know that it is true? No.  I have done the Work since 2002.  Looking back, I can see how much happier and peaceful I am.  I have evolved in my own understanding of my self. 
    3. How do I react when I believe the thought? I get dejected, frustrated, self critical and cynical about my ability to evolve.  I force myself to act evolved even if it conflicts with how I truly feel and then regret it.  I feel trapped by the Hobson’s choice of acting out or acting evolved, both of which are unsatisfactory. 
    4. Who would I be without the thought? I would stay in the present moment and do the Work on what arises now.  Peaceful, present, kind, intelligent, balanced and comfortable in my current level of evolution.  Like Katie says, “Do not get ahead of your own evolution.”

     

    Turnarounds to “The Work does not take into consideration the evolution of consciousness”: 

    1. The Work does take into consideration the evolution of consciousness.  The Work questions the lies/pathologies that surface at every structure stage of consciousness.  In the process, the untrue beliefs are left behind and I am freed to evolve or not.  As Katie says, there are only 3 kinds of business; my business, your business and God’s business.  Eros is God’s business. 
    2. I do not take into consideration the evolution of others’ consciousness.  I believe that others can’t evolve, that they are blocked or stuck believing their myths.   I believe this about my partner, my friends and work colleagues.  I tend to believe the worst about them.  And yes, I believe that of some of the Greens in this forum!  Sorry guys, my bad.
    3. I do not take into consideration the evolution of my consciousness.  I often consider my problem to be hopeless.  My understanding won’t get better.  My fear won’t get better.  My relationship won’t get better. 

     

    Belief:  The Work ignores intersubjectivity.  I can turn this around right away. 

    Turnaround:

    1. The Work considers intersubjectivity.  I do the Work with my partner.  I listen to her Judge your Neighbor worksheet on me and facilitate her doing the Work on me while I listen with an open heart.  She does the same thing for me.  I couldn’t ask for a better mirror and if that isn’t intersubjectivity what is? The Work can be done with family, friends, colleagues, enemies, anybody.  I learn an enormous amount when I facilitate another – about them and me. 
    2. I ignore intersubjectivity.  When I defend myself against criticism as a knee jerk reaction.  As Katie often says, Defense is the first act of War.  When I believe my thoughts about others without enquiry.  When I do not question my thoughts about me (my multiple selves – parent, child, adult).

     

    Final Comments:  Once again, I would love to hear your thoughts on this self analysis and your take on the 1-2-3 process.  Isn’t it equally subject to the Myth of the Given? 

    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  07-26-2007, 5:36 PM 26422 in reply to 26402

    Re: Myth of the Given and the Work of Byron Katie

    This is a lot of work and I am sure you must be getting a lot out of it.  I want to read it again and then maybe write more.

    KW did say that all the writers he wrote about could used some of KB's wonderful techniques.  He gave high praise about that and he also called  the "Diamond Heart" author one of the best writers he knew and said he had read all of his work.  (I cannot bring up his name right now)  His suggestion was for them to just change a few things.   I am like you, I want to know exactly what he would change.  I "get it" about some of them I think  and for some reason I intuitively could not read Depak Chopra and a couple of the others.  I also think KB has some good techniques but they do not work for me at this time.   Lets say in comparison to Carolyn Myss's new book,  "Entering the Castle"    After seeing what you have done here, it makes me think of how I would open up and try most seminars and workshops. (I had to get CEU's as Lic Psychotherapist).   I would just work with what ever was given to see how it went and I left with information but knew later what I could not keep.

    I spent a good bit of time with Jean Houston and she was someone who had a big impact on me with her books and in person.  And there were others.  And so it seems that you have put so much into this technique and it has been beneficial for you. That is what you  need to trust.   The only difference is that I have sort of left it all behind and will be forever grateful for what I have learned from many gifted people.   I am here to stay, not on this site but in my soul and heart.    I want to think about Big Mind Big Heart some more.   I also had some of that but it was in the form

    of "acting out" or talking thru with a partener with the different parts that were so similar.  And could have been copied from Dialoug.  However there was no "experience".   I do this alone and with a friend and it is powerful for me so that is my truth.   You inspire me to put my ILP out there.   I think this is such a good example for all of us.   Thank You for That   Namaste   Pattye

    (a

    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  07-28-2007, 11:07 AM 26495 in reply to 26402

    Re: Myth of the Given and the Work of Byron Katie

    There are a number of parallels between The Work of Byron Katie and the 3-2-1 process.  If I take the scary thought that Ken uses as an example, “The Monster wants to destroy me” and do The Work on it, I get the following turnarounds that are as true or truer when compared to the original statement:

    1. The Monster does not want to destroy me. 
    2. I want to destroy the Monster.
    3. I want to destroy me. 

    If I try the 3-2-1 process on the thought and start with the 3rd person perspective.  Well, I have had the dream a number of times and I am still here to talk about it, so it is possible that the Monster does not want to destroy me.  This of course, is identical to the first turnaround. 

