Current Page: 2 of 19
David R. Hawkins
Date: April 05, 2006 09:32PM

I was introduced to David Hawkin's book the "Eye of the I" when I took a Sedona Method weekend introductory training. The Sedona Method instructor was pretty enamored with this book. After the course, I purchased the book. Having had a negative experience with kinesiology and therefore not really accepting its validity, I had a hard time with Hawkins insistence that using kinesiology was a scientific way to measure "truth" and consciousness. I also had a hard time using a scale to "in essence" rate people in such a black and white, absolute way. I did not even read the whole book since the pseudoscientific jargon (even though I did not know it was pseudoscience at the time) made very little sense to me.

This kind of stuff makes me angry. Hawkin's "science" is so self serving. According to Hawkins, his kinesiological test of "truth" and "consciousness" is absolutely replicable, unless of the course the tester's consciousness rates under 200. And who determines the rating of the tester's consciousness? Obviously the tester himself can't be trusted - only someone who's consciousness is over 200 - someone in the elite. And who decided that the elite's consciousness is over 200? This is very, very scary. Hawkins pronounces what the truth is and anyone who disagrees with him can be discounted because their consciousness rates low on the scale.

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: PhoenixPotter ()
Date: April 09, 2006 05:59AM

...Hawkins pronounces what the truth is and anyone who disagrees with him can be discounted because their consciousness rates low on the scale.

You are very correct. You have hit on several of Lifton's eight criteria just in your statement.


Milieu control - Hawkins determines who is or who is not above "200," or in the "elite" as you put it. If one is below 200, his followers are to avoid that person, controlling who they can and cannot speak to. This also applies to books. For example, Dr. Robert Carroll blasted Hawkins' AK quackery, and Hawkins replied saying that the philosophy professor is at "160" the level of "sophomoric egotism." Therefore, there is no reason to hear his criticism, he has been labeled, judged by "God"/Hawkins.

Mystical Manipulation - Hawkins believes that he possesses God's attributes and that his work is for the "higher good" and is committed to the enlightenment of the world, and that everyone else's opinions are "vanities." The individual is to give up all of his beliefs in favor of God's, who is synonymous with the results of the AK muscle test and Hawkins supposed absolute authority. If you are liberal, that is too bad because Hawkins is conservative. If you think George Bush is "non-integrous" (a Hawkins word) then you are wrong because Bush calibrates at 460, in the very intelligent range. If you dislike Bill O'Reilly, that is too bad because he is a valid measure of truth per Hawkins. If you disagree with war and agree with pacifism, you will have negative karma. If you think women can reach full enlightenment, Hawkins tells you that they need to reincarnate in a man's body because the energy is too powerful. If you think, you have erred. Only AK and Hawkins can think for you. Indeed, the way to reach enlightenment is to surrender all "thinkingness." To never note the source of his Ph.D. or that AK has never been demonstrated scientifically to work is certainly unimportant as he is the revolutionary new savior of mankind, nearly if not already at the level of consciousness of Jesus Christ, Buddha and Krishna.

Demand for Purity - Everything is either above 200 or below, very black and white thinking. One must always be making the effort to raise their level of consciousness higher and higher until they reach full enlightenment, at 1000. If Hawkins calibrates a certain thing a certain way, that is the absolute truth and should be conformed with in the pursuit of enlightenment and the raising of consciousness of the planet. If one disagrees with Hawkins, shame and guilt occur as he is the sole true measure of truth, with AK, in the universe. If you want yourself and the planet to do well, you agree, or you are obviously at a lower level of consciousness. Steven Hassan has noted that in a system with levels (as Hawkins') one can almost never come to a final objective conclusion, as they are simply at a lower level of consciousness and must move up before they can decide.

Confession - One is to always surrender all of one's thoughts, feelings and emotions to God. This is a private confession, but certainly becomes public on some of Hawkins' supporters group websites, for example. Hawkins' AK can see everything - there are no more secrets, nothing is hidden from the "Eye of the I." A friend can calibrate your level, your motives, your thoughts. She can see that you are really only 205 and she is 871, and so on.

Sacred Science - Hawkins' system is absolutely true and should be absolutely followed if one wishes to be saved (at 540) or enlightened (700-1000). His scientific claim to credibility is in the form of his Ph.D., which he was awarded in association with his AK "research." Of course, Hawkins never noted anywhere, in any of his books related to the topic, or on his websites, that his Ph.D. is from the diploma mill Columbia Pacific University. If one questions this “science,” they are below 200.

