(An update on some previous entries)

The Work of Byron Katie is unlike anything else. However, it seems that the mind's job is to compare and contrast. The mind has a hard time with something if it can't place it in a category. And, any categorization of The Work is placing limits on it. At the same time, discussing The Work in these ways helps me to communicate better with my colleagues and clients. Of course better than describing The Work is doing The Work. The Work speaks for itself and describes itself in the doing of it.

That being said, here goes:

The approach to psychotherapy known as "Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy" is said to be a method of "cognitive restructuring." You identify your irrational thoughts and see how they lead to painful emotions like fear, depression, anger, etc. You then notice how those irrational thoughts and their resulting emotions lead to actions that cause even more pain for yourself and others. Thought = Emotion = Behavior.

Therefore, if we want to change our emotions and behavior we need to work on changing our thoughts. This is where cognitive restructuring comes in. We replace our irrational, unhealthy thoughts with rational, healthy ones. We "challenge" our unhealthy thinking. Healthy thinking will lead to healthy emotions that results in healthy behavior.

So, how does The Work of Byron Katie differ from this approach? Some people might think that The Work is just a re-packaged form of REBT. I use to tell people over and over again that this is not so. However, I had a hard time explaining how it differs. I have done much thinking about this and have come upon a way of explaining the differences that seems to make sense to me.

I know that I am not the first one to put it this way. One of my favorite books is The Sacred Mirror: Nondual Wisdom and Psychotherapy. There is a chapter in this book called "Deconstructing the Self: The Uses of Inquiry in Psychotherapy and Spiritual Practice" by Stephan Bodian that specifically refers to The Work along with other methods of inquiry. He essentially says the same thing that I have realized. He calls it "deconstructing" to distinguish it form "reconstructing." In Emptiness Dancing Adyashanti says it in his own way. He refers to the difference between "re-framing" and "de-framing." Along with those terms I would like to add a third - "cognitive de-structuring."

The little prefix "de" means "undoing." That other prefix "re" means "repetition of a previous action; back to an earlier state or condition; again; contrary." De-construction, de-framing and de-structuring, therefore, have to do with undoing our mental constructs, frames of reference, and thought structures. We are not repeating the same old process of creating mental constructs - no matter how "healthy" they might be. We are not going back to an earlier state. We are not doing again what has failed us in the past - i.e., constructing thoughts to explain reality. We are not creating thought forms that are contrary to the way things are.

The process, using The Work, is something like this: We identify our unhealthy thinking. We inquire into the truth of these thoughts and see that they are not true for us. We see the suffering that results from believing thoughts that are not true. We get a glimpse of what life would be like without these thoughts and we turn them around. All of this results in our thoughts loosening their grip on us. We do not change them. We do not stop them. We question them, and they let go of us. The thought structures are seen as just that - thought structures. They are not reality. And, as Eckhart Tolle says in A New Earth, "all structures are unstable."

Another way of putting this is that one approach has to do with moving from one way of thinking (unhealthy, irrational) to a different way of thinking (healthy, rational). The problem is that we are still operating in the realm of thinking. It is like taking a pig and putting lipstick and a dress on it -- you still have a pig.

The other approach is about moving from a way of thinking (stressful) to a way of being (peace itself). The fourth question of The Work is "Who would you be without that thought?" It is a question about being. The Work takes us out of the realm of thinking all-together and opens us up to our true nature.

We see that a pig is a pig no matter how we might dress it up. A thought is just a thought. It does not define reality no matter how "rational" or "healthy" it is. Who we are is that which is there before the thought, that which is background (often obscured) during the thought, and that which remains after the thought is questioned.

In my definition of nondual therapy I mention an aspect of the therapeutic relationship called a "holy encounter."  This is an idea from A Course in Miracles that I think is very important when it comes to psychotherapy.  But what is meant by this idea?  What does a "holy encounter" look like or consist of?  Here is how Robert Perry describes the holy encounter in his amazing book Return to the Heart of God: The Practical Philosophy of A Course in Miracles:

"One person allows into her mind a fresh perception of the other, and this sparks an encounter in which both individuals experience a new view of each other.  The chalice of true perception is passed back and forth, and as they both drink of it, they are lifted together into a timeless moment.  This moment may feel spiritual or it may not.  Yet neither one will leave it the same person, and the change that enters in this moment may change countless lives beyond their own" (emphasis added).

He then goes on to say something about this "true perception":

"The true perception that is exchanged in these encounters is a way of seeing the other person that overlooks all that would make us recoil from him or her.  This true perception, then, is simply another way of talking about forgiveness.  Forgiveness is the active ingredient in holy encounters....  [T]he full power of forgiveness lies not in the private experience of it, but in the giving and receiving of it.  That is where forgiveness has maximal power to change us and change the world around us.  And that is why the Course teaches that it is 'holy encounters in which salvation can be found" (emphasis added).  

You might then be wondering what the Course means by forgiveness.  If you are not a student of the Course or if you have not read much about it, you will probably have a very different understanding of the concept of forgiveness than is taught in the Course.  Perry often likes to distinguish between the "conventional view" and the "unconventional view" when it comes to many of the basic concepts of the Course.  It is important that we understand the differences between these two views when it comes to the concept of forgiveness.

The conventional view of forgiveness is based in the belief in "the reality of sin."  Here is how Perry defines it in his Glossary of Terms from A Course in Miracles: 

"Giving up your resentment towards another and your right to punish him, even though you keep the perception that he sinned against you and that you are justified in resenting and punishing him.  According to the Course, this forgiveness cannot forgive, for it affirms that the other sinned and thus is worthy of condemnation (yours and his own).  It also affirms that you are holier than he, because he sinned and you forgave."

The unconventional view of forgiveness is based on the "unreality of sin."  Here is how Perry defines it:

"Giving up your false perception that another sinned against you and that you are justified in resenting and punishing him....  Releasing another not from what he did, but from 'what he did not do,' from your [or his] misperception of what he did.  This can forgive, for it frees your mind of resentment and releases the other from the accusation of sin and guilt.  The rational behind forgiveness is that sin is not real.  It is a wrong perception of attack.  Attack has no power to do real harm, because what is real (in you and in your 'attacker') cannot be harmed or changed in any way.  The ultimate rationale for forgiveness is that 'the separation never occurred,' that 'I am as God created me,' that 'God's Son is guiltless'" (emphasis added).   

Perhaps now we can understand what is meant by these words that open the Course:

What all of this tells me about the "therapeutic relationship" is that my client comes to my office with their false perception of sin and its resulting guilt.  They come to me believing that they have sinned or that the world has sinned against them.  They feel both guilt and resentment and believe that both of them are justified.  If I am unconscious I will also get caught up in this misperception and start believing in this same worldview of sin, guilt and resentment.  

My job as a therapist, then, is to allow a true perception to enter into the relationship and communicate that perception to my client (not necessarily in words at first).  By not reacting to the client's misperception, but instead offering a wholly new perception, the potential is there for both of us to be lifted into a holy encounter.  The client's perception of me (and of themselves) begins to change.  By joining with the client in the unreality of sin and the reality that the separation never occurred, both of us are changed by this meeting.  And, the ripple effect of that meeting extends in countless directions, impacting countless lives.