Years ago, cannot recall the exact date, I went to one of Gregg Braden and Bruce Lipton's 2 day roadshows which was great. I love them both and their research is original and legitimate. They are both brilliant minds at work.
At one of the breaks I was speaking alone with Bruce Lipton and asked him about his DNA & RNA demonstration with rolling up his shirt sleeve - has anyone seen him do that? Well, I mentioned that JZ Knight also taught that at RSE and he point blank said to me "That is MY material. I spoke at the ranch at an event years ago and taught that from the stage. That is my original example". He then went on to tell me how he thought there is something not quite right with RSE and would not be going back there in a hurry. Compare what JZ / ramtha teaches with Bruce Lipton's material and you will see another source where early material came from.
See you soon "folkies'!!!
"The truth will set you free"
Hope this does not burst any bubbles, but I am a guy with a pin
I reviewed this book by Bruce Lipton in 2009 for amazon.com:
29 of 34 people found the following review helpful
the cell gods, January 19, 2009
By Joe P. SzimhartThis review is from: The Biology of Belief: Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter, & Miracles (Hardcover)
One of my clients under the influence of a controversial New Age guru gave me Bruce Lipton's The Biology of Belief to read because it largely represents my client's world view. I spent an evening going through the book. My reaction was, No wonder. Lately I have had time to read the book thoroughly and make notes. The "Notes" section of blank pages at the end came in handy so I thank Doctor Lipton for including it. Up front, I must inform the reader that I have had a long career as a deprogrammer, euphemistically known as an exit counselor. In that capacity I am more interested in how someone sets up someone else to accept a belief and more importantly a false belief. Bruce Lipton expresses the same concern but from a different mindset.
The author dedicates his book so: "Gaia: The Mother of us all. May she forgive us our trespasses." Philosophically Lipton easily fits the New Age paradigm that grew out of the Sixties hippy movement. The old paradigm of science and religion (especially Christian) he says is patriarchal, neo-Darwinian, gene-centered, linear, materialistic, Newtonian, practically loveless and hell-bent. His New Biology is feminist, neo-Lamarckian, epigenetically centered, holistic, quantum conscious, spiritual, and love-directed to White Light. One-star reviewers on amazon.com have taken Lipton's book to task on his misrepresentation of the sciences, so I will not belabor the details. I will say that Lipton includes enough real scientific teaching to easily impress and confuse the non-specialist--and that is a key to grasping why I am critical of Lipton. On the other end the five-star reviewers offer praises glowing in so much white light they brought a tear to my eye.
I gathered that Lipton was a research scientist in biology. He mentions being with Stanford University (1987-1992) many times doing research on cells. My contacts among professors at Stanford never heard of him, so I am not sure what capacity Lipton believes he was connected to Stanford. Lipton was also a biology teacher who had an epiphany about the nature of reality in mid-career. He was so excited that he enthusiastically approached a student with the discovery that the cell's membrane is the cell's brain with "This is great s#*t!" His epiphany eventually led him away from academia on to the New Age lecture circuit where he promotes his New Biology message. Essentially, Lipton sums up his new biology in his intro:
"In the immortal words of Tool Time's Tim Taylor: "Baaaack the truck up. Is he saying that humans are God?"
Well...yes I am. Of course, I am not the first to have said that. It is written in Genesis that we are made in the image of God. Yes, this card carrying rationalist is now quoting Jesus, Buddha and Rumi." (xxvi)
Before some of you toss Lipton into the fires of Inquisition, keep in mind that the divine or supernatural aspect of human nature is nothing new. We have only to turn to ancient myths, major religions, cartoons and Shakespeare in Hamlet (What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god!) --or if you prefer, Shirley MacLaine and Deepak Chopra. More to the point, Lipton is another player in the neo-occult revivals. New Thought religions appeared in the late 19th Century after Mesmer and later Phinias P. Quimby stumbled upon mental healing through suggestion and redirecting beliefs. Quimby asserted first that this was Christian science. In other words, Jesus performed his miracles this scientific way and we can do it better--"greater things shall ye do..." said Jesus to his Apostles. The cults of positive thinking, mind over matter, and being perfect in the moment began in earnest as a result.