Loading the Language - Hawkins' pseudoscientific use of numbers such as "200" and "160" carry specific meaning. Below 200 items, thoughts or people are literally supposed to make your muscles "go weak." And as Dr. Wayne Dyer, Hawkins' principal promoter, pointed out, even the heart is a muscle. (Oh boy!) He created a system that a person internalizes which rewards or punishes a person based on Hawkins' "findings." He has also invented words such as "integrous." If you are told that a person or thing calibrates at "160" or "350" you know a plethora of information about them instantaneously based on Hawkins’ "findings." For instance, if a person is at "420" you will "know" that they are merley rational, intelligent, scientific, and not up to being loving or enlightened. In effect, you are relieved of thinking, or even learning as you already "know."

Doctrine Over Person - If a person feels happy to listen to "Hey Ya" by Outkast/Andre 3000, for example, that experience just can't be, because Hawkins calibrates that song as being negative/below 200 - the doctrine is put before the person's [i:5ed414fbd1]own individual experience[/i:5ed414fbd1], and makes it such that the person is at a low level of consciousness, wrong, perhaps even "evil." Hawkins repeatedly makes statements such as, "All opinions are vanities," and, "The mind has no capacity to tell truth from falsehood." He instructs everyone to give up ALL of their personal thoughts, opinions and very identity in a literal way to God. Then the opinions left are those of Hawkins that he feeds to his followers with the pseudoscience AK, which he says he uses to get past people's "doubt block." Of course, eventually one sees that Hawkins himself is claiming to be God. As Lifton notes, at first it is the devotion to higher principles that a follower is devoted to, but over time it transitions into worship of the teacher himself (even if Hawkins explicitly states that a teacher should not be worshipped, though he does state that he possesses the attributes of God). When a person reads double-blinds studies that state AK is not more useful than random guessing, and says so, they are now below 200. When a person sees that AK does not work, is not replicable, etc., they are below 200 (or some other ad hoc hypothesis used to rescue the pseudoscience from refutation).

Dispensing of Existence - Hawkins and AK decide who is or who is not above 200. Everything below must be avoided so as to keep "holy" company. Hawkins also decides who is enlightened or not, even what is true or what is not, to the point of denying your own personal experience, or outright evidence (e.g., he says global warming is not true based on AK "research"). An individual can use AK, but of course it is "not more useful than random guessing," per studies, and so Hawkins remains the absolute and final authority on all calibrations and therefore on all truth in the universe. Hawkins metaphorically and symbolically decides who lives, who dies, who is enlightened, who is not. He is the master of the universe. It is black and white, those above 200, and those below. It so happens that a full 80% or so (this figure has changed slightly over time) of humanity calibrates below 200. Hawkins decides who.

A more full examination of Hawkins' work in light of Dr. Lifton's criteria is still being carried out, I understand, though you can already see that it applies. I am sure I have forgotten some things and there is much overlap in the criteria, but it is clear simply from a preliminary examination that this work, teacher and followers are totalistic or cultic in nature.

Vicarion wrote this here [] (a thread that also discusses release technique)


So basically, this "calibration" nonsense is Hawkins' way of trying to lend some objective credibility to his own personal opinions?

Reading about his so-called "work" reveals that he passes personal judgment on everything from movies to churches to philosophies, disclaiming all responsibility for his choices and judgments, using a clearly disproven pseudoscience as his measuring tool. If he were a person of any credibility, he'd own up to his opinions. But he does the same thing that "chanellers" do, that is they make pronouncements and attribute them to "the Universe", "Ramtha", or whatever "higher" source will not be questioned by the readers or seekers.

Whoo-eeee! P.T. Barnum was right!

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: afrimoon ()
Date: June 20, 2006 10:19PM

Just been through all of the posts, and recently finished Hawkins's third book - I. It does make interesting reading, and I certainly have found spiritual value in it.

However, the spiritual value that I did found was nothing new, borrowed from the ancient wisdoms of Christ and Budha.

His calibration techniques seems incredibly 'sweeping' in its conclusions, and all though never stated per se, Hawkins must think of himself as God. He has written a book that is within 0.2 calibration points of total God-conciousness (on a scale of 0 - 1,000), you could be forgiven to think that the book could self levitate.

In the end, for all his 'scientific proof' you have to believe in his teachings as much as you have to believe in God. If that is what you choose to do.

