David R. Hawkins
Posted by:
PhoenixPotter
()
Date: June 05, 2007 08:58PM
Below are the "39 criteria for identification of teachers and teachings with integrity" according to Hawkins. I address each.
[b:6f45bb8cdb]Identification and Characteristics of Spiritual Truth, Integrous Teachers and Teachings[/b:6f45bb8cdb] By Sir David R. Hawkins, MD, PhD [www.consciousnessproject.org]
1. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Universality[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Truth is true at all times and places, independent of culture, personalities, or circumstances.
Hawkins’ AK testing contradicts this. AK is considered a pseudoscience by ICAK, skeptics, scientists, religious and spiritual people, NIH, NLM, etc. AK being a pseudoscience appears to be “universal,” except for in the minds of Hawkins and Hawkinbots.
I have been browsing "Dr David Hawkins | Power vs. Force," a discussion forum devoted to Hawkins run by Bryan Wheelock at [www.level-of-consciousness.org] and will quote from it.
The man asks for proof of AK, and sets up a good and easy test; of course, no one takes him up on his offer because it shows that AK does not work.
Sadly, due to the social milieu, the person gave up his questioning mind a couple months later and stated:
I have seen this happen a number of times, where people question Hawkins, and the groupthink takes over and they end up saying they don’t care any more what the truth is (after all, Hawkins’ “truth” is a “higher” truth).
Another person concludes that “it seems sensible that a lot of people are currently karmically prohibited from using the K-Test,” continuing by stating that “being unable to use the k-test with any consistent accuracy” was “impressive” and
Another concludes:
I guess Hawkins is one of the “very few.”
A common example of circular reasoning is later given by Bryan Wheelock:
Wheelock continues:
I guess we should just do away with the whole scientific field of psychology.
A person just joining the discussion with their mind still in tact states:
Of course followed by a typical response:
A rare moment of candor and honesty brings the thread titled “Okay..let's just come out and say it already!”
Followed by another typical comment:
2. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Nonexclusionary[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Truth is all-inclusive, nonsecretive, and nonsectarian.
AK contradicts this. There are people above 200 and below 200, which is an us vs. them mentality, which continues to be perpetrated by Hawkins by continuously setting up his spirituality vs. scientific skepticism, when in fact great minds such as Bertrand Russell and Joseph Campbell recognize that science and mysticism are not contradictory, but are one.
3. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Availability[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: It is open to all, non-exclusive. There are no secrets to be revealed, hidden, or sold, and no magical formulas or “mysteries.”
AK is only available to those “over 200.” AK also is stated to reveal all secrets, in fact. Hawkins has attempted to conceal the secret of where he received his PhD from, as just one example that contradicts this. There are many “mysteries” that arise from his AK pseudoscience. There are abundant examples, a couple of which are: sometimes you “have permission” (from the universe or “God”) to ask questions with AK and sometimes not; the date of death is set “karmically” at birth, but the date cannot be known with AK for some reason; etc.
4. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Integrity of purpose[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: There is nothing to gain or lose.
Hawkins charges a lot of money for his teachings. He is gaining. He did not tell people about his PhD, in fact actively tried to conceal this information (I demonstrated this earlier), so I must assume he believed he had something to lose, such as followers or control over the minds of others.
5. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Nonsectarian[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Truth is not the exposition of limitation.
Hawkins’ AK “truth” is sectarian in the sense that only those “above 200” can use it according to him. Truth is for people whose “consciousness” is of a sufficient level to be accessed, and truth no longer simply means facts as can be read in an encyclopedia, but truth is now on a scale and only available through muscle testing. Thus, while a person's arguments may be filled with facts, this is irrelevant to Hawkins and his followers if Hawkins can get people to believe that this person “calibrates” below 200 – truth does not mean facts, it means calibration (i.e., grandiose, pseudoscientific judgment purportedly from the divine). In fact, anything in the universe that disagrees with Hawkins is literally labeled as an “opinion,” often a “nonintengrous opinion” no less, as his “truth” is the only truth.
6. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Independent of opinion[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Truth is nonlinear and not subject to the limitations of intellect or form.
Hawkins puts all of his opinions into an absolute system and states he is not responsible for them. Truth in a scientific sense certainly is subject to intellect and form.
7. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Devoid of Positionality[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Truth is not “anti” anything. Falsehood and ignorance are not its enemies but merely represent its absence.
It seems to me that he has made an enemy out of skepticism and even rationality in many regards.
8. [b:6f45bb8cdb]No requirements or demands[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: There are no required memberships, dues, regulations, oaths, rules, or conditions.
Hawkins’ group websites do require a membership to join, such as the one he is consulted directly about regarding its content and run by his friend and neighbor in Sedona. They have in fact banned people from being members for speaking the literal truth, rather than following the party line and bleating like a sheep about everything Hawkins pontificates on. His lectures often cost money (though he has started giving some for free, good one on him in my opinion). There are a ton of regulations on the internet group Hawkins is secretly associated with:
9. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Noncontrolling[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Spiritual purity has no interest in the personal lives of aspirants, or in clothing, dress, style, sex lives, economics, family patterns, lifestyles, or dietary habits.
Anyone who has been a member of the above group will tell you that it is very controlling as far as what you can and cannot express. Often times for no apparent reason, Lou Fournier Marzeles, the moderator and Hawkins’ neighbor, simply doesn’t post messages from members. And he consults directly with Hawkins regarding what to post or not to post when he is uncertain, as I demonstrated earlier with specific emails from Mr. Marzeles that are in the possession of a cult expert, and as Marilyn Gang also publicly stated:
One has to understand what is being taught by Hawkins to understand what is in my view economic exploitation. Hawkins teaches that it is absolute, scientific and spiritual fact that people only go up five points a lifetime on his scale from 1-1000, whereas exposure to Hawkins’ radical teachings will help you move up the scale by tens or even hundreds of points upon simply reading his work or seeing him lecture live. Just reading [i:6f45bb8cdb]Power vs. Force [/i:6f45bb8cdb] “advances the reader's level of consciousness by 35 points” ( [www.dowsers.info] ). In fact, he states that his and other teachers he calibrates very high (extremely rare, special people) have an “energy field” that is beneficial to people and just being in their presence helps one progress toward enlightenment. (Note that I am not particularly denying this statement, as I understand that people would feel very peaceful in the presence of Ramana Maharshi, for example; I would, however, draw a distinction between feeling peaceful and the concept of “enlightenment” that Hawkins espouses. Additionally, Ramana has stated that there are many good teachers and to follow the one that your mind is attuned to; needless to say, there wasn’t any nonsense about calibration from Ramana. Realization is very immediate in Maharshi’s teachings.) He even has calibrated audiences before and after his lectures, thereby demonstrating what a great investment the people had made by paying for and attending his lecture. One of Dr. Carroll’s correspondents stated it very well:
Regarding “lifestyles” one has to understand that Hawkins is teaching that his system is absolute truth and that your personal enlightenment, peace on the planet, and everyone doing better in life depends on the truth, which he states he is teaching. So, while he does not say (to my knowledge), “go vote Republican,” for example, he does calibrate Republicans higher than Democrats. In the context of his absolute teachings, if you believe what he is saying, it would literally be absurd if you care for yourself, others, and the truth to not vote Republican. His system offers some very heavy mind control. So he can make all of his pronouncements and attribute them to God, which is sickening. Another example is explained by Mary-Sue Haliburton:
Regarding dietary habits, many traditions such as Buddhism and Advaita recommend vegetarianism, for example. Hawkins actually endorses eating meat. He says vegetarianism is at 205 or so, and eating cows is actually doing them some sort of spiritual service as we are higher life forms or something (even though most humans calibrate lower than cows per Hawkins).
10. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Free of force or intimidation[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: There is no brainwashing, adulation of leaders, training rituals, indoctrinations, or intrusions into private life.
His AK system contradicts this; it is brainwashing. He makes the statement many times about how “the mind has no capacity to tell truth from falsehood” and thus the necessity for a “science of truth” with AK.
There is certainly adulation of Hawkins, big time.
According to Wheelock:
The man is revered as a walking Christ.
Haliburton made some great points.
They expressed regret over his leaving, and then got back to worship, with “katalys” stating:
“Santana 'calibrated' me, ex-employee claims”
[www.smh.com.au]
E! News – “Santana Too Supernatural, Suit Says”
[www.eonline.com]
This has been previously mentioned by corboy under “Fired from job for lack of spiritual potential?” [board.culteducation.com]
Hawkins is bad enough, but some of the things he has inspired go well beyond belief. Here are a couple other examples of many: [cosmicconnie.blogspot.com] & [www.circleoflights.com] , and [alanmeyer.com] . I have also come across incense for sale that has been prayed over and calibrated very high (kind of like Kabbalah water), and even a sort of self AK test gizmo for $20 or so.
12. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Freedom[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Participants are free to come and go without persuasion, coercion, intimidation, or consequences. There is no hierarchy; instead, there is voluntary fulfillment of practical necessities and duties.
Hawkins’ Map of Consciousness is a hierarchy. Possible consequences include dropping in consciousness level.
13. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Commonality[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Recognition is a consequence of what one has become rather than as a result of ascribed titles, adjectives, or trappings.
“Sir” David R. Hawkins, M.D., “Ph.D.” lists, as Sarlo put it, “a list of honours and such longer than most people's arms which can be seen at his site” ( [davidhawkins.info] ). Reading through his list shows numerous errors and issues of note, most of which I have already dealt with.
According to Hawkins' site, [i:6f45bb8cdb]Orthomolecular Psychiatry[/i:6f45bb8cdb] (1973) “helped revolutionize psychiatry.” Here is what the American Psychiatric Association said in 1973:
“Dr. Hawkins has lectured at…the Oxford Forum.” Please note that the Oxford Forum has nothing to do with the University of Oxford, but is an organization that promotes and publishes “dissident views in philosophy, psychology, economics and sociology.” ( [en.wikipedia.org] )
“The importance of the initial work was given recognition…at later presentations such as the International Conference on Science and Consciousness.” This conference is organized by “The Message Company” ( [www.bizspirit.com] ), along with other conferences on “Shamanism” and “Sacred Sexuality.” Hawkins is still listed here as a past presenter [www.bizspirit.com] .
Some other presenters have included such notables as JZ Knight (Ramtha) and Masaru Emoto ( [www.google.com] ).
If you are really interested in the science of consciousness, I would suggest checking out The Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness [assc.caltech.edu] and The Mind Science Foundation [www.mindscience.org] . A few of the famous names that have been associated with these organizations include Jonas Salk, Jane Goodall, the Dalai Lama, V.S. Ramachandran, and Daniel Dennett.
“In the Far East, Dr. Hawkins is a recognized 'Teacher of the Way to Enlightenment' (Tae Ryoung Sun Kak Dosa).” The “Far East” is Seoul, South Korea, and who gave him this honor appears to be some sort of yoga group, though I am not certain.
Lionel Ovesey was a psychoanalytic pioneer in the study of homosexuality, sex, and gender, by the way.
I didn’t realize or notice before just how many of the honors listed are related orthomolecular psychiatry, which to this day is criticized by mainstream medical experts due to being ineffective and potentially toxic. Organizations in addition to the APA that have criticized orthomolecular methods include the National Institute of Mental Health (1979), CHAMPUS, the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics (1990 & 2000), and the American Academy of Pediatrics (1976 & 1981), with the AAP concluding that a "cult" of megavitamin therapy followers had arisen. Hawkins appears to have been well outside of the mainstream for much of his professional career as well.
He often notes that he practiced psychiatry for fifty years, yet he also says that roughly ten of those years were spent as a hermit.
Many of the claims on his website are simply hard to verify.
14. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Inspirational[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Truth eschews and avoids glamorization, seduction, and theatrics.
Hawkins is quite theatrical (I recall for one lecture he dressed up as a pirate, as one example). I was pleased when I saw another refer to his lecture as a “lecture-performance” because that really does seem to be the case. AK is a very “glamorous” tool that purports to reveal all of life’s mysteries by pressing on an arm. I contend Hawkins “seduces” people into his nonsense by lying/exaggerating/omitting about the workability of AK, and especially by not noting in his books and websites the source of his Ph.D., among many other things.
15. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Nonmaterialistic[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Truth is devoid of neediness of worldly wealth, prestige, pomp, or edifices.
The “prestige, pomp” and “edifices” I’ve already dealt with. Regarding “worldly wealth,” just look at his website and draw your own conclusions: [www.veritaspub.com] .
16. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Self-fulfilling[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Truth is already total and complete and has no need to proselytize or gain adherents, followers, or “sign up members.”
I believe his work contradicts this, and I have already stated why.
17. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Detached[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: There is noninvolvement in world affairs.
This is simply not true in my view. Hawkins has a political agenda it looks like, and not just to me. Many have complained about his right wing, conservative politics; that he is a hawk (“Sometimes you need a little war to bring peace" [www.level-of-consciousness.org] [Compare with the Buddha’s “In this world, Hate never yet dispelled hate. Only love dispels hate.This is the law, Ancient and inexhaustible.” [www.angelfire.com] and Christ’s “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” [bible.cc] ]), endorses Bill O’Reilly as a “bellwether of integrity,” and so on. Even Rev. Pardon agrees with me on this, but note the Rev. Pardon happens to share Hawkins’ political views; even people who agree with him still recognize that he oversteps his boundaries as a spiritual teacher on political issues.
For information on Rev. Pardon, please see [neirr.org] and [www.google.com] . He is a recognized cult expert and "has worked with and/or appeared on 48 Hours, Dateline, EXTRA, CNN, Early Show with Bryant Gumble, Today Show, Good Morning America, Inside Edition, PBS, Chronicle and numerous local television stations and cable outlets" and has been referenced in the [i:6f45bb8cdb]New York Post[/i:6f45bb8cdb], the Associated Press, [i:6f45bb8cdb]The Boston Globe[/i:6f45bb8cdb], the [i:6f45bb8cdb]Boston Herald[/i:6f45bb8cdb], the [i:6f45bb8cdb]Boston Phoenix[/i:6f45bb8cdb], [i:6f45bb8cdb]The Providence Journal[/i:6f45bb8cdb], [i:6f45bb8cdb]The Standard-Times[/i:6f45bb8cdb], [i:6f45bb8cdb]The Sun Chronicle[/i:6f45bb8cdb], the [i:6f45bb8cdb]Taunton Daily Gazette[/i:6f45bb8cdb], the [i:6f45bb8cdb]New Brunswick Telegraph Journal[/i:6f45bb8cdb], and [i:6f45bb8cdb]The Berkshire Eagle[/i:6f45bb8cdb]. I also saw him on Dr. Phil, Montel, and other shows.
18. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Benign[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Truth is identifiable along a progressive gradient. It has no “opposite” and therefore no “enemies” to castigate or oppose.
Truth is not “identifiable along a progressive gradient.” Truth Is, in a spiritual sense, and it also [i:6f45bb8cdb]is[/i:6f45bb8cdb] in a factual sense. Even Huang Po and Ramana Maharshi, among others, both of whom Hawkins references, state that there are no levels of Truth. Further, even titles of Hawkins’ books include [i:6f45bb8cdb] Power vs. Force[/i:6f45bb8cdb] and [i:6f45bb8cdb]Truth vs. Falsehood[/i:6f45bb8cdb]. There is an “us vs. them” mentality, such as above 200 vs. below 200; skepticism vs. spirituality/religion, and so on. Hawkins calibrates anyone who disagrees with him as being below 200/without integrity. Facts are no longer what is true, but “calibration” is the new definition of “truth.”
19. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Nonintentional[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Truth does not intervene or have an agenda to propose, inflict, or promulgate.
I believe his system and teachings contradict this and have already stated why.
20. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Nondualistic[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: All transpires by virtue of intrinsic (karmic) propensity within the field by which potentiality manifests as actuality rather than by “cause” and effect.
This is a misunderstanding of nonduality in my opinion. Whose potentiality? While there is no “cause” as the notion of cause is a concept, this does not literally imply that there is no “cause” in a relative sense. For example, if a person eats poisonous food, they will get sick.
21. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Tranquility and Peace[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: There are no “issues” or partialities. There is no desire to change others or impose on society. The effect of higher energies is innate and not dependent on propagation or effort. God does not need help anymore than gravity needs the “help” of an apple’s falling off the tree.
I think his system contradicts this. I strongly disagree with the idea that teaching people to press on each other’s arms for absolute truth will lead to tranquility and peace. In fact, it leads to a lot of pointless argument (see [www.level-of-consciousness.org] ).
22. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Equality[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: This is expressed in reverence for all of life in all its expressions and merely avoids that which is deleterious rather than opposing it.
It “merely avoids” the vast majority of humanity and many things on earth (lol). I contend that Hawkins’ work induces a certain paranoia of the world and most human beings rather than peace and equality. Further, Hawkins certainly appears to oppose any criticism of him.
23. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Nontemporality[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Life is realized to be eternal and physicality to be a temporality. Life is not subject to death.
This is true, but you can discover this truth in any religion.
24. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Beyond Proof[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: That which is “provable” is linear, limited, and a product of intellectualization and mentation. Reality needs no agreement. Reality is not an acquisition but instead is a purely spontaneous, subjective realization when the positionalities of the dualistic ego are surrendered.
I think it is funny that proof is “limited, and a product of intellectualization and mentation.” Hawkins should have never indicated his work is science if he wanted to have people not ask for proof, which is part of science. From the beginning, he should have stated he was starting a new religion and not since completely contradicted what he wrote in his book [i:6f45bb8cdb]Power vs. Force[/i:6f45bb8cdb] that got people interested in the first place. Reality is neither subjective nor objective (this is still dualistic thinking) and there are no positionalities or “ego.”
25. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Mystical[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: The origination of truth is a spontaneous effulgence, radiance, and illumination, which is the Revelation that replaces the illusion of a separate individual self, the ego, and its mentation.
Again, this can be found elsewhere. Also, mentation still does happen spontaneously after realization, but one is no longer the thoughts alone (see Hui-Neng).
26. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Ineffable[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Not capable of definition. Radical subjectivity is experiential. It is a condition that replaces the former. With this event, context replaces content, devoid of temporality and beyond time. Reality does not exist in time, or of it, or beyond it, or outside of it, and it has no relationship to that which is an artifice of mentation. It is therefore beyond all nouns, adjectives, or verbs, transitive or intransitive.
Truth is ineffable, that is true. There is a very long tradition of asserting this. Again, “subjectivity” is still dualistic. (I draw a distinction between spiritual Truth, and scientific truth; the latter is certainly not ineffable.)
27. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Simplistic[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: One sees the intrinsic beauty and perfection of all that exists beyond appearance and form.
I think Hawkins’ entire system is the antithesis of simplicity. See Thich Nhat Hanh or Ramana for a taste of true simplicity. Also, simplicity/beauty is not “beyond appearance and form,” but is one with it (see any Zen teacher among many others).
28. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Affirmative:[/b:6f45bb8cdb] Truth is beyond opinion and provability. Confirmation is purely by its subjective awareness; however, it is identifiable by consciousness calibration techniques.
AK is an opinion and only beyond provability in the sense that it has been disproved. “however, it is identifiable by consciousness calibration techniques.” This completely contradicts the rest of his sentence.
29. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Nonoperative[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Truth does not “do” anything or “cause” anything; it is everything.
That’s true, in a sense, but again AK contradicts this. If truth is everything, then why are there so many varying “calibrations” at all? Utter nonsense.
30. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Invitational[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: As contrasted with promotional or persuasive.
This is nonsense in regard to Hawkins. I have stated why already.
31. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Nonpredictive[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Because Reality is nonlinear, it cannot be localized or encoded in restriction of form such as a secret messages, codes, numbers, and inscription, or hidden in runes, stones, the dimensions of the pyramids, the DNA, or the nostril hairs of the camel. Truth has no secrets. The Reality of God is omnipresent and beyond codification or exclusivity. Codes are indicative of man’s imagination and not the capriciousness of Divinity.
Reality is not “nonlinear;” it is as it is. “it cannot be localized or encoded in restriction of form such as a secret messages, codes, numbers…” AK contradicts this. “Codes are indicative of man’s imagination and not the capriciousness of Divinity.” Couldn’t have said it better myself. AK contradicts this.
32. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Nonsentimental[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Emotionality is based on perception. Compassion results from the discernment of truth.
Compassion has nothing to do with truth, but is as it is.
33. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Nonauthoritarian[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: There are no rules or dictates to be followed.
AK contradicts this, as written above.
34. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Nonegoistic[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Teachers are respected but reject personal adulation or specialness.
I do not believe this is the case for Hawkins, though it certainly is not the case for the people who follow him, who basically worship him. Hawkins is not “special,” I guess that is why most of us at the Rick Ross forum are “below 200” and he is 999.8 or whatever.
35. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Educational[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Provides information in a variety of formats and ensures availability.
This isn’t true. Jesus never wrote anything, for example. There are many examples that contradict this; it strikes me more as a justification for selling books, CDs, DVDs, etc.
36. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Self-supporting[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Neither mercenary nor materialistic.
I doubt Hawkins is solely motivated by profit, but he does charge a lot of money.
37. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Freestanding[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Complete without dependence on external or historical authorities.
Hawkins makes no claim to “historical authorities,” other than the past lives that he states that he lived (a pirate, galley slave, Crusader, and Hinayana Buddhist monk, among others). He certainly relies on external authority with AK and his (supposed and otherwise) credentials.
38. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Natural[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Devoid of induced, altered status of consciousness or manipulations of energies by artificial means (i.e., nonreliance on form).
I think this essentially means to not use of drugs, which is supported by many religions.
39. Teachers dismissed for moral turpitude, open honesty.
Hawkins lacks open honesty in my view and I have already made this case.
[b:6f45bb8cdb]Identification and Characteristics of Spiritual Truth, Integrous Teachers and Teachings[/b:6f45bb8cdb] By Sir David R. Hawkins, MD, PhD [www.consciousnessproject.org]
1. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Universality[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Truth is true at all times and places, independent of culture, personalities, or circumstances.
Hawkins’ AK testing contradicts this. AK is considered a pseudoscience by ICAK, skeptics, scientists, religious and spiritual people, NIH, NLM, etc. AK being a pseudoscience appears to be “universal,” except for in the minds of Hawkins and Hawkinbots.
I have been browsing "Dr David Hawkins | Power vs. Force," a discussion forum devoted to Hawkins run by Bryan Wheelock at [www.level-of-consciousness.org] and will quote from it.
Quote
[u:6f45bb8cdb]Some Concerns we really have to face[/u:6f45bb8cdb]
This simple test seems to be a little harder than PvsF would have you believe.
I would love to believe that all this stuff is true, but I am having serious questions about our abilities to use this test. Hawkins says that the truth is one and exists for all to see, but why is he the only one that we can "trust" to give good calibrations?…
If there is one reality and the K-test taps into that reality, why do people just among this forum get different results?…
[www.level-of-consciousness.org]
The man asks for proof of AK, and sets up a good and easy test; of course, no one takes him up on his offer because it shows that AK does not work.
Sadly, due to the social milieu, the person gave up his questioning mind a couple months later and stated:
Quote
My original post was about the seeming inconsistences of the k-test and its application for wide use. I don't really have the answers now, but I don't really care…Follow the teachings in Eye of the I, and I:subjectivity and reality, stick to it and it will all work out… I see now that my [questioning/asking for proof as written in PvF] thing was a negative intention…I am a spiritual aspirant first and foremost… Dr. Hawkins has shown to me that there are NO justified resentments. So I got over it.
I have seen this happen a number of times, where people question Hawkins, and the groupthink takes over and they end up saying they don’t care any more what the truth is (after all, Hawkins’ “truth” is a “higher” truth).
