This is a touch one to review because I think the four questions and the turn-around can be extremely helpful when questioning your own perceptions of a situation and understanding that it is impossible to have all of the information.

It is something that I have begun doing and have found it to be useful and critical to my own self-examination. Honestly, it usually is us that is causing our own pain.

BUT. BUT. BUT. This also comes across as victim blamey in things like child sex abuse. Yes, we can only deal with our own processing of a situation. I think Katie says that in a really horrible way that could be painful to survivors of abuse or other trauma.

Bottom line. I'm relatively mentally healthy and can acknowledge that I do a bunch of things that cause my own problems. This kind of tool is useful for me to get out of my own head and try to understand the entirety of a situation and control my own reactions. It is, however, not a one size fits all kind of thing, and people should be aware of that before they read this.

I listened to this mostly while on a 4 hour drive and while walking my dog. I don't usually like to treat books as background noise but it worked in this case.

If you're not already familiar with Byron Katie's process of inquiry that she calls "the work" you should start with "Loving What Is: Four Questions That Can Change Your Life". Read that and then actually put her process of inquiry into practice a few times. This book will make much more sense if you have that background first.

In "Loving What Is" Byron Katie relates how she experiences daily life as someone who lives in a constant state of witnessing, non-dual awareness. That is a difficult concept for anyone to get across - reference the long tradition of inscrutable Zen Koans which to some extent attempt the same thing. She manages this quite well though, helped partly by the fact that she is unencumbered by religious tradition or non-western cultural view. I find a strong resonance between what she says and my reading of historical accounts of enlightenment experiences, mostly in the Zen Buddhism tradition. She is radically honest about her thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. Such honesty means she sometimes says things which on first hearing may make you want to throw down the book in disgust. Only when kept in the perspective of her life and process of inquiry are these comments rendered acceptable or meaningful.

Skepticism of those who claim to be spiritual teachers based on some spontaneous enlightenment experience is always warranted. After viewing Byron Katie with a somewhat skeptical eye and comparing her to others I have studied and rejected, I think she may be the real deal.

O carte ce merită sa fie citită si recitită

When I started reading this book I had a very strange sense of deja vu until I remembered that the first chapter had been assigned as required reading in a previous course.

I was glad that I had the opportunity to read the entire book, since the first chapter did hold some interesting points.

In this book the author introduces her concept The Work, which provides a person the ability to see reality for what it is, reduce cognitive confusion and make peace with the uncontrollable aspects in life.

The author simplifies that which most of us spend too much time worrying about and provides the reader (beginning practitioner of this concept) with the permission to judge (ourselves and other people) in the comfort of the page in order to uncover stressful elements in one's life.

Generally speaking, this book can be a good resource for finding peace within through the act of writing (non-creative/non fiction writing) and reducing stress. It is a book that needs to be treated like a manual, read and re-read as one familiarizes themselves with the steps and procedure of The Work.

Personally, chapters 7 and 9 contained the most value for me, someone who has been studying the field of (creative) writing for personal development, although up until chapter 7 the explanations and elaboration can seem a bit long winded and drawn out.

A word of caution: this concept is meant to aid in the acceptance of reality; however, I found the steps listed in the book may sometimes sound like an easy way into oblivion. Therefore, this concept is a process that needs time and practice.

Overall, I would recommend this book to anyone, who shows interest in the field of writing for personal development.

ElliotScribbles

Honestly I’m not even sure how to review this book.
I was in London, in Foyles, in the self help section and liked the title and the cover (the cover is different now than it is in the picture shown on goodreads or I would have thought twice)
I quickly went onto Amazon and saw it had 4.7 stars and thousands of reviews so presumed it would be a safe bet.
The book suggests that there are four questions that will change your life, so any negative thought you have can be challenged and turned around by the questions which will bring you peace and lead you to ‘love what is’.