Just feel like a bit of a sucker that I paid some money for his books, then again, even the Bible costs money.

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: kath ()
Date: June 22, 2006 01:31AM

Wonder if he would ever get the result that his book contained 0 god-consciousness or very little? And if so, would he have mentioned it?;)

I somehow doubt his 'scientific' method would ever demonstrate a result he didn't want or that was unfavourable towards his work.

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: TossedSalad ()
Date: July 22, 2006 06:56PM

I understand the questions over his degree but it might be a little naive to rate him based just on that.

When I consider the man's list of credentials I am give pause to think that perhaps attacking every little nuance can shut one off from seeing other things.

Anyway, I found this on the website and I expect most of it can be varified by people interested in the truth of them. (see list at end of post)

I have read all of his books, and even went to see him. I have great reservations about kinesiology but find (with the exception of power vs. force) that kinesiology is very little of what he is talking about. It seems he is talking about ego dynamics and undoing them and surrendering self-centered alignments to love.

I have a hard time knocking that message.

Granted there is nothing new here, but I also feel that spiritual basics will never be new. How can they be. They can be worded differently, cloaked in different symbols for to appeal to different temperments.

I have also heard him talk about the fee he charges as this has been quite an issue with me in the past. I am no led to disbelieve when he says he makes absolutely no profit from it. It pays the rent of the hall, staff and the equipment to record and produce.

And to knock a person because he sells books and DVDs is awfully short-minded. Isnt there just a hate mentality behind much of the criticism. I mean we are all sick and tired of being led on but lets say IF someone had truely uplifting messages and put them in a book and wanted to publish them, then would every cycnic cry out - cult! He is selling a book?

I mean there has to be a line for intelligent criticism and not just blind banding together of every point someone can think of so that we can all bash together.

We must discern and we must also discern throwing the baby out with the bath-water. I am not arguing the overall credibility or not of him because I dont know enough. I do know I have released so many unseen judgements and righteousnesses I held in my mind when thinking of others and the world because of contemplation of his writings and to that I am grateful so much for the peace and kindness that comes through me now instead of resntments and prides. I never realized how defended I could be at times. Yeah, nothing new as we all learn these things as we grow. But just to make the point I really would like to make. What do the critics to his degree say about his other qualifications:

AS for the other stuff, its inane. I knoew someone who had a kundalinin experience after seeing Dr. H and saw demons. What kind of evidence is that??? There could have been many things that invoked the kundalini, and should we cancel all meditation because someone is going through a rough time. I mean it is a valid consideration isn't it, but then we should say all sports should be banned because I know a friend who wanted to be a professional athlete but broke his leg and now he is depressed. I am not saying - dont be careful, but come on with the out of context broad general sweeps. We can be more intelligent that that, and we owe it to anyone reading to aim towards that goal or then what is the purpose of this website, if not to gather bigger pictures and present alternative sides other than - Unity church, anything goes, so anyone who ever went there is cukoo. The whole thrust of ones arguement is lost with such statements. It loses credibility and people will be turned away from this forum by its fundamentalism, the same fundamentalism it condemns.
If we are to inform then we must seek with open mind. It seems natural that people posting here are naturally inclined to see something, and this is both strngth and weakness. It is strenght in discernment but weakness in blind gathering every out of context idea and crucifying the whole picture because of it.

anyway, enough said. Here are those other achievements that give me pause for thought. He might have a degree from a crap university but a who is who in the World just might have something profound he is pointing to, whether we see it or not at present.