Another person concludes that “it seems sensible that a lot of people are currently karmically prohibited from using the K-Test,” continuing by stating that “being unable to use the k-test with any consistent accuracy” was “impressive” and
This is truly one of the best examples of the fable of the emperor with no clothes that I have ever seen. “You can’t do it, I can’t do it, no one can do it…but Hawkins can…a blessing, I am so glad I got over my questioning.” Hilarious! (Yet sad.)Quote
Now, there is a deep respect for the K-Test that I didn't have before. Previously, I expected it to work every time, that it was a glamourous [[i:6f45bb8cdb]sic[/i:6f45bb8cdb]] key to all the knowledge in the known universe, and whether my pursuit of that knowledge at the time was selfish or not was irrelevant, the important revelation is that the test is truly a blessing. A blessing.
Another concludes:
Quote
It would take someone at 1000 to be able to calibrate everything right. Because only then do they have perfect judgement about everything. Nobody can claim this, or at least very few.
I guess Hawkins is one of the “very few.”
A common example of circular reasoning is later given by Bryan Wheelock:
Quote
The scientific method calibrates 465 or so. Kinesiology calibrates at 600. Everything above 499 is in the realm of the subjective.
[www.level-of-consciousness.org] “One reason people get different LOC calibration results”
Wheelock continues:
Quote
Scientific method starts to break down when it deals with subjectivity.
I guess we should just do away with the whole scientific field of psychology.
?Quote
I bet Dr. Hawkins must feel like he's explaining rainbows to bunny rabbits sometimes. Bunny's aren't bad, they just aren't ready to understand rainbows.
A person just joining the discussion with their mind still in tact states:
Quote
I just finished reading Power vs Force, and yes, I walked away believing that calibration is simple and ALWAYS accurate. After reading these posts, I feel as though I am reading a bunch of justifications as to why it is NOT ALWAYS accurate.
In Power vs Force, Hawking said that his trials were always 100% accurate. This included large groups of over 100 people who showed up to his seminars and not a single discrepancy in testing these people. These were not formally trained scientists, they were everyday people who showed up. I am aware of the exceptions that he listed in his book, however, if even the slightest presence of personal ego can distort a reading, one can hardly rely upon the results, AND, there is no way a crowd of 100 people at seminars would ALWAYS return the same results.
What was so amazing about his book to me was that barring exceptions, EVERYONE who tests ALWAYS gets the EXACT same answser. Try it for yourself. If you get different results, then it simply isn't working as promised. I don't doubt that it does in fact work, just not for everyone all the time. With all the countless factors that people are citing as reasons why it ISN't working PERFECTLY as stated, one might as well visit a good psychic. Should I marry him/her? Should I vote for him/her? You should probabaly learn to listen to your heart here,basically do your best, because as I have now read, the SAME and ACCURATE results are not always returned.
Bottom line. Varying results across a large group of people is absolutely inconsistent with Power vs Force. See for yourself.
Of course followed by a typical response:
Quote
what do we hold in higher esteem, Truth or Proof?
A rare moment of candor and honesty brings the thread titled “Okay..let's just come out and say it already!”
Quote
Part of me doesn't want to challenge other calibrations for the secret fear that I may look really stupid (lol)or tarnish my reputation as a reliable tester… I wish to make this admission: I AM NOT ALWAYS RIGHT WITH TESTING RESULTS! There, I said it and I feel sooooo much better!… I do NOT blame the test or the technique or the person who brought this wonderful technique to the surface for all of us. I blame my brain and my ego… But I am NOT 100%, 100% of the time..so that lets me know I have inner work to do for my Level of Consciousness too - which I know anyway or else I wouldn't be here. I used to get embarrised with my wrong results… I have also gained confidence in results by default. Dr. Hawkins has said that the ego doesn't know anything! What we think is real is not!… DISCLAIMER : This post is not a statement about the reliability of kinesiology..as I believe in it 100%…
[www.level-of-consciousness.org]
Followed by another typical comment:
They also list some examples of Hawkins’ calibrations, by the way:Quote
People below 200 cannot access the truth via kinesiology. As judgemental as that may sound that’s the FACTS!
Quote
LOWERED CALIBRATIONS
Krishnamurti 525 175
Eckhart Tolle 525 240
Ramtha 490 160
Reverend Moon 515 160
Sai Baba 535 198
L. Ron Hubbard 410 145
Lester Levinson 505 180
Werner Erhardt 510 175
Rajneesh (Osho) 570 180
Sivananda 615 195
Deepak Chopra 500 195
ACLU 385 180
Shri Ravi Shankar 515 195
[www.level-of-consciousness.org]
2. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Nonexclusionary[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Truth is all-inclusive, nonsecretive, and nonsectarian.
AK contradicts this. There are people above 200 and below 200, which is an us vs. them mentality, which continues to be perpetrated by Hawkins by continuously setting up his spirituality vs. scientific skepticism, when in fact great minds such as Bertrand Russell and Joseph Campbell recognize that science and mysticism are not contradictory, but are one.
3. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Availability[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: It is open to all, non-exclusive. There are no secrets to be revealed, hidden, or sold, and no magical formulas or “mysteries.”
AK is only available to those “over 200.” AK also is stated to reveal all secrets, in fact. Hawkins has attempted to conceal the secret of where he received his PhD from, as just one example that contradicts this. There are many “mysteries” that arise from his AK pseudoscience. There are abundant examples, a couple of which are: sometimes you “have permission” (from the universe or “God”) to ask questions with AK and sometimes not; the date of death is set “karmically” at birth, but the date cannot be known with AK for some reason; etc.
4. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Integrity of purpose[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: There is nothing to gain or lose.
Hawkins charges a lot of money for his teachings. He is gaining. He did not tell people about his PhD, in fact actively tried to conceal this information (I demonstrated this earlier), so I must assume he believed he had something to lose, such as followers or control over the minds of others.
5. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Nonsectarian[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Truth is not the exposition of limitation.
Hawkins’ AK “truth” is sectarian in the sense that only those “above 200” can use it according to him. Truth is for people whose “consciousness” is of a sufficient level to be accessed, and truth no longer simply means facts as can be read in an encyclopedia, but truth is now on a scale and only available through muscle testing. Thus, while a person's arguments may be filled with facts, this is irrelevant to Hawkins and his followers if Hawkins can get people to believe that this person “calibrates” below 200 – truth does not mean facts, it means calibration (i.e., grandiose, pseudoscientific judgment purportedly from the divine). In fact, anything in the universe that disagrees with Hawkins is literally labeled as an “opinion,” often a “nonintengrous opinion” no less, as his “truth” is the only truth.
6. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Independent of opinion[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Truth is nonlinear and not subject to the limitations of intellect or form.
Hawkins puts all of his opinions into an absolute system and states he is not responsible for them. Truth in a scientific sense certainly is subject to intellect and form.
7. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Devoid of Positionality[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Truth is not “anti” anything. Falsehood and ignorance are not its enemies but merely represent its absence.
It seems to me that he has made an enemy out of skepticism and even rationality in many regards.
8. [b:6f45bb8cdb]No requirements or demands[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: There are no required memberships, dues, regulations, oaths, rules, or conditions.
Hawkins’ group websites do require a membership to join, such as the one he is consulted directly about regarding its content and run by his friend and neighbor in Sedona. They have in fact banned people from being members for speaking the literal truth, rather than following the party line and bleating like a sheep about everything Hawkins pontificates on. His lectures often cost money (though he has started giving some for free, good one on him in my opinion). There are a ton of regulations on the internet group Hawkins is secretly associated with:
Quote
[u:6f45bb8cdb]drhawkinsgroup · Dr. Hawkins Discussion Group[/u:6f45bb8cdb]
Description
"All opinion is vanity." -- Dr. David R. Hawkins, *Eye of the I*
This group is focused on the work of Dr. Hawkins. Personal opinion is of little consequence or usefulness and is generally not allowed in messages to this group. Personal exploration of what Dr. Hawkins teaches and its applications in one's life, on the other hand, differs distinctly from simply expressing one's opinion, and such exploration is quite useful and appropriate here.Messages to this group should reflect this group's focus on Dr. Hawkins. When someone posts a message asking for insights into a particular issue, responses should not be personal opinion; rather, they should show how you see Dr. Hawkins' teachings applying to the issue at hand. If you wish to share something of the work of other teachers and paths, please share also how you see it relating to the work of Dr. Hawkins. Messages will not be posted that seek to uphold (or put down) a positionality, present purely personal opinion as established fact, or are designed to enroll others in particular paths, including messages of political content.Do not include email "signatures" in your messages to the group, particularly if they include links to your or someone else's Web site; such messages will not be posted. This does not include links included in your text message of sites relevant to discussion of Dr. Hawkins' work.Please note also that it is part of the protocol of this group that no messages directed to only one person should be sent to the whole group.
REQUESTS FOR CALIBRATIONS: Responses must be sent only to the person requesting the calibrations, and NOT to the group. Member calibrations are not posted on this group.
[groups.yahoo.com]
9. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Noncontrolling[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Spiritual purity has no interest in the personal lives of aspirants, or in clothing, dress, style, sex lives, economics, family patterns, lifestyles, or dietary habits.
Anyone who has been a member of the above group will tell you that it is very controlling as far as what you can and cannot express. Often times for no apparent reason, Lou Fournier Marzeles, the moderator and Hawkins’ neighbor, simply doesn’t post messages from members. And he consults directly with Hawkins regarding what to post or not to post when he is uncertain, as I demonstrated earlier with specific emails from Mr. Marzeles that are in the possession of a cult expert, and as Marilyn Gang also publicly stated:
A person with the user name “Concerned about Hawkinites” wrote this at Wheelock's discussion site:Quote
When I received the first letter, from the lawyers, I sent an email to the drhawkinsgroup email list on yahoo run by one of David's neighbors. I'd been on it for awhile, hadn't had the time to post, enjoyed many of the exchanges. I let them know the circumstances and asked for advice. It seemed contrary to everything David espoused.
They refused to allow it on the email list.
Instead, without my permission, the moderator passed it on to David Hawkins, which is why I received the letter below.
[www.dowsers.info]
Regarding people’s personal lives, Gang also wrote:Quote
I have participated in the other forum where one of his admirers has a discussion platform on Yahoo Groups. I found this forum quite disconcerting in that you cannot quesiton Hawkins' stuff at all. I would graciously question some of the points mentioned because I would have friends and myself K-test alternative positions and they also would show valid. I, and my friends, would get about 50% of our posts axed. I repeatedly was told that no posts that questioned Dr. Hawkins' views were allowed. I pointed to this as being cultic mindset and not healthy nor "godly" because God does not want us to kiss our minds goodbye. I did notice a lot of folks swallowing everything Hawkins would say as ultimate truth. Hawkins, though very advanced, still has to put on his pants the same way we do and, in my book, still has feet of clay. I am always leary of any human teacher being elevated to the level of God. Just my two cents.
SLDV, Ph.D.
[www.level-of-consciousness.org]
I’ve personally never heard Hawkins comment on “clothing, dress, style,” though he has opinions on everything in the universe and purports that it is absolute truth, so I can’t imagine that at some point he did not mention these, even if it is only that the sagging pants of young urban men is “below 200,” for example. He seriously makes claims similar to this all the time. I remember one time he mentioned that he calibrated an actresses’ smile and it was below 200! Can you see how this stuff is crazy making? The actress herself may be 350, for example, but her smile is below 200. Honestly, I don’t know how people tolerate this nonsense being fed to them – except that if they don’t accept it they get judged by their peer group as being “below 200,” which is a control mechanism in and of itself, regardless of whether Hawkins literally physically controls people directly or not; and there is mind control. [www.culteducation.com]Quote
He also does not have permission to do a lot of these calibrations. The private lives of those he is not connected with, despite the fact they may be public figures, are none of his business. You and I also do not have this right to stick our noses in to people's lives if we are not involved with them. Its called Ethics. Which is another reason he gets things wrong.