Now Lipton wants us all to join the party. Let us celebrate the new consciousness together. "Many spiritual people anticipate the return of White Light to the planet. They imagine that it will come in the form of a unique individual like Buddha, Jesus, or Muhammed. However, from my newly acquired spirituality, I see that White Light will only return to the planet when every human being recognizes every other human being as an individual frequency of the White Light...Our job is to protect and nurture each human frequency so that the White Light can return." (164). Nice idea but it comes across as suspiciously totalistic--note the language and the narcissism.
"Many spiritual people" were once Ariosophists, Communists, and Futurists a hundred years ago. Those good folks wanted a utopia too and ended up with a Hitler, a Stalin and a Mussolini. Now, I am not implying what many in the Fundamentalist Christian cults imply, that the New Age Movement is some kind of satanic conspiracy. The Satan I imagine would be better organized. Looking to one of the author's heroes, I doubt very much that the Buddha would endorse Lipton's supernatural proclivities. Buddha was prone to avoid metaphysical speculation. As for Jesus, well, we only have to recall what the Gospel says he said about the last judgment and false prophets. Or was he being merely "negative"?
What about the "image of God" invoked by Lipton from Genesis? The Jewish scripture maintains in the Elohist tradition that "Let us (Elohim) make man in our image, after our likeness" (Genesis 1:26). However, in another tradition seen in Genesis 2:7 we find God portrayed as a potter forming man (adam) out of clay or ground (adama). This is why Isaiah 45:9-11 later states: "Woe to him who contends with his Maker; a potsherd among potsherds. Dare the clay say to its modeler, "What are you doing?"" Lipton seems to have adopted the typical occultist's confused reality. He wants us to be the holy trinity of God the Potter, man the potter, and Harry Potter all at the same time.
The ancients in many traditions already knew what happens when man tries to be God. And they also knew how easily we fall prey to the urge to create God in our image. To put it another way understandable to the quantum conscious Lipton, we have a loooooong way to go before our galaxy cares a whit what we do with our petty Self-realizations. Lipton's New Biology succeeds only in thrusting us back into the same geo-centric universe of the medieval mind. Dear Gaia, forgive us our trespasses indeed.
Lipton points to the Inquisition and how it executed Giordano Bruno for defending Copernicus' cosmology supporting the sun, not the earth, as the center of our world. "[Bruno] was burned at the stake for this heresy." This is misleading. Bruno was executed, however tragically, for heresy, divination, magic, and alleged immoral behavior. Although Bruno's views on Copernicus were controversial there was no official Church policy on Copernicus and his revolutionary if flawed science at the time. The subtext implied by Lipton is that he is like Bruno, a heretic, thus we are like the unholy Inquisition when we criticize his ideas. Spare me the grandiosity.
Oh, then there are those magical, loving bonobos that avoid violence and conflict with happy sex. Lipton begins this section on page 169 with the poet Rumi's words on the power of love and somehow our author drifts into a comparison with a chimp species. Bonobos he says "create peaceful communities with co-dominant males and females in charge...They diffuse their diverse energy by having sex." The Wall Street Journal reported in a December 27, 2008 article by Lionel Tiger "Of Monkeys and Utopia" that bonobos, even females, in the wild of the Congo "engage in clearly willful and challenging hunts. Indeed, female bonobos took full part in some ten hunts observed thus far. Another paradise lost." Lipton seems to have relied solely on an earlier 1980s study by Franz de Waal who observed bonobos using sexual resolution while they were in a lab setting only.
The bottom line for me is that Doctor Lipton cannot have it both ways. His false dichotomies and poorly researched positions deflate the positive intent of his message. His balloon will not fly except as a capitalist enterprise in New Age literature and workshop circuits. Why capitalist? Read the Addendum and his endorsement of Psych-K that incorporates the controversial muscle-testing type of kinesiology. He seems to enjoy being "out-on-a-limb" and no doubt he has benefited or he would not be there. As long as Lipton remains in that self-sealing feedback loop he risks living the very thing he teaches us to avoid...like one of his cells adapting to the special environment it likes, for better or for worse.
Perhaps the author should revisit his title for Chapter 2: "It's the Environment, Stupid."
- David McCarthy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2594
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:09 am
- Location: New Zealand
Give the girl a break...