With Good Will,

Inducted into the 2006 American Psychiatric Association 50-Year Distinguished Life Fellows honor
 Inducted into the 2006 Orthomolecular Medicine Hall of Fame
 Established Devotional Nonduality as a major spiritual pathway and the Science of Consciousness Research
 Published numerous articles in spiritual periodicals, 1990 - current
 As appeared on The Today Show, Science, Barbara Walters, the McNeil-Leher News Hour and talk radio shows worldwide
 Presents lectures and workshops throughout the U.S., along with monthly full-day seminars, 2002 - current
 Gave annual Landsberg Lecture at the University of California Medical School at San Francisco
 Listed in Who’s Who in America and Who’s Who in the World
 Appointed consultant to the Unity School of Religious Studies and post-graduate curriculum, including establishment of the Unity School of Consciousness Studies, 2003
 Published research on Science of Consciousness in series of books in 14 languages
 Establishment of worldwide independent study groups
 Nobelists and world leaders accorded recognition in support of world value of research and writings: Dr. Linus Pauling; Mother Theresa; Lee Iacocca; Sam Walton; Bill W. (founder of Alcoholics Anonymous); numerous clergy and businessmen (spirit in business).
 Consultant to government leaders, South Korea, 2000
 Received title “Tae Ryoung Sun Kak Dosa” (Teacher of Enlightenment), Seoul, Korea, 2000
 Became a knight of the Sovereign Order of the Hospitaliers of St. John of Jerusalem, which was founded in 1077. This ceremony was officiated by Prince Waldemar of Denmark at the San Anselmo Theological Seminary in 1995.
 Physicians Recognition Award, American Medical Association, 1992
 Elected to Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem (Founded 1077), 1989
 Invited to become Commissioner of Mental Health, State of New York, February, 1983
 Citation from Medical College of Wisconsin for “Contribution to Medicine”
 Taught classes on Advaita
 Published articles with Bill W., cofounder of Alcoholics Anonymous
 Taught classes based on A Course in Miracles
 Consultant to clergy, cloistered nuns, Episcopal and Catholic dioceses, the Zen Monastery (NYC), and spiritual groups
 North Nassau Mental Health Center Award for “Dedication to the Alleviation of Human Suffering,” 1978
 Huxley Award for “Inestimable Contribution to the Alleviation of Human Suffering,” 1979
 Published Orthomolecular Psychiatry with Nobelist Linus Pauling, 1973
 Published numerous scientific papers in the American Journal of Psychiatry amongst other fine publications, 1953 - current
 Founder and Director, The Mental Health Center (largest practice in New York City), 1958 - 1980
 Training Psychoanalysis by Prof. Lionel Oversey, M.D., at Columbia University Psychoanalytic Institute
 Supervising Psychiatrist, New York State Department of Mental Hygiene, 1957
 Awarded Fellowship in Psychiatry, Mt. Sinai Hospital, New York, 1956
 Intern, Columbia Hospital, New York School of Psychiatry, 1954
 Mosby Book Award for Scholastic Excellence, 1953
 Alpha Omega Alpha – National Medical Scholastic Honor Society, 1952
North Nassau Mental Health Center, Inc., 1958
 Federation of Mental Health Centers, 1963
 North Nassau Clinical Laboratories, 1970
 North Nassau Research Division and Laboratories, 1971
 An Integrated System for the Care of Schizophrenics, 1971
 Academy of Orthomolecular Psychiatry, 1971
 Institute for Applied Spiritual Studies, 1980
Schizophrenics Anonymous (Board of Directors; Medical Advisor)
 Schizophrenia Foundation of New York State (Incorporator; Director)
 Schizophrenia Foundation of Long Island (Board of Directors; Medical Advisor)
 Institute for Scientific Communications (Incorporator; Board of Directors)
 Journal of Orthomolecular Psychiatry (Editorial Board)
 Journal of Schizophrenia (Editorial Board)
 St. George’s Day Activities Center (Medical Advisor)
 The Attitudinal Healing Center of Long Island (Board of Directors; Medical Advisor)
 Christ Church Day Activities Center (Medical Advisor)
 The Masters Gallery of Fine Arts (Co-Director)
 Mental Health Fairs
 The Gateposts Halfway House (Medical Advisor)
 Garfield House (Halfway House)
 Day Activities Center of Port Washington (Medical Advisor)
 Brunswick House (Alcoholism; Psychiatric Consultant)
 New York Association of Holistic Health Centers
 Life Support Systems (Board of Directors)
  Space Form (Ecologic Communities and Low-Energy Housing)
 Became Director Emeritus of the North Nassau Mental Health Center in 1980 and gave up psychiatric practice to spend full time on spiritual research.
American Medical Association (Life Member)
 American Psychiatric Association (Life Member)
 New York State Medical Society
 Nassau County Medical Society
 Nassau Physicians Guild
 Nassau Academy of Medicine
 New York Academy of Science
 The American Association for the Advancement of Science
 New York State Psychiatric Association
 Qualified Psychiatrist, New York State Department of Mental Health
 Nassau Psychiatric Society
 New York State Clinical Directors Association
 American Association of Psychiatric Administrators
 Academy of Orthomolecular Psychiatry (Founding President; Chairman of the Board)
 International Academy of Preventive Medicine
 American Holistic Health Association
 The Huxley Institute for Biosocial Research (Board of Directors)
 Academy of Religion and Mental Health
 New York State Association of the Professions
 The Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine
 Schizophrenia Foundation of New York State (Board of Directors; Medical Advisor)
 The Attitudinal Healing Center of Long Island (Board of Directors; Medical Advisor)
 North Nassau Mental Health Center (Director Emeritus)
 Medical Society of the Brunswick Hospital (Director of Psychiatric Research)
 Attending Staff, Gracie Square Hospital
 Youth Consultation Services, Episcopal Dioceses, Long Island (Psychiatric Consultant)
 Editorial Board, Journal of Orthomolecular Psychiatry
 Editorial Board, Journal of Schizophrenia
 Editorial Board, (Alcoholism), Journal of Psychotherapy
 American Schizophrenia Association (Scientific Advisory Board)
 National Society for Autistic Children (Professional Advisory Board)
 Long Island Council on Alcoholism
 The Federation of Mental Health Centers (Co-founder)
 American Medical Society on Alcoholism
 Arizona Medical Society
 Arizona Psychiatric Society
 Brunswick House (Director of Research, Alcoholism)
 The National Acupuncture Research Society
 American Geriatric Society
 International Council on Applied Nutrition
 The Academy of Preventive Medicine
 Canadian Psychiatric Association (Associate Member)
 American Society for Psychological Research
 Monroe Institute for Applied Science
 International Kirlian Research Association
 National Council on Alcoholism
 The Association for the Advancement of Psychotherapy
 The Society for the Study of Addictions
 American Institute for Scientific Communications (Co-founder)
 International Society for General Semantics
 Consultant on Alcoholism, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
 American Ontoanalytic Association
 Consultant, New York Foundling Hospital
New York Paleontological Society
 Consultant, Operation Hotline
The First Zen Institute of America, 1960
The Institute for Applied Spiritual Studies (Founder, Chairman), 1983
 Institute for Advanced Spiritual Research, Inc. [501© (3) Public Charity], 1983
 overeign Order, St John of Jerusalem, 1995
 Devotional Nonduality Community (Founder, 2003)