I wish the author had used the word ‘accept’ what is instead as it would have been more palatable, although I can see some benefits to inquiry and reflecting on what we think ‘should’ happen, as this can cause inner turmoil, I can’t get my head around a lot of what is said, to the point that I’m shocked.

The author suggests we should love what Hitler did because it’s the reality of what happened and that we should try to find some positives about him as a person, I find even considering that abhorrent.
During her interviews she also encouraged a woman who was sexually abused by her father to focus on how wonderful he was.

I don’t really know what else to say, it gives cultish vibes and I just felt agitated by the author and couldn’t wait to finish it.

Me tomó casi un año leerlo, creo que algunos de los conceptos me chocaban y pues lo que te choca te checa. Fué todo un reto el leerlo, pero al final me quedo con mucho aprendizaje.

Not just 'another' self help book! Wow I found the method of Self inquiry interesting, useful, and applicable (is it really true, who would I be without the thought etc). Almost like a more practical approach to enlightenment, so it's spiritual without the mysticism. I remember the quote 'I am not a spiritual woman, I am a lover of truth' which I found refreshing

As I made my way through it, I kept having this unsettling feeling - esp. as I read the dialogues in it. Eventually I figured out what was confusing and challenging about it. I deeply resonate with a lot of her core principles and premises (as they are ones I've come to on my own), yet I have some very sharp disagreements with how they are applied. This made it an odd book to read for me because usually when I resonate with the basic principles and premises an author is describing I usually also resonate with the way they suggest to live them out etc., but that was not the case here.

I'll be specific.

I totally agree with the idea of there being three "types of business" in the world, mine, yours and God's (reality's). However, the lines between these aren't always as clear as she tries to make them out to be for the sake of "the work" being able to be applied so simplistically and clearly I think. For instance, if I want to have someone else be a part of my life in a significant way, and they are important to me, then how they choose to live and operate is going to have significant effects on me. And I don't believe a healthy, integrated and sane adult just resigns to accept whatever the other person is doing just because it's "not their business." In that case, if they are in my life (and I in theirs) in that way, then the lines between "our business" may be more interdependent.

What I'm trying to say here is that I believe there is a healthy human place which acknowledges how we are affected by other people (while not being codependent) and can assertively navigate (ask for what we need or want) things without being attached by way of a neurotic ego. Being assertive means we ask for what we want while letting go of the outcome and the answer if the answer is no. So in some cases, "loving what is," means accepting the fact that someone else's behavior affects us a certain way and then asking for help from them and compassionately communicating our needs while not demanding or expecting the other person to meet them - as we understand our needs are ultimately our own responsibility and the other person may only be one strategy or source of meeting our needs.

And, worst comes to worst, we may have to apply some boundaries with a person who we are wanting something from, but who doesn't genuinely have the willingness to give it to us. A boundary says, "I'm not doing this to appease or upset you, I'm doing it to take care of myself." In this case, taking care of ourselves would be choosing the amount of involvement we have with someone who we want something from but who doesn't have the genuine willingness in them to give it to us. So we can move on to other people and strategies without blaming them, though we allow ourselves, compassionately, to feel disappointed, and take that disappointment as our soul's wisdom that we do need to move on and set that boundary perhaps.

Further on the topic of assertiveness though. The poet David Whyte has this idea he talks about of "the conversational nature of reality." And the basic idea is that we bring our desires to the world and the world brings its desires to us - and what happens is often something in between. We don't get all of what we want from the world and the world doesn't get all that it wants from us. What Katie's ideology here seems to reflect is a cutting off of the conversation because it's vulnerable and leaves us open to suffering. So she advises just accepting whatever the world is like.

However, we need to realize we are also a part of the world and do have some control over what happens; and that a healthy adult realizes that and is able to be assertive without being attached. Suffering is a part of life, and truly "loving what is." I'm not sure that perfect acceptance negates all suffering. True nonattachment and acceptance fearlessly admits our humanity and vulnerability, which includes us having wishes that are not fulfilled or are frustrated. So being an integrated, healthy or sane adult does not mean we just give up what we want because it would be "arguing with reality," as Katie reiterates many times.