One has to understand what is being taught by Hawkins to understand what is in my view economic exploitation. Hawkins teaches that it is absolute, scientific and spiritual fact that people only go up five points a lifetime on his scale from 1-1000, whereas exposure to Hawkins’ radical teachings will help you move up the scale by tens or even hundreds of points upon simply reading his work or seeing him lecture live. Just reading [i:6f45bb8cdb]Power vs. Force [/i:6f45bb8cdb] “advances the reader's level of consciousness by 35 points” ( [www.dowsers.info] ). In fact, he states that his and other teachers he calibrates very high (extremely rare, special people) have an “energy field” that is beneficial to people and just being in their presence helps one progress toward enlightenment. (Note that I am not particularly denying this statement, as I understand that people would feel very peaceful in the presence of Ramana Maharshi, for example; I would, however, draw a distinction between feeling peaceful and the concept of “enlightenment” that Hawkins espouses. Additionally, Ramana has stated that there are many good teachers and to follow the one that your mind is attuned to; needless to say, there wasn’t any nonsense about calibration from Ramana. Realization is very immediate in Maharshi’s teachings.) He even has calibrated audiences before and after his lectures, thereby demonstrating what a great investment the people had made by paying for and attending his lecture. One of Dr. Carroll’s correspondents stated it very well:
Quote
June 2003: Dr. Hawkins is a sincere, kind and intelligent person. I have read every book, viewed every video and audio tape produced. [In] the initial video-set, titled "Power vs Force," [AK] was actually used to find a pistol in his living room.
Some of the statements made by this otherwise kind and intelligent man are shocking, i.e., as to kinesiology. With the increased sales of his books and other materials, the concern I have is that this nonsense could become an insane tool for wrong. I have witnessed its wrongful and malicious use by those very close to the Dr. His followers use it to rank all sorts of things using the Map of Consciousness as a reference: people, countries, events, movies, music, etc. Before each lecture-performance, he tests the audience to see how on the Map of Consciousness they are as a group, i.e., how close to enlightenment and therefore how far from the spiritual-dregs. Amazingly, the groups lectured to always start very high on this logarithmic scale. After the lecture, he retests the group (using his wife as the agent) and they always go up the scale five to ten points. His testing shows that very few humans climb the Map of Consciousness by more than five points in a lifetime. Thus, the lectures are a great investment!” [skepdic.com]
Regarding “lifestyles” one has to understand that Hawkins is teaching that his system is absolute truth and that your personal enlightenment, peace on the planet, and everyone doing better in life depends on the truth, which he states he is teaching. So, while he does not say (to my knowledge), “go vote Republican,” for example, he does calibrate Republicans higher than Democrats. In the context of his absolute teachings, if you believe what he is saying, it would literally be absurd if you care for yourself, others, and the truth to not vote Republican. His system offers some very heavy mind control. So he can make all of his pronouncements and attribute them to God, which is sickening. Another example is explained by Mary-Sue Haliburton:
Another aspect of “lifestyle” that I remember is that he calibrated “pop bisexuality” as being below 200. The teachers you read and even the movies you see are calibrated by Hawkins such that if you believe him you would be a fool to not listen to his pronouncements – remember, below 200 makes a person “go weak.” Hawkins has even stated: “The price of not being to discern the difference between truth and falsehood is death and war.” And he is the uber-genius/avatar who knows the way to discern the difference. I am sure there are many examples that could apply.Quote
[u:6f45bb8cdb]Author's Apparent Objective: to Create an Unquestioning, Malleable TV Audience[/u:6f45bb8cdb]
The transfer of responsibility for discerning truth from self to a TV talking head is the most offensive part of this book. Exercising discernment about politics and public affairs is too complicated for our little minds, he is telling us.
Instead, he explicity advises us to trust one TV news anchor who allegedly has "higher consciousness" - Mr. O'Reilly of Fox News. Thus "truth" can be boiled down to mean everything this man likes, and "falsehood" means everything he doesn't agree with. Simple, all right. We'd have to be simple-minded to accept a journalist as infallible, while the author finds fault with acknowledged spiritual leaders (calibrated in the earlier book as having a much higher level).
The author simply tells us that his panel of so-called higher-consciousness calibrators have rated this man at 460. That's in the level of "reason" - but below Love (500). The unspoken implication of telling us about O'Reilly's alleged high ranking is that TV viewers are all supposed to classify ourselves as lower than him. We are therefore supposed to pull our forelocks and bow to the "superior" man's allegedly greater insight.
The author doesn't expect his readers to be able to find grounds to disagree with their subordination, nor with any of what the news anchor promulgates from his platform, or pedestal.... [peswiki.com]
Regarding dietary habits, many traditions such as Buddhism and Advaita recommend vegetarianism, for example. Hawkins actually endorses eating meat. He says vegetarianism is at 205 or so, and eating cows is actually doing them some sort of spiritual service as we are higher life forms or something (even though most humans calibrate lower than cows per Hawkins).
10. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Free of force or intimidation[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: There is no brainwashing, adulation of leaders, training rituals, indoctrinations, or intrusions into private life.
His AK system contradicts this; it is brainwashing. He makes the statement many times about how “the mind has no capacity to tell truth from falsehood” and thus the necessity for a “science of truth” with AK.
There is certainly adulation of Hawkins, big time.
According to Wheelock:
Quote
I self-calibrate Dr. Hawkins at a level of consciousness of 993.
In one one [[i:6f45bb8cdb]sic[/i:6f45bb8cdb]] his books he mentions that there is one Sage on the planet that calibrates over 990. I assume that Dr. Hawkins is that person.”
[www.level-of-consciousness.org]
The man is revered as a walking Christ.
Haliburton made some great points.
Two other people agreed with Wheelock, leading one person to comment:Quote
In this foundational book [Power vs. Force] David R. Hawkins has led readers down a garden path and locked the gate behind them, so that by the time they encounter his later works, they are not meant to be able to challenge the highly-flawed conclusions due to the preconceptions that were implanted in us by means of this first book.
[peswiki.com]
Quote
If Doc Hawkins calibrated at 992 I doubt seriously if he'd be SELLING his work. The DIVINE do not operate for profit. They have no need for money and can make miracles happen so overhead would be extremely low.
You people.... I think on this note I will just say goodbye. Too many delusional people on this website.
Adios folks. Best wishes though.....
They expressed regret over his leaving, and then got back to worship, with “katalys” stating:
Another response to a post ironically titled “pseudo sciences – and their loc [level of consciousness]” reads:Quote
Dr. Hawkins is a Bodhisattva…It´s a service of love that he does by the will of God - in writing, teaching and giving interviews.
In fact, in a live lecture I went to of Hawkins’ something he said struck me as very odd. He stated that he did not include pictures of himself of his books because he did not want people to worship his photo (this is “radical humility,” Hawkins-style). Who on earth would have ever even come up with the idea to worship his photo? I remember an interview with Hawkins on Beyond the Ordinary ( [www.beyondtheordinary.net] ), an internet radio program from two followers of Ramtha ( [www.culteducation.com] ), where a person commented that they keep a book of Hawkins’ under their pillow when they sleep. This is because some objects “calibrate” higher than others, with Hawkins’ books being perhaps some of the most “powerful” and high calibrating objects on all of earth (for example, 850, 980, and 999.8 ). These people are not coming up with these ideas on their own – they have all been led to believe this way by Hawkins himself, and it is to that extent therefore not their fault. In a sense, it is not even Hawkins’ fault, as he appears to suffer from the mental illness Narcissistic Personality Disorder; as psychiatrist and cult expert Peter Olsson, M.D. stated:Quote
Yes its quiet strange indeed isn't it, preaching to be non-judgemental and accepting, yet it goes out the door as soon as you don't agree like a Hawkins Robot, its somehow negative and a downer for the party.
Using calibarations against people who have their own opinions is quite an ignorant position considering what is being preached around here. Whats wrong with the "so called" negative if good and bad is an illusion, and thus unconditional love is preached.
A discussion board is a two way street, not a one way cult.
"Reflection is a Gift"
www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Ratings.htm
[www.level-of-consciousness.org]
Who is to blame? In a sense it is similar to the recent shooting at Virginia Tech; the shooter was also a victim, and was treated as such, because he was obviously mentally unstable. See “Is your abuser a narcissist?” [www.culteducation.com] . More on NPD can be found at NEIRR: [www.neirr.org]Quote
…Dr. Hawkins has apparently taken a grandiose road less traveled, and it sounds like a sad direction indeed. Hawkins may have morphed into a malignant pied piper. Physicians, psychiatrists and psychoanalysts are as I am sure you know, not immune from mental illness and perturbations of character in all its forms and varieties. When a physician wanders from a healthy sense of humility and the safe-guards of rigorous collegial scientific dialogue, ethical violations, unprofessional conduct, and sad events can occur. If patients, their families, and the guru's followers get hurt, an unfortunate unintended consequence of a free society can be seen.
There is a lot of indoctrination, as well as intrusion into private lives by “calibrating” people and judging them. This becomes quite extensive. Consider the employee of musician Santana who was fired due to having his consciousness calibrated low, almost certainly by a person inspired by Hawkins named “Dr. Dan.”Quote
The Profile of a Psychopath
In reading the profile, bear in mind the three characteristics that Robert Lifton sees as common to a cultic situation:
1. A charismatic leader who...increasingly becomes the object of worship
2. A series of processes that can be associated with "coercive persuasion" or "thought reform"
3. The tendency toward manipulation from above...with exploitation--economic, sexual, or other--of often genuine seekers who bring idealism from below
from [i:6f45bb8cdb]Captive Hearts, Captive Minds[/i:6f45bb8cdb]
[www.anandainfo.com]
“Santana 'calibrated' me, ex-employee claims”
[www.smh.com.au]
E! News – “Santana Too Supernatural, Suit Says”
[www.eonline.com]
This has been previously mentioned by corboy under “Fired from job for lack of spiritual potential?” [board.culteducation.com]
Hawkins is bad enough, but some of the things he has inspired go well beyond belief. Here are a couple other examples of many: [cosmicconnie.blogspot.com] & [www.circleoflights.com] , and [alanmeyer.com] . I have also come across incense for sale that has been prayed over and calibrated very high (kind of like Kabbalah water), and even a sort of self AK test gizmo for $20 or so.
12. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Freedom[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Participants are free to come and go without persuasion, coercion, intimidation, or consequences. There is no hierarchy; instead, there is voluntary fulfillment of practical necessities and duties.
Hawkins’ Map of Consciousness is a hierarchy. Possible consequences include dropping in consciousness level.
13. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Commonality[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Recognition is a consequence of what one has become rather than as a result of ascribed titles, adjectives, or trappings.
“Sir” David R. Hawkins, M.D., “Ph.D.” lists, as Sarlo put it, “a list of honours and such longer than most people's arms which can be seen at his site” ( [davidhawkins.info] ). Reading through his list shows numerous errors and issues of note, most of which I have already dealt with.
According to Hawkins' site, [i:6f45bb8cdb]Orthomolecular Psychiatry[/i:6f45bb8cdb] (1973) “helped revolutionize psychiatry.” Here is what the American Psychiatric Association said in 1973:
“Winner of the Huxley Award” – this is from The Huxley Institute for Biosocial Research ( [www.schizophrenia.org] ), an organization that treats schizophrenics with orthomolecular methods, and is not to be confused with the Thomas Henry Huxley Award which is awarded annually for original work in zoology.Quote
This review and critique has carefully examined the literature produced by megavitamin proponents and by those who have attempted to replicate their basic and clinical work. It concludes in this regard that the credibility of the megavitamin proponents is low. Their credibility is further diminished by a consistent refusal over the past decade to perform controlled experiments and to report their new results in a scientifically acceptable fashion.
Under these circumstances this Task Force considers the massive publicity which they promulgate via radio, the lay press and popular books, using catch phrases which are really misnomers like "megavitamin therapy" and "orthomolecular treatment," to be deplorable. [www.quackwatch.org]
“Dr. Hawkins has lectured at…the Oxford Forum.” Please note that the Oxford Forum has nothing to do with the University of Oxford, but is an organization that promotes and publishes “dissident views in philosophy, psychology, economics and sociology.” ( [en.wikipedia.org] )
“The importance of the initial work was given recognition…at later presentations such as the International Conference on Science and Consciousness.” This conference is organized by “The Message Company” ( [www.bizspirit.com] ), along with other conferences on “Shamanism” and “Sacred Sexuality.” Hawkins is still listed here as a past presenter [www.bizspirit.com] .