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: PhoenixPotter ()
Date: August 18, 2006 06:22AM


Isnt there just a hate mentality behind much of the criticism.

I dunno. Did you press on a person's arm and that is what the arm said? If so, I won't argue with you. I know AK is absolutely true...


IF someone had truely uplifting messages and put them in a book and wanted to publish them, then would every cycnic cry out - cult!

Hawkins fits objective criteria for establishing whether something is a cult or not. Additionally, cult experts claim that he is a cult leader. Selling books with an uplifting message of course does not equal a cult. Please read above and do not set up a straw man ( [] ).


We must discern and we must also discern throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

Steven Hassan has pointed out how people in cults all start to act like the leader, while in religions individuality is maintained. I would like to share a direct quote from Hawkins:


Thus, my concern is to offset the possible loss of benefit of the work of many decades by the mechanism of inadvertently throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


I knoew someone who had a kundalinin experience after seeing Dr. H and saw demons. What kind of evidence is that???

The man I met was doing kundalini yoga, but was also obsessing over AK. He was doing it all the time, and it was messing with his head. He was trying to determine the answers to the mysteries of the universe by pressing on an arm. It is an extreme example, but this process could be maddening to anyone, especially after finding out how unreliable AK is (which could have been avoided simply by reading scientific studies). Further, it is known that sports can injure a person (per your argument). You will never hear anything negative about AK from Hawkins I believe.

Hawkins has stated that, "The information is transmitted as a gift because it was received as such." However, one could easily spend thousands of dollars through his web site and live lectures.


He might have a degree from a crap university but a who is who in the World just might have something profound he is pointing to, whether we see it or not at present.

Look on this website: []


The title "Who's Who" is in the public domain, and thousands of "Who's Who" compilations of varying scope and quality have been published by various authors and publishers. Some of these are vanity publications, where the inclusion criterion is the biographee's willingness to buy the book, and the business model consists in selling books directly to the biographees.

Marquis does offer some vanity features and merchandise to biographees. Tucker Carlson in an article entitled Hall of Lame that appeared in Forbes Magazine, writes that the selection process is neither rigorous nor meaningful, and self nominators and thousands of people not particularly notable are included, such as bowling coaches, teachers, and landscape architects. Carlson also writes that Marquis makes money selling addresses to direct mail marketers.