This took me awhile to figure out, as to why I wasn't jiving with her application of the basic premise of the book, which I agreed and agree with - that it's generally much more healthy to accept what is rather than resist or argue with it. The serenity prayer guides a lot of my internal decision making. But it seems that Katie only affirms half of it - the acceptance of what we cannot change. But there are indeed things we can change, and can exert effort towards without being attached neurotically (though, granted, I do believe this takes a good amount of inner work and transformation before one can come to this point). So I didn't see this point being affirmed - that there is a necessity to seeking the wisdom to know the difference between what we truly can and cannot change. Katie seems to opt for a rather black and white binary as to what we can and cannot change as, I imagine, this makes "the work" a lot simpler to apply.

Okay, my other main disagreement is that the application of the work felt too rationalistic and, again, simplistic to me. The reason being, a person who is applying the work is left with these binaries - "is it true?" (or false?) - when, what's usually the most helpful, I believe, is seeking understanding as to why or in what context something is true or false, not merely asking if it is or isn't.

It was especially the third question of the work that bothered me the most - "Who would you be without this thought?" and "Can you think of one stress-free reason to keep this thought?" Asking those questions leaves no room for understanding or empathizing with the legitimate reasons why we have a judgment, resistance, "should" or pain in life or towards someone. And I believe that the most powerful place of transformation is in understanding the motivation for why we are operating in a certain manner and then figuring out if there might be a better way to meet the needs motivating our behaviors. But the way the work sets it up is that one is only meant to inquire as to whether the thought creates stress or peace, and then we are asked to let the thought let go of us (I did appreciate her clarification that she isn't asking people to "drop the thought" or to try to drop it) on the basis of realizing it's not helping us feel peaceful or happy.

However, all emotions are meaningful and necessary to becoming a more integrated human being. Stress, depression or unhappiness are the not our enemies, merely the signals that perhaps we are seeking to meet a need of ours through an inefficient or unrealistic strategy. And determining whether a strategy is inefficient or unrealistic is a very personal and intuitive process that requires a good amount of self-awareness and wisdom.

In Non-Violent Communication they say that all judgments are tragic expressions of unmet needs. And this is why we can have compassion on judgments - the judgments of others and our own judgments. So that is the kind of understanding I have found to be most helpful. Whereas, what Katie seems to be suggesting is a judgment of the judgment and trying to resolve it by the mere realization that it seems to be causing us stress or may not be true from another perspective.

However, something may be true for us - and there are good reasons why we have any judgment we have. There are certain needs within us that are trying to be expressed, though we may not know how else to express them but to have a judgment or resistance to something or someone. So I find that the place of transformation is not in merely rationalistically observing whether we feel stressed or at peace with a thought, but seeking to compassionately understand every part of ourselves, even the parts of ourselves that have judgments and resistances and then letting those parts of ourselves speak so that we might understand what they are wanting and why - rather than hoping they dissipate with the simple realizing that they are causing us stress or that we would feel more happy without them.

I'll give an example. In the chapter of dialogues on relationships and family she talks with Justin who is struggling because he feels that his family doesn't accept him or his way of life and they just want him to conform to theirs. But the way Katie speaks with him, she leads him to the conclusion that it is him that's being unreasonable or unaccepting because he's equally not accepting their nonacceptance of him essentially.

This, to me, reads essentially as trying to judge our judgments out of ourselves rather than compassionately understand them and resolve them - which is what I find to work a lot better personally, and from my understanding of human nature as a psychologist.

With Justin, what I would have tried to lead him to would be a compassionate understanding of his legitimate need and desire for acceptance. It's not his need for acceptance which is causing stress, it's the unrealistic strategy of trying to have it met through his family, which, in reality, doesn't, in his experience, have the willingness or ability to meet that need. You see what I'm saying? There is a much more helpful understanding in realizing the needs which motivate our resistances and judgments are legitimate, human and reasonable. What may not be reasonable or sane is the various strategies we may be entrenched in trying to meet those needs. Maybe Justin, after truly accepting that his family may not be able to meet that need of his (right now), seeks to find other friends or groups of people who are willing and able to meet that need of his - whereas, the work seemed to just have him bucket the need and strategy together, when it was only the strategy that needed adjustment perhaps.