Some other presenters have included such notables as JZ Knight (Ramtha) and Masaru Emoto ( [www.google.com] ).
If you are really interested in the science of consciousness, I would suggest checking out The Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness [assc.caltech.edu] and The Mind Science Foundation [www.mindscience.org] . A few of the famous names that have been associated with these organizations include Jonas Salk, Jane Goodall, the Dalai Lama, V.S. Ramachandran, and Daniel Dennett.
“In the Far East, Dr. Hawkins is a recognized 'Teacher of the Way to Enlightenment' (Tae Ryoung Sun Kak Dosa).” The “Far East” is Seoul, South Korea, and who gave him this honor appears to be some sort of yoga group, though I am not certain.
Lionel Ovesey was a psychoanalytic pioneer in the study of homosexuality, sex, and gender, by the way.
I didn’t realize or notice before just how many of the honors listed are related orthomolecular psychiatry, which to this day is criticized by mainstream medical experts due to being ineffective and potentially toxic. Organizations in addition to the APA that have criticized orthomolecular methods include the National Institute of Mental Health (1979), CHAMPUS, the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics (1990 & 2000), and the American Academy of Pediatrics (1976 & 1981), with the AAP concluding that a "cult" of megavitamin therapy followers had arisen. Hawkins appears to have been well outside of the mainstream for much of his professional career as well.
He often notes that he practiced psychiatry for fifty years, yet he also says that roughly ten of those years were spent as a hermit.
Many of the claims on his website are simply hard to verify.
14. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Inspirational[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Truth eschews and avoids glamorization, seduction, and theatrics.
Hawkins is quite theatrical (I recall for one lecture he dressed up as a pirate, as one example). I was pleased when I saw another refer to his lecture as a “lecture-performance” because that really does seem to be the case. AK is a very “glamorous” tool that purports to reveal all of life’s mysteries by pressing on an arm. I contend Hawkins “seduces” people into his nonsense by lying/exaggerating/omitting about the workability of AK, and especially by not noting in his books and websites the source of his Ph.D., among many other things.
15. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Nonmaterialistic[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Truth is devoid of neediness of worldly wealth, prestige, pomp, or edifices.
The “prestige, pomp” and “edifices” I’ve already dealt with. Regarding “worldly wealth,” just look at his website and draw your own conclusions: [www.veritaspub.com] .
16. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Self-fulfilling[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Truth is already total and complete and has no need to proselytize or gain adherents, followers, or “sign up members.”
I believe his work contradicts this, and I have already stated why.
17. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Detached[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: There is noninvolvement in world affairs.
This is simply not true in my view. Hawkins has a political agenda it looks like, and not just to me. Many have complained about his right wing, conservative politics; that he is a hawk (“Sometimes you need a little war to bring peace" [www.level-of-consciousness.org] [Compare with the Buddha’s “In this world, Hate never yet dispelled hate. Only love dispels hate.This is the law, Ancient and inexhaustible.” [www.angelfire.com] and Christ’s “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” [bible.cc] ]), endorses Bill O’Reilly as a “bellwether of integrity,” and so on. Even Rev. Pardon agrees with me on this, but note the Rev. Pardon happens to share Hawkins’ political views; even people who agree with him still recognize that he oversteps his boundaries as a spiritual teacher on political issues.
For information on Rev. Pardon, please see [neirr.org] and [www.google.com] . He is a recognized cult expert and "has worked with and/or appeared on 48 Hours, Dateline, EXTRA, CNN, Early Show with Bryant Gumble, Today Show, Good Morning America, Inside Edition, PBS, Chronicle and numerous local television stations and cable outlets" and has been referenced in the [i:6f45bb8cdb]New York Post[/i:6f45bb8cdb], the Associated Press, [i:6f45bb8cdb]The Boston Globe[/i:6f45bb8cdb], the [i:6f45bb8cdb]Boston Herald[/i:6f45bb8cdb], the [i:6f45bb8cdb]Boston Phoenix[/i:6f45bb8cdb], [i:6f45bb8cdb]The Providence Journal[/i:6f45bb8cdb], [i:6f45bb8cdb]The Standard-Times[/i:6f45bb8cdb], [i:6f45bb8cdb]The Sun Chronicle[/i:6f45bb8cdb], the [i:6f45bb8cdb]Taunton Daily Gazette[/i:6f45bb8cdb], the [i:6f45bb8cdb]New Brunswick Telegraph Journal[/i:6f45bb8cdb], and [i:6f45bb8cdb]The Berkshire Eagle[/i:6f45bb8cdb]. I also saw him on Dr. Phil, Montel, and other shows.
18. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Benign[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Truth is identifiable along a progressive gradient. It has no “opposite” and therefore no “enemies” to castigate or oppose.
Truth is not “identifiable along a progressive gradient.” Truth Is, in a spiritual sense, and it also [i:6f45bb8cdb]is[/i:6f45bb8cdb] in a factual sense. Even Huang Po and Ramana Maharshi, among others, both of whom Hawkins references, state that there are no levels of Truth. Further, even titles of Hawkins’ books include [i:6f45bb8cdb] Power vs. Force[/i:6f45bb8cdb] and [i:6f45bb8cdb]Truth vs. Falsehood[/i:6f45bb8cdb]. There is an “us vs. them” mentality, such as above 200 vs. below 200; skepticism vs. spirituality/religion, and so on. Hawkins calibrates anyone who disagrees with him as being below 200/without integrity. Facts are no longer what is true, but “calibration” is the new definition of “truth.”
19. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Nonintentional[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Truth does not intervene or have an agenda to propose, inflict, or promulgate.
I believe his system and teachings contradict this and have already stated why.
20. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Nondualistic[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: All transpires by virtue of intrinsic (karmic) propensity within the field by which potentiality manifests as actuality rather than by “cause” and effect.
This is a misunderstanding of nonduality in my opinion. Whose potentiality? While there is no “cause” as the notion of cause is a concept, this does not literally imply that there is no “cause” in a relative sense. For example, if a person eats poisonous food, they will get sick.
21. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Tranquility and Peace[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: There are no “issues” or partialities. There is no desire to change others or impose on society. The effect of higher energies is innate and not dependent on propagation or effort. God does not need help anymore than gravity needs the “help” of an apple’s falling off the tree.
I think his system contradicts this. I strongly disagree with the idea that teaching people to press on each other’s arms for absolute truth will lead to tranquility and peace. In fact, it leads to a lot of pointless argument (see [www.level-of-consciousness.org] ).
22. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Equality[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: This is expressed in reverence for all of life in all its expressions and merely avoids that which is deleterious rather than opposing it.
It “merely avoids” the vast majority of humanity and many things on earth (lol). I contend that Hawkins’ work induces a certain paranoia of the world and most human beings rather than peace and equality. Further, Hawkins certainly appears to oppose any criticism of him.
23. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Nontemporality[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Life is realized to be eternal and physicality to be a temporality. Life is not subject to death.
This is true, but you can discover this truth in any religion.
24. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Beyond Proof[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: That which is “provable” is linear, limited, and a product of intellectualization and mentation. Reality needs no agreement. Reality is not an acquisition but instead is a purely spontaneous, subjective realization when the positionalities of the dualistic ego are surrendered.
I think it is funny that proof is “limited, and a product of intellectualization and mentation.” Hawkins should have never indicated his work is science if he wanted to have people not ask for proof, which is part of science. From the beginning, he should have stated he was starting a new religion and not since completely contradicted what he wrote in his book [i:6f45bb8cdb]Power vs. Force[/i:6f45bb8cdb] that got people interested in the first place. Reality is neither subjective nor objective (this is still dualistic thinking) and there are no positionalities or “ego.”
25. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Mystical[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: The origination of truth is a spontaneous effulgence, radiance, and illumination, which is the Revelation that replaces the illusion of a separate individual self, the ego, and its mentation.
Again, this can be found elsewhere. Also, mentation still does happen spontaneously after realization, but one is no longer the thoughts alone (see Hui-Neng).
26. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Ineffable[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Not capable of definition. Radical subjectivity is experiential. It is a condition that replaces the former. With this event, context replaces content, devoid of temporality and beyond time. Reality does not exist in time, or of it, or beyond it, or outside of it, and it has no relationship to that which is an artifice of mentation. It is therefore beyond all nouns, adjectives, or verbs, transitive or intransitive.
Truth is ineffable, that is true. There is a very long tradition of asserting this. Again, “subjectivity” is still dualistic. (I draw a distinction between spiritual Truth, and scientific truth; the latter is certainly not ineffable.)
27. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Simplistic[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: One sees the intrinsic beauty and perfection of all that exists beyond appearance and form.
I think Hawkins’ entire system is the antithesis of simplicity. See Thich Nhat Hanh or Ramana for a taste of true simplicity. Also, simplicity/beauty is not “beyond appearance and form,” but is one with it (see any Zen teacher among many others).
28. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Affirmative:[/b:6f45bb8cdb] Truth is beyond opinion and provability. Confirmation is purely by its subjective awareness; however, it is identifiable by consciousness calibration techniques.
AK is an opinion and only beyond provability in the sense that it has been disproved. “however, it is identifiable by consciousness calibration techniques.” This completely contradicts the rest of his sentence.
29. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Nonoperative[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Truth does not “do” anything or “cause” anything; it is everything.
That’s true, in a sense, but again AK contradicts this. If truth is everything, then why are there so many varying “calibrations” at all? Utter nonsense.
30. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Invitational[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: As contrasted with promotional or persuasive.
This is nonsense in regard to Hawkins. I have stated why already.
31. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Nonpredictive[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Because Reality is nonlinear, it cannot be localized or encoded in restriction of form such as a secret messages, codes, numbers, and inscription, or hidden in runes, stones, the dimensions of the pyramids, the DNA, or the nostril hairs of the camel. Truth has no secrets. The Reality of God is omnipresent and beyond codification or exclusivity. Codes are indicative of man’s imagination and not the capriciousness of Divinity.
Reality is not “nonlinear;” it is as it is. “it cannot be localized or encoded in restriction of form such as a secret messages, codes, numbers…” AK contradicts this. “Codes are indicative of man’s imagination and not the capriciousness of Divinity.” Couldn’t have said it better myself. AK contradicts this.
32. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Nonsentimental[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Emotionality is based on perception. Compassion results from the discernment of truth.
Compassion has nothing to do with truth, but is as it is.
33. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Nonauthoritarian[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: There are no rules or dictates to be followed.
AK contradicts this, as written above.
34. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Nonegoistic[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Teachers are respected but reject personal adulation or specialness.
I do not believe this is the case for Hawkins, though it certainly is not the case for the people who follow him, who basically worship him. Hawkins is not “special,” I guess that is why most of us at the Rick Ross forum are “below 200” and he is 999.8 or whatever.
35. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Educational[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Provides information in a variety of formats and ensures availability.
This isn’t true. Jesus never wrote anything, for example. There are many examples that contradict this; it strikes me more as a justification for selling books, CDs, DVDs, etc.
36. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Self-supporting[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Neither mercenary nor materialistic.
I doubt Hawkins is solely motivated by profit, but he does charge a lot of money.
37. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Freestanding[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Complete without dependence on external or historical authorities.
Hawkins makes no claim to “historical authorities,” other than the past lives that he states that he lived (a pirate, galley slave, Crusader, and Hinayana Buddhist monk, among others). He certainly relies on external authority with AK and his (supposed and otherwise) credentials.
38. [b:6f45bb8cdb]Natural[/b:6f45bb8cdb]: Devoid of induced, altered status of consciousness or manipulations of energies by artificial means (i.e., nonreliance on form).
I think this essentially means to not use of drugs, which is supported by many religions.
39. Teachers dismissed for moral turpitude, open honesty.
Hawkins lacks open honesty in my view and I have already made this case.
David R. Hawkins
Posted by:
shimon
()
Date: June 06, 2007 07:17AM
Hi Phoenix Potter,
I have been reading your posts about Hawkins and had some questions for you. You seem very knowledgeable about Hawkins, but some of what you write doesnt convince me.