Also read "The Hall of Lame" by Tucker Carlson from Forbes Magazine: []


What do the critics to his degree say about his other qualifications:

What I have to say is simple. He is a psychiatrist, and all credentials and awards related to the field of psychiatry that he earned I believe are legitimate and deserved, and I respect him for his achievements.

However, the other side of his credentials are from some dubious sources of distinction.

To begin with, still within the medical field, is Orthomolecular Medicine and the related field of Orthomolecular Psychiatry. Mainstream science does not recognize these fields as legitimate science. See for example "The Dark Side of Linus Pauling's Legacy" by Stephen Barret, M.D. of Quackwatch.



[Pauling] speculated that megadoses of certain vitamins and minerals might well be the treatment of choice for some forms of mental illness. He termed this approach "orthomolecular," meaning "right molecule." After that, he steadily expanded the list of illnesses he believed could be influenced by "orthomolecular" therapy and the number of nutrients suitable for such use. No responsible medical or nutrition scientists share these views.

Try this site also:


Megavitamin and orthomolecular therapies are unproven methods considered dangerous by mainstream scientists. "Scientific research has found no benefit from orthomolecular therapy for any disease." (Cassileth)



The orthomolecular field, although viewed by its supporters as science-based, remains controversial among mainstream medical organizations, including the American Cancer Society, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Academy of Pediatrics, CHAMPUS, and the Canadian Paediatric Society, because of unsubstantiated claims, lack of proven benefits, and serious toxic effects.

Many of the credentials listed are related to spirituality, which is irrelevant from a scientific perspective.

In addition to [u:a160931662]Who's Who[/u:a160931662], his supposed knighthood has been questioned on the Wikipedia discussion of Hawkins page:



There is no "Crown Prince Valdemar of Denmark". There is no "San Anselmo Theological Seminary" (there is a "San Francisco Theological Seminary" in San Anselmo. The Danish "Sovereign Order of the Hospitaliers of St. John of Jerusalem" was founded in the 20th Century. Altogether, there are too many errors in this assertion, apparently sourced only from Hawkins, to believe this...See also: Knights Hospitaller#Mimic Orders. This is the chivalric equivalent of CPU. [ [] ]...there are many similarly named groups. "Some are clandestine orders of freemasonry, some are commercial, some are fraudulent and some are private philanthropic foundations that see advantage in using the name of the Order of Malta." The "Sovereign Order of the Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem" is based in Bellevue, Washington and is not recognized by the Vatican. ""

Other examples include the "International Kirlian Research Association". Kirlian photography is only one example of Hawkins contradicting his own work. In [u:a160931662]Power Vs. Force[/u:a160931662] kirlian photography was “true” per his tests. More recently he has recanted and says it is not true. As his opinion changed, surprise of surprises, so did his calibration when he pressed on his wife’s outstretched arm.

"Monroe Institute for Applied Science" is related to Robert Monroe, renowned for traveling out of his body!

"The Attitudinal Healing Center of Long Island" is related to [u:a160931662]A Course in Miracles[/u:a160931662].

I am pleased to see that he was a [i:a160931662]psychiatric[/i:a160931662] consultant, rather than [i:a160931662]spiritual[/i:a160931662], for "Youth Consultation Services, Episcopal Dioceses, Long Island" as I imagine any Christian would have trouble with Hawkins’ theology. For example, Krishna is at the same level as Christ. For Christians, Christ is the only savior, not one of many, and is the Son of God.

Others are related to holistic medicince and even accupuncture, etc.

But perhaps what is most important is not the credentials he lists on his web site, but what he left out. [b:a160931662][i:a160931662]The fact that Hawkins received his Ph.D. from the diploma mill Columbia Pacific University is not mentioned in any of his books or on his web site. [/i:a160931662][/b:a160931662]

Food for thought: "All opinion is vanity" is itself an opinion and is therefore vanity.


[i:a160931662]It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas … If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you … On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones...I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true. [/i:a160931662] ~ Dr. Carl Sagan

By the way, Lifton's criteria applied to Hawkins will be online soon!

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: TossedSalad ()
Date: September 02, 2006 07:28PM

As with all teachers, it would seem that the wisest thing is take anything that resonantes with one's own heart and discard the rest.

I ignore the kinesiological aspect as I know nothing really about it and it doesn't seem necessary at all concerning the direction I choose for myself.