That's what I think is a more healthy way of "loving what is." It's not necessary to judge or demonize our resistances or judgments as being "insane" because they "argue with reality." Our needs are important, legitimate and real as human beings. What may not always be wise, reasonable or sane is the various ways we seek to have our needs met that simply probably won't, or won't right now.

I have to admit that I didn't manage to finish the book after I had these epiphanies as to why I cringed so much during the dialogues in the book. So to be fair, maybe Katie addresses some of these things that I've hit on here, I'm not sure. Also, to be fair, and to live out the ideology I'm expressing here, I am imagining that it's possible Katie is just making "the work" overtly simple in order to bridge people over into a more integrated and mature perspective and so maybe my disagreements stem from that - just seeing where there are some very important nuances and elements to understand in order to truly and most healthily love what is, in my experience at least. I will also say that I did find the simplicity and clarity of the work to be helpful in many regards too, as reminders to me of how I can live out the principles of acceptance for what is and what I cannot control better (e.g. the recognition that "should" statements in most cases signify nonacceptance or resistances that I'd do well to explore). This was a helpful reminder for me to think about what areas I still have "should" statements in and to explore why.

Some closing notes: I believe the model of cognitive behavioral therapy and its recognition of cognitive distortions to be a more helpful way of working through resistances to reality. Katie only asks in the work whether something is true or not - but I find that you come to a place of transformation and resolution much quicker if you can understand how or why something is true or not - and that's the useful part of the understanding of cognitive distortions as they are common biases or ways of thinking and perceiving that are ungrounded and unhelpful and that are often the source of a lot of our suffering and inability to face and accept what is. In addition, I'd recommend aforementioned model of non-violent communication (NVC) and its understanding of observations, feelings, needs and requests/strategies.

There are indeed some great principles in this book, ones that I deeply resonate with and that have been a part of philosophies like Taoism and Buddhism for centuries. However, there are some key nuances that I believe Katie seems to miss, which made the application of the work too simplistic and rationalistic, and ultimately not as effective as it could be if it incorporated a more humanistic and compassionate understanding of the psyche and our needs as human beings. That being said, I could concede that perhaps this could be an excellent and life-changing book for a person beginning to be exposed to such principles or philosophies. But those who are already familiar with them will probably be wasting their time trying to find something significantly insightful or transformative here other that perhaps just a reminder of and another way to word principles they are already aware of.

2007, my Annus horribilis, late that year these four questions changed my life to something recognizable again.

I listened to part of the audio version of this book, but I couldn't finish it. I first learned of this book from a smart, very successful woman who referenced it in a talk to 250 of my co-workers. She mentioned how life-changing it was to determine what was her business, someone else's business or God's business. That made sense, so I decided to check it out.

My first dumbfounded moment was in her conversation with a mother who was struggling with her young son not doing his chores, not doing his homework and sometimes lying. When the author suggested that the mother needed to accept mediocrity because the world was all about mediocrity, I almost wrecked the car. Yes, we might all be *happier* or more content if we just accepted blanket mediocrity, but where would this world be?! Thank goodness many people refuse to accept mediocrity for themselves or their children.

I was also disgusted by her nonsense that everyone's truth is equal. That is patently untrue. A member of the Taliban might determine what truth is for him, but most reasonable people will determine his truth is not equal to that of the most of the rest of the world.

Finally, the idea that we should just accept everything as is ("it is what it is" she said over and over) is absurd. Again, where would we be with this notion? We'd still have slavery; we wouldn't have civiil rights in this country; we wouldn't have people devoting their lives to social justice, the eradication of disease and poverty, etc., etc., etc.