    When I take a 2nd person perspective and have a conversation with the Monster. 

    Ravi:  I am afraid of you Monster.  You want to destroy me, don’t you?

    Monster:  I have to be this way because you hate me and want to destroy me. 

    The dialog would lead me to the realization that I want to destroy the Monster just as much as I believe it wants to destroy me which opens a whole new level of insight.  This is the same as the second turnaround. 

    When I take the 1st person perspective and become the Monster, then I am forced to ask why I want to destroy me.  This is the equivalent of the third turnaround in the Work of Byron Katie. 

    Given this equivalence in the two methods, my question to Ken or any of the II trainers who teach the 3-2-1 process is:

    If the Work of Byron Katie ignores the Myth of the Given, is this not true of the 3-2-1 process as well?  If the answer is yes, how can both methods be improved?  If not, what is the difference? 

    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  07-28-2007, 11:42 AM 26499 in reply to 26402

    Re: Myth of the Given and the Work of Byron Katie

    Hi ravinathin,

    The way I understand it, it's not so much the work itself that is guilty of the myth of the given, but the way in which it is presented. The actual work that you do takes place simultaneously in all 4 quadrants (it cannot be otherwise, all events in the manifest world occur on all 4 quadrants.) What Ken is pointing out, I believe, is that Katie Byron's presentation or teaching (and therefore her understanding and the understanding of those practicing it) is almost entirely from the first person perspective. Except for noting how the people around you will notice how much nicer you become, she pretty much ignores the reality of other people or things entirely. You are taught that it doesn't matter what the actual truth is (about that other person or event) that in fact you can't really know the truth - that in essence the only thing that matters is what's going on in you're head. There's nothing wrong with this, per se, because in a very real sense it is true: the subjective quality of you're experience is very greatly, if not entirely, dependent on how you perceive and think about the events that make up that experience.

    For Katie Byron's work to escape the Myth of the Given, all that is needed is to include other perspectives. She's got the first person perspective nailed. But what about the perspective of the other (the person or people you're working "on",) or the perspective of the it (the social system in place) These perspectives have their own truths, their own values, goals, needs, etc. What Ken is saying (again, as I understand it) is that Katie's teaching and her understanding would only be enriched (not to mention more palatable to the post modernists) if she both wrote of the work from these other perspectives and included the other perspectives in the work itself (with deep, conscious intention, since it is true that the other perspectives are implicitly included in the work, as I mentioned above and as you pointed out.)

    The 3-2-1 Shadow process has in its very name the three perspectives: 3rd person, 2nd person and 1st person. It is very specifically about taking each of the three perspectives and bringing them together into an integral awareness.

    Does this make sense?

    Don.

    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  07-28-2007, 2:02 PM 26505 in reply to 26499

    • bellalan1969 is not online. Last active: 18 Jan 2008, 3:42 PM bellalan1969
    • Top 200 Contributor
    • Joined on 06-22-2006
    • England
    • Posts 13
    • Points 270

    Re: Myth of the Given and the Work of Byron Katie

    Hi

    The 3-2-1 process is specifically used with the shadow because we often project those aspects of our dis-owned shadow on to other people or events (3rd person). The idea is when we engage with the projection through a 2nd person dialogue we eventually (hopefully) move the projection into a 1st person perpective, that is, we 'own' the disturbance, and when it becomes an object in our awareness that we can choose to let go / detach / accept it etc etc ...

    Some people need help with a therapeutic process like the 3-2-1 because they project so much stuff and don't own it in the first person.

    I feel, 'The Work' of Byron Katie is really useful for those folks who already own their stuff in a 1st person perspective, and could therefore be used as a complementary practice to 3-2-1 process, or in exclusion of it.