But what I cannot deny are certain insights and understandings that he provides about meditation, and inner mechanisms and positions that are antithetical to experiencing inner peace.

I suspect that if the Buddha was here, science would have a hard time with him relating past lives and a doctrine on karma. But can introspective people deny what he says about attachments, desire and suffering, from their own direct experience?

So we can take what we need and discard the rest.
I am only speaking up because 1) I do not do kinesiology nor have an interest in it, 2) I am dedicated to meditation and self discovery and 3) I feel I have gained much from his teachings overall, and can relate to many things he says through my own inner work and experiences.

He may or may not have a weird side, I dont know him at all to be able to say so or not. But I have very little doubt that his heart is trying to help people to the best it can.

If a person doesn't feel that, they should move on. But to place a blanket statement that he is a fraud, as they move on, does not add up to the this case.

Be Well,

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: CultEduMod ()
Date: September 03, 2006 04:40PM

Applied Kinesiology is very easy to test and falsify, using a double-blind procedure.

Also, one guy tried to demonstrate AK on me, when you hold your arm straight out, and he puts his hand on top. (its very easy to push someone's arm down, as those muscles are very weak).
I asked him to try it when I turned my arm the other way around, palm facing up, and he could not "make it work".
This was due to the arm muscles being much stronger when the movement is toward the palm of the hand.

Applied Kinesiology is simply a fraud.

Hawkins is selling some extremely strange and disturbing teachings that raise very serious alarm bells. Stay far away from this guy.

"He believes the next step in human evolution is from Homo sapiens to the "awakened man" who marks "the beginning of the emergence of a new, evolutionary branch of mankind called HOMO SPIRITUS.
Hawkins states that he can clearly recount past lives from that point onwards when he reached a certain consciousness level (600 on his scale). In seminars he sometimes gives small episodes from his past lifetimes, e.g. being a Christian knight during the Crusades and a pirate who stole gold (and he states that he still knows where it is buried today).

He also believes that he had a temptation from Lucifer similar to Jesus Christ in which he was [b:e20de8da4a]offered the power to control worlds[/b:e20de8da4a], though he states that he rejected this temptation. He claims to experience the classical attributes of God: [b:e20de8da4a]omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence[/b:e20de8da4a]. He teaches that he, as God or the Self, existed prior to the beginning of the universe, and will continue to exist after it ends. An archangel is said to have brought about Hawkins' enlightenment. He further claims to have been to the lowest depths of Hell, which lasted for an "eternity" and resembled the paintings of Hieronymus Bosch and the description of Dante's Inferno."[/color:e20de8da4a]

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: Brad69 ()
Date: September 03, 2006 05:44PM


"He believes the next step in human evolution is from Homo sapiens to the "awakened man" who marks "the beginning of the emergence of a new, evolutionary branch of mankind called HOMO SPIRITUS.

Hawkins states that he can clearly recount past lives from that point onwards when he reached a certain consciousness level (600 on his scale). In seminars he sometimes gives small episodes from his past lifetimes, e.g. being a Christian knight during the Crusades and a pirate who stole gold (and he states that he still knows where it is buried today).

He also believes that he had a temptation from Lucifer similar to Jesus Christ in which he was offered the power to control worlds, though he states that he rejected this temptation. He claims to experience the classical attributes of God: omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. He teaches that he, as God or the Self, existed prior to the beginning of the universe, and will continue to exist after it ends. An archangel is said to have brought about Hawkins' enlightenment. He further claims to have been to the lowest depths of Hell, which lasted for an "eternity" and resembled the paintings of Hieronymus Bosch and the description of Dante's Inferno."

In the above information on David R. Hawkins, there is an awful lot that one has to accept as true, without a verifiable way of testing it. Yes, we also have to accept a lot about Christianity on blind faith, but there would appear to be more that is verifiable in it than in Hawkins' claims.

Where does Hawkins get his beliefs from? Can he back them up in any way apart from people having to blindly accept them?

If there are questions about his background, and his numerous questionable "qualifications", should those inconsistencies (lies) not cast a shadow over everything else he claims and teaches?

How would a woman react if after visiting a gynecologist she discovers he is not qualified as one? Would she say, "Well, he appeared to know what he was doing, so everything is okay", or would she file a complaint with the police.