Next you'll be debunking.. that the Lord God Godvida didn't bring chocolate to Earth
The Biology of Belief Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter and Miracles, reads like an amalgam of RSE's intention theories, Scientology-like trapped emotions (Psych-K instead of N-grams) and Masaru Emoto's water energy talk. Biology also reads like an info-mercial the way RSE's publications are sales tools to get erstwhile masters to spend on RSE, "events." At no point does Lipton actually explain how to do any unleashing; instead the unleashing is left to mention at the end of the book that one may take a Psych-K course from Rob Williams for $350.
Lipton is like several of the other New Age scientists that have been sucked over from conventional science to the dark side of mumbo jumbo. Like JZ Knight, Lipton is full of biological and quantum physics terminology that is words that are glued together, but aren't scientifically consistent or theoretically relevant. One sees this disingenuous co-opting of scientific jargon by the New Age movement over and over again, as if the use of established jargon somehow validates preposterous assertions just because the same jargon was previously used in a different context where facts have been established and theories tested. The difference is the assertions of Lipton, Knight, et al have not withstood testing nor have been demonstrated to be repeatable. Too often, New Agers get sucked up in pursuit of money in the form of book deals and seminars rather than in pursuit of new science and expanding knowledge. That's the difference between Buddhist monks and JZ Knight and friends.
It is too bad that New Age purveyors are in pursuit of money instead of truth. I think there is plenty we don't know yet. It is clear that in our own bodies that mind over matter really works. To that extent I'll give it to Lipton that he does recognize that fact. There is plenty we can learn about how mind really affects matter.
I also wish I could master typing. Of course, that should have read, "out loud," not "out lod!" I wish there were a way we could edit our own postings so we could fix typographical errors.
UKgirl, please do not feel undone by anything written here--not personal.
However, ideas in the form of beliefs and scientific claims are fair game for discussion. Lipton crossed over to becoming another new age prophet when his "science" failed to impress his peers in science. The latter field is quite rigorous--unfortunately, Lipton fails as a rigorous scientist, so he has become a 'magician' instead selling magical techniques and potions with cure all labels.
emerging from a cult like RSE is no easy task--as UK girl stated, you are all are lucky to have this forum.
I recall those days in 1980 when i was in utter confusion at times for many months, weeks of panic attacks, NO ONE to turn to that grasped the cult i was exiting, no Internet, no critical books about the group [just a few news articles], no former members group, no map to navigate out of rough waters. It took me years to sort through what remained in my inner belief struture re Theosophy, New Thought, world religions, and the difference between science and magic.
My work as a street artist and carpenter and having my dear little daughter Nadia, then barely 3, to care for 2-3 days a week kept me acting sane...until a fateful day in Oct of 1980...but that is a longer story....when it all began to clear up and the panic anxiety subsided for good...
I too like Bruce Lipton's work & have been to a few of his workshops. When my husband was sick he was very helpful to me. When I admitted I hadn't read his book he rushed out to his car & gave me a signed copy Free!!!
Its been great to read your insights, thanks for sharing
It was all too much like the trademark issue found with RSE stuff. Conversely, in 30 years of attending continuing education in physical and nutritional therapies, I have not once been required to use that designation if I choose to list additional diplomas gained through completing courses. Similarly, I have never found that requirement applied to Buddhist or any other conventional religious studies.
At any rate, after this woman became a certified Psych-K practitioner and set up shop, I had occasion to speak with one of her clients with respect to her experiences with the 'therapy'. The client said that at first, she felt it to be beneficial but that sense of being beneficial soon gave way to problems in maintaining the integration of her new found knowledge (on how to transform her thought processes), with her actual reality. Ultimately she was diagnosed with manic depression and ended up on medication after experiencing what was described as a psychological emergency (One cold November day, she walked into a lake, fully clothed and was discovered by her neighbour in a state of incoherence). She was released from the hospital (psychiatry ward) after a couple of weeks and then attended regular counseling with both a psychiatrist and a board certified clinical counselor.
Apparently the counselor told her that a problem that many people run into with new-age type thought reformations and seeking help from those who promote them, is that there is a tendency to deny psychological or psychiatric issues. With little, if any room provided for those potentials, the client is pressed to be responsible for over-riding negative thought patterns and supplanting them with the recommended more positive ones.