    Alan


    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  07-28-2007, 3:56 PM 26511 in reply to 26499

    Re: Myth of the Given and the Work of Byron Katie

    Don:  I see a circular element in your reasoning.  On the first part, you agree with the equivalence between the two methods as I have shown with the "monster" example.  Then you go on to say that the 321 process is not subject to the myth of the given because it takes three perspectives - but that is exactly what the Work does per the first part!

    The Work can be done solo or with a faciliator.  It can be also be done with the person about whom I have the judgement.  For example, my partner may believe that I am a monster and then she does The Work with me as I ask the four questions.  So I get to see the original monster thought get unwound by her to the same three turnarounds as above.  At the same time, I get to truly ask myself about the different ways that I could be a monster.  Intersubjectivity is an easy add-on to the Work in my understanding. 

    I am genuinely not intending to debate the merits of one over the other because they both have merit in my opinion. 

    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  07-28-2007, 6:14 PM 26517 in reply to 26511

    Re: Myth of the Given and the Work of Byron Katie

    Hi ravinathan,

    I wasn't saying the two practices are equivalent at all. Just that there is implicitly a certain amount of inter-subjectivity inherent in doing anything in the world, including "the Work," and that you have noticed and brought to you're own awareness some sense of this in you're own practice. But what is lacking in Byron Katie's teaching is an understand, explicitly and consciously, of the Myth of the Given.

    I think it's great that you have found a way to include a sense of the second person perspective in you're own practice of "the Work." And I think you're right, inter-subjectivity probably is an easy add-on to the Work. In a way, I think that was Ken's point in including it in appendix III, this stuff is fixable.

    It's important to keep in mind that Ken gives Byron Katie some pretty great praise in addition to his very one-pointed criticism:

    "Loving What Is: Four Questions That Can Change Your Life, by Byron Katie. I include this book because it is a good example of a wonderful new set of techniques for spiritual intelligence and glimpsing causal emptiness, but in not understanding (and therefore implicitly accepting) the myth of the given, "the Work" allows postmodernists to completely dismiss it, which is a shame - they could use a little of her work, not to mention Hameed's and the rest of the authors critiqued here."

    "The Work" takes a charged feeling, or disturbance, and uses it as a fulcrum for gaining a glimpse into causal emptiness (and this is where the healing effect is.) It leads you through a process which catapults you into the realization that all duality is simply two sides of the same coin.

    The 321 process, on the other hand, is about taking something that disturbs you and getting a genuine awareness of the fact that it disturbs you precisely because there is some part of you just like it that you have repressed. So, to use you're example, you're partner would begin the 321 process by describing you the monster in the third person (It) - "he is such a monster, he scares me to look at him, I am afraid he is going to eat me..." Next she'd move to 2nd person (We) and engage in a conversation between herself and the monster (a conversation in which she herself plays both roles, because after all, the real monster she is trying to get at lives inside herself.) Finally, she'd becomes the monster, or takes the first person perspective with it. By the time she's through, she has hopefully gained awareness of how she is in fact projecting a repressed part of herself onto you, and with that awareness is able to move into a better understanding and acceptance of that part of herself which for some reason she previously could not accept. 

    The 321 process and "the Work" have different goals. To compare them is like comparing apples to oranges. They both could have their place in an ILP. The work is about gaining a realization of the non-dual, about stepping out of the suffering of the manifest world into the bliss of causal awareness. 321 process is about gaining a fuller more complete embrace of the manifest world. They are both important aims.

    Take care, Don

  •  07-29-2007, 6:55 AM 26533 in reply to 26517

    Re: Myth of the Given and the Work of Byron Katie

    Dear  All:   This is great.   I am getting this.  In one sense I have made it more complex that it is.   This is the kind of thing that I need to go along with KW's book because of my thinking process.   I did not mention that Ihad just sent some of Byron's work to a client that was on u tube.  The part that I did not agree with while she was working with this man, had nothing to do with what we are talking about. However the result with her client (the man) was excellent in my opinion.  I just got tired of the sweetie, darling, dear precious adjectives.  But he was right there and got the point.  So that was a matter of taste for me.

    Again, it is just a matter of her changing a couple of things, as KW said in the book. And as Don and I have mentioned, he thought highly of her techniques.  This is so helpful to me.  This is the kind of thing I want and need but I could not even figure out how to ask the question.   KW has said recently that we do not have to read all of these books.   However, I feel that we do have to understand this one and these points.   I am grateful for this discussion.  One of the things that I would like is to have a teacher available on a Forum.    Vince Lombardi  coach of the Green Bay Packers  said to his team after a lousy first half in the locker room.   He was holding a football in his hand.   "OK boys listen up.  We are going to start at the beginning.