His claims appear pretty wild and they are certainly not small ones. In his book, "Prophetic Charisma, The Psychology of Revolutionary Religious Personalities", Doctor Len Oakes documents his findings after spending 11 years observing 20 charismatic leaders of different cults. He says a common thread that runs through these people is that of a Narcissistic Personalty Disorder (NPD).

One of the characteristics of these leaders is that they will make wild claims - crazy claims - that don't stand up to scrutiny, for no apparent reason of all. That is a trait associated with NPD.

Hawkins appears to fit the bill...

Does a true master go around claiming enlightenment?

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: TossedSalad ()
Date: September 03, 2006 11:26PM

Does a true master go around claiming enlightenment?

Good question. Jesus did.
"I am the light and the way", "no man may come to the Father except through me" seems also to fit the bill, doesnt it?

Isnt there the possibility that what he is talking about is a state of consciousness, available within each, and not about an individual personal personage.

Obviously one cannot verify someone's inner subjective experiences, but that does not prove them false.

Buddha claimed full memory of past lives, so are we saying he is dangerous too?

I too have met with inner temptations, that came on as full on experiences in consicousness. There was a subjective knowing-experience that total power was being offered. It was unlike anything I had known, that came right after realizing such love for God. In that moment though I became aware that what is being offered is all self-centered, and in a total expression of my will I opened to - I choose love over this.

From there there was an amazing transcendental experience. I can only describe it as mystical, and yet totally familiar as if I had somehow mystriously forgotten what is ultra-obvious - a deep awareness that God is all that is. Rather - God is that which is. omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

So I think an open mind has to be aware that they may actually not know what the person is talking about because they have not had such realization, and thus they project their own meaning onto it, and their own revolt.

But how can anyone explain that to another? Are you suggesting that non-ordinary states of awareness are fraudulant simply because you haven't experienced similar (yet)?

And is it that you are mad that forums of people exchange their experiences and talk about such things that don't fall into traditional scientific paradigms?

Are you saying that past lives are not real? And if so, on what basis?
I mean I have no idea, but the way you talk you seem to know that they are not and therefore anyone who talks of them is a fraud and dangerous.

To simply say someone recalls them therefore they are a dangerous fraud seem to me to be simply irrational. It makes a claim to a pre-existent total knowledge of life and the universe in you. But is it not hard to see that there could be limitations to your understanding? Otherwise you are making your own cult are you not? Claiming to have all the answers by virtue of knowing everyone who doesn't and everything that isn't. It seems awfully narrow-minded from certain perspectives.

"I do not know" seems to be the only tenable position for one who does not know. It is not a position of weakness or ignorance but of humility and strength. Open-minded, yet not gullible to swallow everything everyone says.

You ask where he gets his beliefs from? What if he gets them from direct subjective experience, as he claims.

Isnt that exactly the same as a scientist looking under a micro-scope and saying he sees bacteria. There is still perception involved. And of course that is the trouble with subjective to share?

The only way I can imagine is to say: These are the inner observations I was making, the inner work I was doing, here is what I was disidentifying from, here is what I was observing along the way, and so do like yourselves, watch for the sign-posts, and see for yourself if you are interested in knowing the truth about this.

Someone above claimed that in Christianity much has to be taken on blind faith but not as much as Dr H asks. Are you sure? The first thing you have to take on blind faith is that the bible is an unaltered, exact recording of what he said....
But were you there? Or do you take it on total faith?
I think if you contemplate that last question you will see that you were not there and that all is being taken on blind faith.

what is not blind faith is to experiment and see for oneself. What if I release judgements, what if I see the dynamics of suffering and let go. What if I send healing to the ones I judge instead of negative thoughts, etc, etc. The frist step might be it would be in learning anything. Then one's own experience would be the litmus test.

I simply see nothing negative about what Doctor Hawkins is pointing to in this respect and I do hear deep clairty on these topics.

Somehow you seem to have set up Christianity in your mind as the one and only teaching, and so I would say it seems you are the cult as much as the one you seek to undermine. You beleive every word Jesus says, though you never heard a word he said, but if another has non-ordinary awareness and says the kingdom of heaven is at hand, you say they are loonies.

And that is the mind you appear to use to determine who is good and who is bad. It's humourous, isn't it?

Truely wishing you all peace, and that each finds what resonates with their heart, can avoid what doesn't, and can smile on the rest.

With Love,

Options: ReplyQuote
Current Page: 2 of 19

Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.
This forum powered by Phorum.