I have had other gurus in the past who are cult leaders and I have gotten out and I do not want to get involved with another cult leader.
However, Hawkins seems pretty cool and not another fake. You still haven't convinced me of anything about him, except to stay away from the Kinesiology thingy.
Yes, maybe Hawkins org is a little cult like, but not the man himself. RIght? Hawkins is enlightened, right?
Have you been hurt by him in any way? Were you a former student? How long did you follow him? Could you share more what you got out of his teachings and why you left? What happened to make you wake up and leave him?
Do you have a current guru now or follow any teachings? I am more attracted to eastern philosophy and am disillusioned with reading about Tibetan Buddhists on this forum. It seems hard to find a pure guru these days.
So if we could have some discussion about Hawkins I would like that. For I see that Rick Ross has not posted Hawkins under his database for a cult leader, so I don't think he is one yet. Or Ross would have had him listed by now. Iam not a sheeple so I am open to hearing more, but I am not yet convinced by your arguments. ANd would like to hear more about your personal expereince with him and his teachings. How it helped or hurt you.
I have been reading your posts about Hawkins and had some questions for you. You seem very knowledgeable about Hawkins, but some of what you write doesnt convince me.
I have had other gurus in the past who are cult leaders and I have gotten out and I do not want to get involved with another cult leader.
However, Hawkins seems pretty cool and not another fake. You still haven't convinced me of anything about him, except to stay away from the Kinesiology thingy.
Yes, maybe Hawkins org is a little cult like, but not the man himself. RIght? Hawkins is enlightened, right?
Have you been hurt by him in any way? Were you a former student? How long did you follow him? Could you share more what you got out of his teachings and why you left? What happened to make you wake up and leave him?
Do you have a current guru now or follow any teachings? I am more attracted to eastern philosophy and am disillusioned with reading about Tibetan Buddhists on this forum. It seems hard to find a pure guru these days.
So if we could have some discussion about Hawkins I would like that. For I see that Rick Ross has not posted Hawkins under his database for a cult leader, so I don't think he is one yet. Or Ross would have had him listed by now. Iam not a sheeple so I am open to hearing more, but I am not yet convinced by your arguments. ANd would like to hear more about your personal expereince with him and his teachings. How it helped or hurt you.
David R. Hawkins
Posted by:
PhoenixPotter
()
Date: June 07, 2007 03:42AM
Hi Shimon,
Who were your past cult leaders, if you don’t mind me asking?
[www.culteducation.com]
[www.culteducation.com]
Ross requires press articles regarding people to include them in his database. As of now, there are no press articles specifically on Hawkins that I am aware of for Ross to include. There has been, however, much personal testimony, as well as various cult and other experts addressing Hawkins. More time is needed.
For more on my personal experience, please email me at phoenixpotterx@yahoo.com . I may include more at a later date. However, I have written a lot here, and I think it is a bit odd that if you have indeed read most of this thread that you would still consider following Hawkins.
Thank you.
Please give me some examples if you would.Quote
shimon
some of what you write doesnt convince me.
Who were your past cult leaders, if you don’t mind me asking?
No, because Hawkins is responsible.Quote
shimon
Yes, maybe Hawkins org is a little cult like, but not the man himself. RIght?
I don’t think a person who teaches as he does could be considered to be enlightened.Quote
shimon
Hawkins is enlightened, right?
I think the message of the pure gurus is to rely on yourself anyway.Quote
shimon
It seems hard to find a pure guru these days.
I emailed Rick Ross about this and he sent me these two links:Quote
shimon
For I see that Rick Ross has not posted Hawkins under his database for a cult leader, so I don't think he is one yet. Or Ross would have had him listed by now.
[www.culteducation.com]
[www.culteducation.com]
Ross requires press articles regarding people to include them in his database. As of now, there are no press articles specifically on Hawkins that I am aware of for Ross to include. There has been, however, much personal testimony, as well as various cult and other experts addressing Hawkins. More time is needed.
For more on my personal experience, please email me at phoenixpotterx@yahoo.com . I may include more at a later date. However, I have written a lot here, and I think it is a bit odd that if you have indeed read most of this thread that you would still consider following Hawkins.
Thank you.
David R. Hawkins
Posted by:
shimon
()
Date: June 07, 2007 01:51PM
Hi Phoenix Potter,
I dont have much time at the moment to reply thorughly to your questions but with my limited time will try my best.
First of all, I didnt agree with your take on the power vs force review by the Christian person. I found it funny to say the least. You cant use that kind of nonsense to put Hawkins down. It just cant be taken seriously. I have nothing against any religion, but any thing written like that cannot be taken seriously in my opinion. Your things from people like Marilyn Gang is much more credible and interesting to read. I checked it out and have to agree with what she wrote and I would be offended too if that happened to me.
I am still weighing the good and the bad in Hawkins. I want to stay away from cult leaders, but also dont want to miss out if they are the real thing.
As for some of my past cult leaders I have been involved with, are Sant Thakar Singh, Sant Rajinder Singh, Sai Baba, Ammachi, and Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh). Hawkins calibrates most of these below 200 or fallen gurus. Now dont get me wrong, I dont buy his calibration thing yet, but some of his calibrations seem right on. Whether it is from his third eye or spiritual knowing, I dont care where he gets it, but he seems to be accurate in some areas. And then in other areas, like Politics I have to question his calibrations. And they seem way off.
The people around Hawkins might be cult like, but I am not so convinced he is like that. He might be and that is what I am trying to find out. What is the truth about him. Like I said, some of what you write seems right on and other stuff just doesnt seem like the truth. I want to believe everything you write but it doesnt seem right. And I am sorry I dont have the time right now to debate every point of what I disagree on.
I dont think it is odd that I would consider still following Hawkins if I read your thread. Which I did, and found many helpful information regarding Hawkins. But some of it just seems far fetched and off. I dont care about some of the points you bring up. I just want to reach enlightnement and some of what he teaches seems to help me. I dismiss the rest of the stuff.
I have a problem with many of the things you brought up, but I stick with the good he teaches and dismiss the rest. I like buddhism, hindusim, and taoism. I like Ramana Maharshi that you bring up and Huang Po I have read too. Hawkins seems to complement these teachers well.
When I have more time I might bring up some specific things to question you on, but I hope you do indeed share more eventually about your path with Hawkins and why you got out. That is what I find most helpful.
I dont have much time at the moment to reply thorughly to your questions but with my limited time will try my best.
First of all, I didnt agree with your take on the power vs force review by the Christian person. I found it funny to say the least. You cant use that kind of nonsense to put Hawkins down. It just cant be taken seriously. I have nothing against any religion, but any thing written like that cannot be taken seriously in my opinion. Your things from people like Marilyn Gang is much more credible and interesting to read. I checked it out and have to agree with what she wrote and I would be offended too if that happened to me.
I am still weighing the good and the bad in Hawkins. I want to stay away from cult leaders, but also dont want to miss out if they are the real thing.
As for some of my past cult leaders I have been involved with, are Sant Thakar Singh, Sant Rajinder Singh, Sai Baba, Ammachi, and Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh). Hawkins calibrates most of these below 200 or fallen gurus. Now dont get me wrong, I dont buy his calibration thing yet, but some of his calibrations seem right on. Whether it is from his third eye or spiritual knowing, I dont care where he gets it, but he seems to be accurate in some areas. And then in other areas, like Politics I have to question his calibrations. And they seem way off.
The people around Hawkins might be cult like, but I am not so convinced he is like that. He might be and that is what I am trying to find out. What is the truth about him. Like I said, some of what you write seems right on and other stuff just doesnt seem like the truth. I want to believe everything you write but it doesnt seem right. And I am sorry I dont have the time right now to debate every point of what I disagree on.
I dont think it is odd that I would consider still following Hawkins if I read your thread. Which I did, and found many helpful information regarding Hawkins. But some of it just seems far fetched and off. I dont care about some of the points you bring up. I just want to reach enlightnement and some of what he teaches seems to help me. I dismiss the rest of the stuff.
I have a problem with many of the things you brought up, but I stick with the good he teaches and dismiss the rest. I like buddhism, hindusim, and taoism. I like Ramana Maharshi that you bring up and Huang Po I have read too. Hawkins seems to complement these teachers well.
When I have more time I might bring up some specific things to question you on, but I hope you do indeed share more eventually about your path with Hawkins and why you got out. That is what I find most helpful.
David R. Hawkins
Posted by:
PhoenixPotter
()
Date: June 08, 2007 02:52AM
Hi Shimon,
This statement also seems accurate:
(I include this article for ease and speed of comprehension, though am aware that Imre Lakatos would later come to combine Thomas Kuhn’s and Popper’s theories of science.)
Astrology operates on the same principle as Hawkins’ AK of looking for confirmations and not falsification. For example, I have a friend who loves astrology. One day she asked me to read her the entry for her birth date from [i:524ded739b]The Secret Language of Birthdays[/i:524ded739b]. As a fun test, rather than reading from June, her month, I read from September. She looked only for the “hits,” and so even though the date was completely off from her birthday, she would say such things as, “Oh yes, that is me alright!” and laugh. She thought it was funny when I revealed it was not her date, but was nevertheless unshaken from her belief in the truth of astrology, and would continue to diligently read all of her horoscopes.
Watch “James Randi on Astrology” [www.youtube.com] (it is only 1 minute and 35 seconds long). A group of students are each given a horoscope and told that it was written by an astrologer just for them. Many found that it fit them very well. But in fact, they were all given the same horoscope (and if memory serves, it was that of a serial killer). (For more of his videos on interesting debunking and experiments, see [video.google.com] ).
Hawkins himself does not recommend Sri Ramakrishna, by the way, a very respected 19th century Indian teacher, because Ramakrishna teaches to stay away from “women and gold” (i.e., [i:524ded739b]kamini kanchan[/i:524ded739b]). Note that this has been interpreted to “indicate the habitual drives of sexuality and possessiveness” [www.hinduismtoday.com] or as simply “lust and greed” [www.healthandyoga.com] . Dismissing a teacher for a teaching such as this seems to pale in comparison to what Hawkins teaches.
Keep in mind that people such as Sarlo, Andrew Paterson, and myself all are critical of Hawkins, yet still support Ramana Maharshi and others. But since we are critical of Hawkins and pseudoscience (not of enlightenment and truth), he calibrates us at “160.” God is not like this.
Hawkins wrote a book titled [i:524ded739b]Truth vs. Falsehood: How to Tell the Difference[/i:524ded739b], which addresses many aspects of “truth” in “the world” (such as politics and films). Compare this with Ramana’s, “What is the meaning of this talk of truth and falsehood in the world, which itself is false?” (Ramana also states that Reality is actually one with the world, and that denying the world wholesale as an illusion is simply an aid in helping seekers. Hawkins makes “the world” and its “illusions” quite real, to the detriment of healthy spiritual seeking in my and others’ opinion.)
Most importantly, Ramana teaches that the one hindrance to realization is believing that you are not already realized. Hawkins’ teachings greatly, emphatically, immorally (in my view) contradict this and other similar teachings.
I think you mean the “Dangerous Stuff” Amazon.com review. I don’t think I offered much of a “take” on it, other than to say that here is another person who has been harmed following the teaching of Hawkins. This should concern any spiritual person, or any human being. Here is something promising salvation and the answers to life that ended up hurting a person. Taking out his or her religious conclusions, the person does offer some good facts, such as:Quote
shimon
First of all, I didnt agree with your take on the power vs force review by the Christian person.
Also, even on this thread another follower, in the manner of Hawkins, mentioned having “inner temptations” presumably from Lucifer or Satan. This does happen. I've also met people who were following Hawkins who believe they are being attacked and tempted by “astrals,” or if they get sick they think a “blast of negative energy” has affected them. Hawkins is a medical doctor, and this is what his followers believe.Quote
his use of applied kinesiology for determining truth for which it is not intended...Kinesiology is not a proven science as shown by double-blind studies referenced in Wikipedia…
This statement also seems accurate:
Quote
Things may appear benevolent at first but will only get worse with time.