The counselor went on to say that she felt that the practitioners of such new-age theories did not have the educational background or training to deal with clients who may either be in, or go on to experience psychological or psychiatric crisis.
That last point really hit home; because it was very much in alignment with the experience toward the end of my RSE experience. At that time, it seemed that as more questions arose with respect to the validity of the disciplines being the path to enlightenment, the more I was made to feel a failure and that only made me feel even more isolated than I already was. There simply was not any recognition in myself or others at that time that I may have been experiencing the beginnings of some sort of pshychological melt down.
I now realize that this was because RSE promoted that if one was experiencing problems that they were at fault for either not doing the disciplines correctly, enough, sincerely etc and that 'doubt' was the fundamental problem. Moreover, should one attempt to speak of experiencing such problems with RSE affiliates, the RSE staff and even the other attendees (students) were quick to reinforce the 'problem is with your thought process, master...' dogma.
Is it any wonder that many experience serious psychological problems as a result of RSE and what is promoted there? It makes me wonder how often this occurs and goes unnoticed until someone or some facility is required to help pick up the pieces...if they are in fact recoverable.
It seems that Lipton's Psych-K is simply another form of the 'problem is with your thinking process'; and promotes self denial, rather than understanding or valid coping solutions to what may be very real psychological issues. Given that, I would suggest treading very carefully with it and similar programs.
Perhaps Joe could elaborate on this more effectively; given his experiences with what he seems to deal with on a regular basis in a hospital psych unit.
With love, Kensho
Booker T. Washington
I think, Virginia, you raise a very interesting point with that question - "What if Jesus was the Ramtha of his day?"
As one who studies world faiths and philosophies out of a wish to understand them, I have formed the notion that Jesus, who probably did exist and did some of the things attributed to him, has been "lost in translation" somewhat. There are two Jesuses, in effect: the one who lived and breathed and walked on the earth is one, while the other is a legend or myth or product of rival political and social factions striving to have a hero, a central rallying point, or an inspiration, or even, a bogeyman. The values in the Christian tradition are mostly good ones to live by: Love one another, don't give in to you lower basic impulses, rise above anger, fear, lust, greed, envy and keep yourself aligned with right living, right principles and so on. These same values and principles are taught in most major religions, and also held by humanists, pagans, and atheists. Yet, Jesus has been used by many in order to justify prejudice, inequality, tyrany or injustice.
I don't believe Christ was a con artist, although sometimes I wonder about clergy and churches.
Also Joe even though I appreciate you debunking so much new age crap that's out there you may want to start in your own back yard. I find nothing to be as big a cult as the catholic church.
I can appreciate all your concerns about the Catholic Church, who "Jesus" really was, and about all of us "catholics" [Orthodox or Reformed Jews, Shiite or Sunni Muslims, Sikhs, Lutherans---all the older, established religions] that have a long history in human debate.
This may have to be another thread..I often get this reaction from former and current cult members re the Vatican and Roman Catholicism as "the biggest cult out there."
It may surprise you, or not, but I try to apply the same ethics and skepticism to the [my] Catholic religion as I do to any piss-ant group like Ramtha or Scientology. The RC as a whole in its history has caused far more damage than any small cult like RSE ever will.....but there is more to the story in terms of the good it has done. Critique of the RC to my mind falls under a different category of scholarship due the the extensive literature and spilled ink over the centuries about it.
When studying Christianity, it becomes apparent that the old Christians addressed many of the same errors that new cults continue to miss or repeat in terms of knowledge, conduct and governance. eg, St Augustine addressed 'magical thinking' and reason 1700 years ago...this has been an ongoing debate within the Christian tradition [as well as Jewish and Muslim--in fact, all the old religions]. It depends how deeply you care to look into it.
If you read any of my comments, I do not and will not defend the Catholic church in this forum....what I do when appropriate is try to get the facts right about Catholic doctrine or history as I might about any cult by any other name. One of my frustrations when I lecture about cults or a cult is getting the audience to grasp what the cult actually teaches and does as opposed to the conditioned stereotypes most people hold in their heads about any religion or cult.
the other problem is that JZ started this fire w the Pope, Vatican etc as her main target. If she targeted the Dalia Lama/Buddhism or Islam, I would be doing the same thing for those old religions.
All I ask of anyone, is: get your facts straight, then hurl your critiques.