    This is a football".   I need to start that simple and go thru examples and Ihave also found it very helpful to try and see how this could work if the author did change "a few things"  as KW says.  Actually,  I would be soaking it up.  The rest of you could be tutors.  Hopefully this, thread will come to the attention of the right person who can get it to right person and that will become a possibility.   Thanks to all of you for participating on this thread.    Warmly , Pattye

    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  07-29-2007, 11:16 AM 26543 in reply to 26533

    Re: Myth of the Given and the Work of Byron Katie

    Dear Pattye:  Thanks for your post.  Actually, I did get a chance to ask Katie about the Myth of the Given and the Work.  BTW, she goes by Katie although the published name is Byron Katie.  I will summarize her response and hope that I do so faithfully:

    1.  The Work questions all Myths that we take to be Given. 

    2.  The Work is only four questions that don't even ask to be used.  It is not a theory, so how can it be limited by anything. 

    3.  The Work takes nothing and leaves nothing.  It is an enquiry. 

    I don't think that Katie was familiar with the concept of the Myth of the Given, so my quick explanation had to suffice for her response.  My experience of her is that she is fearless in questioning anything including her own understanding which gives me confidence that a dialog on this concept will get everyone on the same page sooner or later.  As Don agrees with in his post above, the fixes on intersubjectivity are easy and something that is already incorporated in the Work, although Ken may not be aware of it.  That said, how we incorporate Structure/Stages of Consciousness into the Work is another open question.  I believe that there is general consensus that the Work leads to an awakening to the Causal State as Ken agrees in Integral Spirituality. Stages of Consciousness are another matter.  My best understanding thus far is to use the Work to touch causal emptiness as often as I can be questioning all beliefs that conflict with reality and cause me suffering.  As a result, I find myself in the moment as I Am.  My evolution is the work of Eros and that is God's business.  As Katie says, there are only three kinds of business.  Mine, Yours and God's.  Eros has been around before the egoic me, so I leave that to God. 

    I am looking forward to asking Ken about all this and hope to have the chance in the next Integral Consciousness conference call.  Unfortunately, the earlier call was postponed - so we wait - for now.

    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  07-29-2007, 12:24 PM 26546 in reply to 26543

    Re: Myth of the Given and the Work of Byron Katie

    The Work is still stuck in the Myth of the Given, partly because it does not care about the Myth of the Given and has no ambition to address it. Letting go of a belief or a concept (as you would do in The Work) does not mean that you have questioned where that belief originated in the first place, at least how it relates to culture, language structure, etc. This is similar to most meditation processes where you let go of all attachments to beliefs and concepts. Letting go of beliefs and concepts is not the same as having deconstructed them and doing a post-modern analysis of them.

    This is a confusing subject to be sure, and over at IIZaadz I've tried explaining the exact same thing to Buddhist practitioners - and encountered a lot of resistance.

    The fact that The Work or Buddhism doesn't intrinsically address the Myth of the Given really takes nothing away from either method. A few well thought out sentences can remedy this, leaving all important components of the respective methods intact.


    All best,
    Pelle

    http://integraleurope.org
    http://pelle.gaia.com
    http://malmointegral.blogspot.com
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  07-29-2007, 2:11 PM 26551 in reply to 26546

    Re: Myth of the Given and the Work of Byron Katie

    Pelle:  I am not sure that your post adds to what has already been discussed in the thread.  Also, my experience of the Work is that one does not "let go of beliefs" as you state.  I do the enquiry and the belief let's go of me!  In fact the 4 questions are a deconstruction of the belief.  This is radically different from traditional meditation practices, where people struggle with letting go of stressful thoughts.  If you have not already done so, I would invite you to visit thework.com and review some of the stored enquiries. 

    I would love to know what "those few well thought sentences" are that would remedy traditional meditation and The Work after you are certain that you have thoroughly reviewed and understood it. 

    Regards,

    Ravi

     

    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  07-29-2007, 3:27 PM 26559 in reply to 26551

    Re: Myth of the Given and the Work of Byron Katie

    Ravi,

    It's funny how I get the exact same argument from you as from the Buddhists in the I-I pod at Zaadz. Namely: you cannot criticize my method/Work/meditation because you are not an expert of it.
    Oh well, not much I can say against that.