I feel sorry for someone who believes the lies this woman is spouting.

Amazing

I've been seriously struggling with what to rate this book. Part of me wants to give it 5 stars because of how life-changing Katie's philosphy could be when properly applied. But another part of me wants to give it it 2 stars because of how high-level and froofy some parts of the book are.

I read this book because I love Brooke Castillo and Brooke Castillo loves Byron Katie. In fact, she cites her as her most influential teacher. Because I'm familiar with Brooke's interpretation of Katie's work, I appreciated this book. Otherwise, I think I think I may have very much disliked it.

In summary, what Katie teaches in this book is, "Judge your neighbor, write it down, ask four questions and turn it around." She says this repeatedly.
The structure of the book is basically a replay of past coaching sessions in which she walks people through with a bit of instruction/advice in between. I enjoyed hearing her teach people The Work, but since I was listening to this book I found the voice actors a little bit distracting at time (in particular the times when they were playing a non-native English speaker and a child).

**Judge your Neighbor**
I love that she gives permission to judge. We all judge and it's less helpful to try and suppress judgement alltogether (which for most of us is practically impossible) than it is to accept our judgements and try and explore the reasons behind it. Only after you really understand *why* you're judging can you choose to think differently about the situation/person.

**Write it Down**
Basically fill out this worksheet: https://thework.com/resources/.
Everyone in the coaching sessions in the book have a filled out worksheet before them while she asks them questions.

**Ask Four Questions**
1. Is it true?
2. Can you absolutely know that it's true?
3. How do you react when you believe that though?
4. Who would you be without that thought?

This is where it gets a little mystical. Katie argues that truth is reality. "How do I know it was supposed to happen? Because it happened." I see so much power in this, but I also understand why this is unsettling. Is it true that someone was supposed to be abused just because it happened? Well, no, probably not. But the fact is that you can't change the past, so it puts the victim in a much more powerful place to accept that it was supposed to happen than to resist reality. "When I argue with reality I lose, but only 100% of the time." Basically the answer to question #2 is always going to be no unless it's what's literally happening or happened. The good news is I don't think you have to completely buy in to Katie's perception of truth in order to benefit from the rest of her work.

Questions 3 & 4 are helpful. Why do we insist on believing things that cause us so much pain? She asks, "Can you come up with a stree-free reason to let go of your thought?" Most often the answer is no. We are often determined to hold onto 'truths' and 'shoulds' that we make ourselves miserable in the process. In many ways it comes down to whether we'd rather be right or happy.
Katie says that reality is always kinder than the story in our head. I believe this is true.

The book includes 3 coaching sessions that deal with very heavy topics. Abuse, war, and 9/11. I was very sad during these sections. I typically try to avoid hearing details about any of these topics because I just can't handle it anymore. (It doesn't get graphic, but I definitely teared up a couple times.) If you have issues with Katie's theory of reality, it's going to be most apparent here.

**Turn it Around**
Turn around the thought that is causing you pain. Find ways in which the turnarounds are as true or more true than the original. In my opinion this is the most helpful part of Katie's work.
Here's an example: If I think, "He thinks I'm bad at my job," I turn around the thought in 3 different ways:
- I think he's bad at his job
- He thinks he's bad at his job
- I think I'm bad at my job

I've come to realize myself that most thoughts are only painful if I believe them myself on some level. So feeling pain from the thought, 'He thinks I'm bad at my job' really only comes because on some level I think I'm bad at my job. This is awesome! It means that it doesn't actually matter what 'he' thinks of me. If I work on my own beliefs about myself I can COMPLETELY solve the problem. The other two turnourounds are also super helpful. They give us more compassion for others and allow us to take the locus of control for our emotions completely back into our own hands. It's an amazing feeling.

Well. That's my book report about Loving What Is. Ha.

In summary, I think this philosophy has the potential to change your life. As written, though, it's incomplete and has the potential to be off-putting and unsettling.