If this is about the person who ended up in a mental ward, this is kind of my point: is Hawkins really teaching spirituality when your response to this is not compassion and concern, but rather amusement?Quote
shimon
I found it funny to say the least. You cant use that kind of nonsense to put Hawkins down.
I wasn’t judging his or her religious convictions, but was concerned that someone was harmed following Hawkins’ teachings.Quote
shimon
I have nothing against any religion, but any thing written like that cannot be taken seriously in my opinion.
Please share what you are weighing. I am concerned that you “dont want to miss out if they are the real thing.” Aren’t there some teachers you feel you know are the “real thing?” Why on earth waste your time wondering, especially with so much factual information being presented, when you could just follow someone you know is teaching you the truth?Quote
shimon
I am still weighing the good and the bad in Hawkins. I want to stay away from cult leaders, but also dont want to miss out if they are the real thing.
I am glad you brought this up. You are looking for confirmation rather than falsification. Inevitably some of his calibrations will appear to be “hits.” However, a person could just as easily read about all of these people at Rick Ross or another site without appeal to pseudoscience. I think you will agree that reason is a tool, and I believe it is a much better tool than pseudoscience for determining whether or not a group is a cult, as well as your own intuition, prayer, and meditation. I think it is more likely that Hawkins knew about these people and then calibrated them low. For example, when he tests for something on his wife’s arm, he will start at a certain place depending on the subject in mind. So, for Hitler, of course he will start with below 200, or something low. For someone like Nisargadatta Maharaj, he starts higher. I think you will notice this if you have not already. So, he often already has a general idea of where they are at (in his mind) and then finds the “confirmation” on his wife’s arm. If you press on the arm a few times, it will eventually “go weak,” and often still within the range that Hawkins anticipated before beginning his test. Also, I remember two videos I saw where Hawkins referred to Sai Baba, for example. In one, he calibrated him below 200. In the next, Hawkins led up to testing him on his wife by stating that there had been a guru who was high but had fallen. Then he began testing. It didn't indicate that Baba was below 200 this time. Hawkins concluded, “You learn something every time.” Absurd.Quote
shimon
As for some of my past cult leaders I have been involved with, are Sant Thakar Singh, Sant Rajinder Singh, Sai Baba, Ammachi, and Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh). Hawkins calibrates most of these below 200 or fallen gurus.
A simple explanation of how this works can be read in philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper’s “Science as Falsification.” [www.stephenjaygould.org]Quote
shimon
Now dont get me wrong, I dont buy his calibration thing yet, but some of his calibrations seem right on.
(I include this article for ease and speed of comprehension, though am aware that Imre Lakatos would later come to combine Thomas Kuhn’s and Popper’s theories of science.)
(See [skepdic.com] and [en.wikipedia.org] )Quote
[i:524ded739b]It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations…A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability…Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. [/i:524ded739b]– Karl Popper
Astrology operates on the same principle as Hawkins’ AK of looking for confirmations and not falsification. For example, I have a friend who loves astrology. One day she asked me to read her the entry for her birth date from [i:524ded739b]The Secret Language of Birthdays[/i:524ded739b]. As a fun test, rather than reading from June, her month, I read from September. She looked only for the “hits,” and so even though the date was completely off from her birthday, she would say such things as, “Oh yes, that is me alright!” and laugh. She thought it was funny when I revealed it was not her date, but was nevertheless unshaken from her belief in the truth of astrology, and would continue to diligently read all of her horoscopes.
Watch “James Randi on Astrology” [www.youtube.com] (it is only 1 minute and 35 seconds long). A group of students are each given a horoscope and told that it was written by an astrologer just for them. Many found that it fit them very well. But in fact, they were all given the same horoscope (and if memory serves, it was that of a serial killer). (For more of his videos on interesting debunking and experiments, see [video.google.com] ).
For his AK system to be true or not, you must either accept all of it or none of it. You cannot pick and choose. I reject the entire system.Quote
shimon
And then in other areas, like Politics I have to question his calibrations. And they seem way off.
I will need examples in order to respond to this.Quote
shimon
some of what you write seems right on and other stuff just doesnt seem like the truth.
No need to believe me. I respect your right to think for yourself.Quote
shimon
I want to believe everything you write but it doesnt seem right.
When and if you have the time, please bring up some examples so I can address these.Quote
shimon
But some of it just seems far fetched and off.
That’s great. That’s the best way to go about it. I personally find much better teachings elsewhere, and they are not bogged down with nonsense, politics, and unquestioning, blind faith.Quote
shimon
I just want to reach enlightnement and some of what he teaches seems to help me. I dismiss the rest of the stuff.
Hawkins himself does not recommend Sri Ramakrishna, by the way, a very respected 19th century Indian teacher, because Ramakrishna teaches to stay away from “women and gold” (i.e., [i:524ded739b]kamini kanchan[/i:524ded739b]). Note that this has been interpreted to “indicate the habitual drives of sexuality and possessiveness” [www.hinduismtoday.com] or as simply “lust and greed” [www.healthandyoga.com] . Dismissing a teacher for a teaching such as this seems to pale in comparison to what Hawkins teaches.
Keep in mind that people such as Sarlo, Andrew Paterson, and myself all are critical of Hawkins, yet still support Ramana Maharshi and others. But since we are critical of Hawkins and pseudoscience (not of enlightenment and truth), he calibrates us at “160.” God is not like this.
I completely disagree. These teachings seem to me to be entirely different in many regards. Take Ramana, as an example. He teaches that the ultimate truth is very simple.Quote
shimon
I like buddhism, hindusim, and taoism. I like Ramana Maharshi that you bring up and Huang Po I have read too. Hawkins seems to complement these teachers well.
I contend that Hawkins’ system is “elaborate and mysterious” and is not the simple, ultimate truth.Quote
[i:524ded739b]The ultimate truth is so simple…because people want something elaborate and mysterious, so many religions have come into existence. Only those who are mature can understand the matter in its naked simplicity.[/i:524ded739b]
Hawkins wrote a book titled [i:524ded739b]Truth vs. Falsehood: How to Tell the Difference[/i:524ded739b], which addresses many aspects of “truth” in “the world” (such as politics and films). Compare this with Ramana’s, “What is the meaning of this talk of truth and falsehood in the world, which itself is false?” (Ramana also states that Reality is actually one with the world, and that denying the world wholesale as an illusion is simply an aid in helping seekers. Hawkins makes “the world” and its “illusions” quite real, to the detriment of healthy spiritual seeking in my and others’ opinion.)
Most importantly, Ramana teaches that the one hindrance to realization is believing that you are not already realized. Hawkins’ teachings greatly, emphatically, immorally (in my view) contradict this and other similar teachings.
Hawkins’ system would reinforce the illusion of the “false idea that one is not realized,” and is thus a hindrance to enlightenment rather than an aid. “Straight and narrow is the path, waste no time,” as Hawkins writes in his books. Hawkins contradicts his own teachings repeatedly.Quote
[i:524ded739b]There are no stages in Realization or degrees of Liberation…Realization is nothing to be gained anew. You are the Self. You are already and eternally That. There is never a moment when the Self is not; it is ever-present, here and now. If Realization were something to be gained hereafter, there would be an equal chance of its being lost; this cannot be Liberation, which is eternal. Realization consists of getting rid of the false idea that one is not realized.[/i:524ded739b]
Quote
[i:524ded739b]Our real nature is Liberation, but we imagine that we are bound…we make strenuous efforts to become free, although all the while we are free. [/i:524ded739b] ~ Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi
David R. Hawkins
Posted by:
shimon
()
Date: June 08, 2007 07:06AM
What did you think of Hawkins on Oprah radio? DId you listen to it or read about it? I read on Levelofconsciousness.org that you pointed me too, was talkign about it and making such a big deal about him being on there. Any comments about Sir David Hawkins appearance on it. He seems to be very popular these days, seminars selling out in hours, and his interent chat groups growing daily. He even has the likes of Wayne Dyer endorsing him and supposedly he has even been to a few o f Hawkins seminars in Sedona.
I personally didnt listen to the Oprah thing, becasue i did not want to sign up for her free trial just for this interview. But it is interesting to me that he is making it such big time these days. EVen Oprah now has heard of him. WHat is going on, why is he attracting so many followers now.
Have you met any of his followers and if so, what do you think of them, do you think they are very cultish?
Have you ever shared any of this on any of the internet groups or levelofconsciousness site. They would probably ban you or throw you out.
I personally didnt listen to the Oprah thing, becasue i did not want to sign up for her free trial just for this interview. But it is interesting to me that he is making it such big time these days. EVen Oprah now has heard of him. WHat is going on, why is he attracting so many followers now.
Have you met any of his followers and if so, what do you think of them, do you think they are very cultish?
Have you ever shared any of this on any of the internet groups or levelofconsciousness site. They would probably ban you or throw you out.
David R. Hawkins
Posted by:
PhoenixPotter
()
Date: June 08, 2007 09:30AM
I thought it was good. I like how Hawkins was very kind to Oprah. Oprah is a very good person.Quote
shimon
What did you think of Hawkins on Oprah radio?
In fact, I called Oprah both before and after the show at her number 866-OPRAH-XM. My first call let her know some of the facts about Dr. Hawkins; I referred her to Wikipedia, and asked her to give a balanced interview. I am not sure if the interview had already been recorded, even though it had not yet aired. Regardless, I called again afterward and I mentioned that I felt she should have been more balanced and used more critical thinking. I told her that even John Diamond and Eric Pierotti of ICAK are critical of Hawkins’ work. Oprah is a wonderful human being, but she does offer a lot of pseudoscience and New Age stuff, which I don’t think is good.
They did not mention too much about testing and so on, the more controversial stuff, as the people I quote below pointed out. Hawkins did say, however, that a scientific test can never be repeated. This is false. It also completely contradicts [i:2f227cb4e9]Power vs. Force[/i:2f227cb4e9], where he says Kinesiology can for the first time in human history distinguish truth from falsehood and is always replicable. In fact, in the book he rightly noted that this is a criterion for science, and falsely states this is [i:2f227cb4e9]why[/i:2f227cb4e9] AK is a science.
Oprah did half-challenge one statement that war had gone on for 97% of human history. She said she didn’t have the stats to refute it, though. Apparently there is some debate on when war started ( [en.wikipedia.org] ); is Hawkins referring to the last 5,000 years of recorded history, the beginning of agriculture 12,000 years ago, or does he also take this back to our hunter-gatherer past for the last 200,000 years, when [i:2f227cb4e9]Homo sapiens sapiens[/i:2f227cb4e9] first appeared?
Here is what some of the people are saying at [www.level-of-consciousness.org]
Quote
The essence of Oprah (cal. 510) and Dr. Hawkins (cal. 850+) appear so clear in that simple dialogue.
This message must be heard, not for its logic, but the wisdom of the interview is just so beautiful and can really show the Doc off for who he really is... not like those skeptics out there.
You can tell that Oprah is interested in implementing the lovingness, not getting hung up on kinesiology.
I love the fact that they don't talk about consciousness levels and kinesiology.
they didn't have enough time to go in depth.
What I love about Oprah, is that she has this understanding about what can be shown on her Oprah show and what is probably too weird for mainstream and so belongs to the radio.
For example Esther Hicks channeled Abraham on her radio show once. Man if she did that on the TV show that would seriously freak people (and the media) out. It would be stranger than the Tom Cruise thing, where he is jumping on her couch. Lol
[www.level-of-consciousness.org]
This person offers the interview for free, by the way [www.level-of-consciousness.org]
I hope your “Sir David” was tongue-in-cheek. See [neirr.org] , [www.chivalricorders.org] , and [www.christusrex.org] .
Popularity is not a measure of truth. Scientology, Kabbalah, Sai Baba, other cults and many pseudoscientific theories have a lot of followers.Quote
shimon
He seems to be very popular these days, seminars selling out in hours, and his interent chat groups growing daily. He even has the likes of Wayne Dyer endorsing him and supposedly he has even been to a few o f Hawkins seminars in Sedona.
Dyer endorses a lot of nonsense, even Sai Baba, as I have already pointed out.
Also, his internet groups growing daily is not that impressive. To my knowledge the largest still has roughly only 1,300 members. As a comparison, at this writing just this thread's pages alone have been accessed over 22,000 times.