    I do get the Myth of the Given (MOTG) though, and what I stated above in my previous post is precisely what a lot of traditions and methods lack, that what is presented to one's consciousness it co-created by yourself and that this co-creation is heavily influenced by cultural and intersubjective programming. As long as this is not explicitly stated and part of the method, then that method does not per definition deal with the MOTG. Please, understand that I do not advocate that every method should deal with the MOTG, just like every method doesn't deal with neurobiology or hermeneutics. A method/practice can be highly valuable anyhow, it simply cannot claim to have dealt with the MOTG.

    Thanks for listening, I'll bow out now and make room for those interested in discussing The Work and Byron Katie on a deeper level.


    All best,
    Pelle

    http://integraleurope.org
    http://pelle.gaia.com
    http://malmointegral.blogspot.com
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  07-29-2007, 8:08 PM 26566 in reply to 26559

    Re: Myth of the Given and the Work of Byron Katie

    Pelle! Don't go! Please give me an example of a method that explicitly states, considers, etc. the myth of the given. I want to make sure I'm getting all of it and would like to see an example, if there is one. Thanks,

    Your friend,

    MM

    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  07-29-2007, 11:33 PM 26579 in reply to 26566

    Re: Myth of the Given and the Work of Byron Katie

    Yes, Please pelle would you do that.   I hear what you are saying and my motivation to know is not that I am pushing that part that does not matter that much.   I just want to be Integrally Informed and very clear because as  small as this kind of thing is, it can make a great difference to certain people .  I have stated that I am not able to use that method ,, I just feel strongly that there are quite a few techniques out there that will end up cont. to be important in the future and this kind of thing will cont. to come up.   I have another example that I have mentioned before but will not load this down with that.   Perhaps at another time with  a Thread ( see I am learning).    And I am impressed that the others have taken the time to think this through and come up with their questions esp. if they are getting valuable help.  Ken was clear on that point and I was supporting that since I do know enough about "Katie" from reading her and hearing from others.   And since you are a Psychiatrist (non practicing) and I am a Psychotherapist, I think you will understand that these issues are going to really come to the forefront like a run away train at some point.   I mention (non  practicing only because you have clarified that yourself)..    I need to be clear. Thanks Pattye
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  07-30-2007, 2:38 AM 26585 in reply to 26566

    Re: Myth of the Given and the Work of Byron Katie

    D-monk and Pattye,

    Ok, I'll give an example.

    Let's say I have been brought up in a very Christian environment, and one day when I'm older I take up a Christian meditation practice (centering prayer for example). As my practice progresses, I one day experience a very strong moment where energy washes over me and I see dozens of angels circling around me and hear them sing. Needless  to say it's a powerful moment for me, and it only strengthens my belief that Christianity is the most accurate religion; after all, I saw Christian symbols and not Taoist ones.

    If I return to my teacher and s/he simply acknowledges my experience and urges me to continue to practice, then I will continue to be stuck in the MOTG, I will continue to believe that that which appears in my consciousness is "real".

    I continue doing my practice, and over time I push into a new state which feels more like emptyness, and the angels no longer appear. This makes me realize that the angels weren't real, they were simply phenomena on my way to something deeper - but this still doesn't mean that I get the MOTG!

    One day I go to a new teacher, and s/he explains to me that the reason I saw angels when I felt the flood of energy the first time, was because I was brought up a Christian, and my mind  co-created the images of angels. Had I been brought up within an eastern framework I might have a seen a god with 1000 arms or something else.

    So understanding that a phenomenon is not real and that you do not have to feel bound to it is not enough to have dealt with the MOTG. Only when you explictly realize and can articulate that your own cultural framework leads to you seeing those specific symbols, then can you claim to have applied the MOTG.

    And if you fully fully understand the MOTG, then you will realize that the moment you open your mouth to start instructing others how to meditate, or if you try to relate your experiences to them - then you will unavoidably color your instruction and your story with your cultural background, your personal programming and last but not least the level of consciousness you've reached in the relative realm (your psychograph in other words).

    Hope that helps,


    Pelle

    http://integraleurope.org
    http://pelle.gaia.com
    http://malmointegral.blogspot.com
    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
Page 1 of 2 (20 items)   1 2 Next >
View as RSS news feed in XML
 © Integral Institute, 2006. all rights reserved - powered by enlight™ email this page del.icio.us | terms of service | privacy policy | suggestion box | help