I don’t know why he is attracting followers, but lots of people believe a lot of erroneous beliefs. It would actually be expected to increase before it diminishes. Oprah gets into a lot of crazy stuff. She had [i:2f227cb4e9]The Secret[/i:2f227cb4e9] team on her show recently, and I think that is where she heard about Hawkins from. She mentions in the interview only having discovered him about four weeks earlier.Quote
shimon
EVen Oprah now has heard of him. WHat is going on, why is he attracting so many followers now.
Yes, I have met hundreds of his followers. I think they are very cultish. I am sorry that they believe that they must give up their critical thinking abilities to reach “enlightenment.”Quote
shimon
Have you met any of his followers and if so, what do you think of them, do you think they are very cultish?.
I think that Wheelock’s group would allow some discussion, but the ones on Yahoo, including the one Hawkins is secretly behind, are very strict on what discussion is allowed. As one of the group sites states, “attempts to distort [Hawkins’] Truth will never see the light of your monitor.” Why don't you try to share some the facts about Hawkins on the groups? :D If you do, let us know what happens. And tell us if you also find his followers to be “very cultish.” Thanks.Quote
shimon
Have you ever shared any of this on any of the internet groups or levelofconsciousness site. They would probably ban you or throw you out.
David R. Hawkins
Posted by:
shimon
()
Date: June 08, 2007 06:15PM
Do you think there is any harm in just reading Hawkins, mainly from his main book, Power vs Force? As long as I dont buy into his nonsense in the form of kinesilogy, is it okay just to read this book and take what is helpful and leave the rest alone?
Or do you feel there is a danger in this? What harm could this do in your opionion?
You mentioned you did not think Hawkins was enlightened. His personal experiences are quite profound and extraordinary and sound like he is enlightened. If he is not enlightened, what do you think he is speaking from, just the intellect? Is he just in the 400's according to his own system of calibrations.
You mentioned somewhere that several ACIM teachers do not agree with Hawkins system. Is it mostly the parts dealing with levels. I know ACIm doesnt teach any levels, there is only the absolute level. The interesting thing is you problably know, Hawkins taught the course for years and calibrates it highly, around 550-600. Sorry to keep bringing up all these calibration numbers, but I am conditioned to think this way, programmed by his numbers.
By the way, I liked what you wrote earlier and agree now that his calibrations are a total nonsense and I am throwing them all out as pseudoscience but I am still stuck or programmed to speak this way. I will eventually drop this brainwashing. Like I did with all of the other cult leaders I followed for awhile.
Or do you feel there is a danger in this? What harm could this do in your opionion?
You mentioned you did not think Hawkins was enlightened. His personal experiences are quite profound and extraordinary and sound like he is enlightened. If he is not enlightened, what do you think he is speaking from, just the intellect? Is he just in the 400's according to his own system of calibrations.
You mentioned somewhere that several ACIM teachers do not agree with Hawkins system. Is it mostly the parts dealing with levels. I know ACIm doesnt teach any levels, there is only the absolute level. The interesting thing is you problably know, Hawkins taught the course for years and calibrates it highly, around 550-600. Sorry to keep bringing up all these calibration numbers, but I am conditioned to think this way, programmed by his numbers.
By the way, I liked what you wrote earlier and agree now that his calibrations are a total nonsense and I am throwing them all out as pseudoscience but I am still stuck or programmed to speak this way. I will eventually drop this brainwashing. Like I did with all of the other cult leaders I followed for awhile.
David R. Hawkins
Posted by:
PhoenixPotter
()
Date: June 09, 2007 04:47AM
I would first ask what it is you find helpful about it, and inquire as to whether or not you would be able to find this help elsewhere to avoid the potential harm that you are already aware of?Quote
shimon
Do you think there is any harm in just reading Hawkins, mainly from his main book, Power vs Force? As long as I dont buy into his nonsense in the form of kinesilogy, is it okay just to read this book and take what is helpful and leave the rest alone?
Good question. First of all, I would like to ask how you define “enlightenment?” To me, enlightenment is not something “profound and extraordinary,” but just their opposite. The person who teaches this in the most blunt terms is Chán master Lin-Chi (i.e., Línjì Yìxuán, or Rinzai Gigen in Japanese).Quote
shimon
You mentioned you did not think Hawkins was enlightened. His personal experiences are quite profound and extraordinary and sound like he is enlightened. If he is not enlightened, what do you think he is speaking from, just the intellect? Is he just in the 400's according to his own system of calibrations.
Additionally, he is responsible for the famous quote, “If you meet a buddha, kill the buddha.” (Of course, not literally.)Quote
[i:19da414920]When it's time to get dressed, put on your clothes. When you must walk, then walk. When you must sit, then sit. Just be your ordinary self in ordinary life, unconcerned in seeking for Buddhahood. When you're tired, lie down. The fool will laugh at you but the wise man will understand.[/i:19da414920]
He also stated, “Followers of the Way, as I look at it, we’re no different from Shakyamuni [i.e., the Buddha].” This is in reference to everyone, not just one person.Quote
[i:19da414920]Followers of the Way, if you want to get the kind of understanding that accords with the Dharma, never be misled by others. Whether you're facing inward or facing outward, whatever you meet up with, just kill it! If you meet a buddha, kill the buddha. If you meet a patriarch, kill the patriarch. If you meet an arhat, kill the arhat. If you meet your parents, kill your parents. If you meet your kinfolk, kill your kinfolk. Then for the first time you will gain emancipation, will not be entangled with things, will pass freely anywhere you wish to go.
Those who have fulfilled the ten stages of bodhisattva practice are no better than hired field hands; those who have attained the enlightenment of the fifty-first and fifty-second stages are prisoners shackled and bound; arhats and pratyekabuddhas are so much filth in the latrine; bodhi and nirvana are hitching posts for donkeys[/i:19da414920].
It is the whole AK system, including the levels. One teacher in particular I wrote with said he thought Hawkins was a nice, old man, but not enlightened.Quote
shimon
You mentioned somewhere that several ACIM teachers do not agree with Hawkins system. Is it mostly the parts dealing with levels.
That’s correct. Most teachings that I have read state this, including teachers Hawkins recommends.Quote
shimon
I know ACIm doesnt teach any levels, there is only the absolute level.
Please read at the top of page 6 of this thread what Gary Renard wrote in his book regarding this, such as, “But if he were an early student of the Course, it makes me wonder why he didn't pay more attention to what the Course was saying.”Quote
shimon
The interesting thing is you problably know, Hawkins taught the course for years and calibrates it highly, around 550-600.
Well done! I am proud of you! :D I know you know it is a joy to keep your own critical thinkng abilities as you have been through this before. Thanks.Quote
shimon
By the way, I liked what you wrote earlier and agree now that his calibrations are a total nonsense and I am throwing them all out as pseudoscience...I will eventually drop this brainwashing. Like I did with all of the other cult leaders I followed for awhile.
Quote
[i:19da414920]Friends, I tell you this: there is no Buddha, no spiritual path to follow, no training and no realization. What are you so feverishly running after?…The trouble lies in your not believing in yourselves enough...Stop turning to the outside and don't be attached to my words either.[/i:19da414920] –Lin-chi
Quote
[i:19da414920]It is false to speak of realization; what is there to realize?...There is neither creation nor destruction, neither destiny nor free will, neither path nor achievement. This is the final truth.[/i:19da414920] –Ramana
David R. Hawkins
Posted by:
shimon
()
Date: June 09, 2007 11:22PM
I am real busy and will probably be away for a little while. But when I find more time I still want to go back and go through some of your old posts and ask more questions on it, for I said earlier some of the things you wrote I didnt necessarily agree with or understand.
Maybe as an idea, you could post one post that has alll of the links to important Hawkins articles or criticisms in one place for easy reference.
But I had time to ask one question at the moment. DO you feel that Hawkisn is overcharging for his seminars and other materials? I do and will not go to see him in pricey, touristy Sedona and spend hundreds in a hotel and flying, etc. I feel he is breaking one of his own rules about teachers, he is charging way too much. As far as I know Ramana Maharshi never charged, and he was at 720 calbiration according to Hawkins system, and supposedly Hawkins is higher, in the 900's. I think this is wrong and Ramana was way higher than Hawkins. A true Sage or Saint or Enlightened being is not interested in profit or selling cds? Or am I missing something.
I have known a few Hawkins devotees and they have no problem spending hundreds of dollars for the seminars and staying in Sedona. ONe guy even wanted to move to Sedona to be closer to Hawkins. That seems veyr cultish to me. ANd very immature. Unless again I am missing something, which is possible. Have you bought any of his cds, dvds, gone to seminars, etc. If so, what did you do with it, did you throw them away, burn them, or keep them for posterity.
I find even his dvds and cds expensive. The only thing I have bought of his is his books. And Truth vs Falsehood was a waste and I wish I never spent my money on it. It was trash. I am glad many of the reviews on Amazon actually put this book down and many Hawkins followers walked away from Hawkins after this book. Of course all of his followers will say that they are not open to the calibrations and are coming from positionalities.
I tried my hardest to accept his calibrations in there about Bush, politics, war, and the US. The US is not as pure as Hawkins makes it out to be. We are always right and all the other countries are wrong and below 200 in war and we are above it and all of our leaders. It might be true I guess, but something doesnt seem right about all of his calibrations in there. Another one is that BIll Oreilly is a bellwether of integrity and Playboy magazine calibrates at 310. When I saw that, I couldnt belive it. SInce when does porn and using women to make a profit, objectifying women calibrate so high and integrous. In my opinino this is nonsense. SHould I go out and buy a Playboy now because Hawkins calibrates it high and integrous. It calibrates higher than sceptics.
Okay, I hope you share more and when I have more time in the future I will ask some more specific questions. Thank you for helping me to see Hawkins more clearer and I specifically want to learn more truth about him and the cultish behavior.
Maybe as an idea, you could post one post that has alll of the links to important Hawkins articles or criticisms in one place for easy reference.
But I had time to ask one question at the moment. DO you feel that Hawkisn is overcharging for his seminars and other materials? I do and will not go to see him in pricey, touristy Sedona and spend hundreds in a hotel and flying, etc. I feel he is breaking one of his own rules about teachers, he is charging way too much. As far as I know Ramana Maharshi never charged, and he was at 720 calbiration according to Hawkins system, and supposedly Hawkins is higher, in the 900's. I think this is wrong and Ramana was way higher than Hawkins. A true Sage or Saint or Enlightened being is not interested in profit or selling cds? Or am I missing something.
I have known a few Hawkins devotees and they have no problem spending hundreds of dollars for the seminars and staying in Sedona. ONe guy even wanted to move to Sedona to be closer to Hawkins. That seems veyr cultish to me. ANd very immature. Unless again I am missing something, which is possible. Have you bought any of his cds, dvds, gone to seminars, etc. If so, what did you do with it, did you throw them away, burn them, or keep them for posterity.
I find even his dvds and cds expensive. The only thing I have bought of his is his books. And Truth vs Falsehood was a waste and I wish I never spent my money on it. It was trash. I am glad many of the reviews on Amazon actually put this book down and many Hawkins followers walked away from Hawkins after this book. Of course all of his followers will say that they are not open to the calibrations and are coming from positionalities.
I tried my hardest to accept his calibrations in there about Bush, politics, war, and the US. The US is not as pure as Hawkins makes it out to be. We are always right and all the other countries are wrong and below 200 in war and we are above it and all of our leaders. It might be true I guess, but something doesnt seem right about all of his calibrations in there. Another one is that BIll Oreilly is a bellwether of integrity and Playboy magazine calibrates at 310. When I saw that, I couldnt belive it. SInce when does porn and using women to make a profit, objectifying women calibrate so high and integrous. In my opinino this is nonsense. SHould I go out and buy a Playboy now because Hawkins calibrates it high and integrous. It calibrates higher than sceptics.
Okay, I hope you share more and when I have more time in the future I will ask some more specific questions. Thank you for helping me to see Hawkins more clearer and I specifically want to learn more truth about him and the cultish behavior.
Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.