Quote

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.

Quote

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?

Quote

[i:10f2ecc5ac]Diagnostic criteria for 301.81 Narcissistic Personality Disorder

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)[/i:10f2ecc5ac]

Quote

[i:10f2ecc5ac](2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love[/i:10f2ecc5ac]

Quote

[i:10f2ecc5ac](3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)[/i:10f2ecc5ac]

Quote

[i:10f2ecc5ac](4) requires excessive admiration[/i:10f2ecc5ac]

Quote

[i:10f2ecc5ac](5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations [/i:10f2ecc5ac]

Quote

[i:10f2ecc5ac](6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends[/i:10f2ecc5ac]

Quote

[i:10f2ecc5ac](7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others[/i:10f2ecc5ac]

Quote

[i:10f2ecc5ac]( 8 ) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her[/i:10f2ecc5ac]

Quote

[i:10f2ecc5ac](9)shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes[/i:10f2ecc5ac]

Quote

Even the supposed negative reports on kinesiology itself calibrate at 160, as they are mere polemics derived from false premises in that they violate the requirements for consciousness research validity. - Hawkins [en.wikipedia.org]

Quote

Obviously one cannot verify someone's inner subjective experiences,

Quote

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

Quote

I too have met with inner temptations, that came on as full on experiences in consicousness...

Quote

But how can anyone explain that to another?

Quote

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?

Quote

Are you saying that past lives are not real? And if so, on what basis?

Quote

the way you talk you seem to know that they are not and therefore anyone who talks of them is a fraud and dangerous.

Quote

To simply say someone recalls them therefore they are a dangerous fraud seem to me to be simply irrational.

Quote

It makes a claim to a pre-existent total knowledge of life and the universe in you.

Quote

[i:10f2ecc5ac]In the presence of [b:10f2ecc5ac]omniscience[/b:10f2ecc5ac], there is no ignorance, so there is nothing to ask. So if you ask me what question would [b:10f2ecc5ac]I[/b:10f2ecc5ac] like to know, there isn't any, to tell the truth. [b:10f2ecc5ac]There isn't any answer I'm interested in[/b:10f2ecc5ac]…[/i:10f2ecc5ac] - Hawkins

Quote

But is it not hard to see that there could be limitations to your understanding?

Quote

Otherwise you are making your own cult are you not?

Quote

"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.

Quote

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

Quote

Isnt that exactly the same as a scientist looking under a micro-scope and saying he sees bacteria.

Quote

There is still perception involved. And of course that is the trouble with subjective experience...how to share?

Quote

[i:10f2ecc5ac]Mind to Mind[/i:10f2ecc5ac] - Bodhidharma

Quote

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....

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

if another has non-ordinary awareness and says the kingdom of heaven is at hand, you say they are loonies.

Quote

1)The mathematics in this book is a joke. If a doctor were to tell you that your backache was caused by "halitosis of the femural artery located in the sternum", you would know that he doesn't know what he is talking about. This is exactly what Dr. Hawkins does with mathematical terms.

Dr. Hawkins rates everything in the universe on a scale of 1 to 1000 based on how good or bad it is. To explain this scale he uses a lot of technical-sounding mathematical terms, but he uses those terms incorrectly- to the point of being gibberish. Since he knows his discussion would be above most readers' heads Dr. Hawkins can get awy with it.

He claims that the scale is "logarithmic" and base 10, but in his explanation of what a logarithm is, he confuses logarithmic functions with exponential functions and repeats this mistake throughout the book. Essentially,someone at level 201 has ten times the power of someone at 200, someone at 202 has 10 times the power of someone at 201 and so on.

This "logarithmic progression" is then completely contradicted by his chart which states how many people at one level counterbalance someone at another level. One of the statements on this chart is that "12 people at level 700 equals one avatar at 1000". On his "logarithmic"(actually exponential) scale it would take 10^300 people at level 700(that's a one with 300 zeros in front of it) to equal the power of one person at level 1000. Since when does 12= 10^300?

He uses the calculus term "critical point" and claims that his scale has a critical point at 200. In mathematics a critical point is the point where the derivative of a function equals zero. On a graph, it is the point where the tangent line is flat-the point where you are neither rising nor falling. What Dr. Hawkins didn't realize was that neither logarithmic functions nor exponential functions have critical points. Their derivatives are always positive. In this case, he just threw in a mathematical term without bothering to find out what it means.

He discusses chaos theory, because it is new and trendy, but he misses the point entirely. He seems to think that chaos theory implies that the world is more orderly and easily explained than previously thought, when in fact chaos theory implies just the opposite.He does this because he likes the word "attractor" which he overuses throughout the rest of the book

In other cases, bad math like this could be overlooked. He is after all a psychiatrist, not a mathematician. In this book, however, the technical terms are used to impress the readers with how scientific the system is, and the claim is that it is based on research. If you can understand what these mathematical terms actually mean, it becomes clear by the gibberish that he is just making this stuff up. If his "mathematical" system was revealed to him through muscle-testing (as opposed to outright fiction), then it shows just how unreliable this system is.

Perhaps the most blatently incompetent statement he makes is that a loving thought has the energy of " 10^-35 million megawatts"(I'm using the symbol ^ because this this font won't allow superscripts) and claims that the quantity is "so enormous as to be beyond the capacity of the human imagination to comprehend" The truth is that this quantity is so miniscule as to be beyond our capacity to comprehend. 10^35 million is a one with 35 million zeros in front of it- a huge number indeed, but 10^-35 million is 1/10^35 million -- a mind-bogglingly tiny fraction. If you were to multiply the mass of the entire galaxy by a fraction that tiny, you wouldn't even have enough mass for a single electron. If the minus sign was a typo, without it the energy level described would be great indeed -probably be along the order of the big bang and our heads would have exploded (and caused a supernova) a long time ago. In this case, he just threw together the most confusing notation he could think of, without a clue as to what it meant. He did this to make it appear scientific. He figured that his readers would be too dumb to know the difference. I don't think this can be written off as a mere honest mistake

Other laughable statements are that organically grown tobacco is actually healthy, and that taking one gram of vitamin C per day will counter all of the harmful effects of smoking.

He also states that adrenaline causes the muscles to go weak. Adrenaline is the stimulant hormone associated with the fight/flight response and its entire purpose is to give you EXTRA strength and energy in an emergency. As a doctor, he should know this
This book would be funny if it wasn't so scary.This man claims to be an MD and as far as I know still has a license.
If you have a degree in math, physics, engineering or something similar, this book can pretty entertaining. It is fun to pick apart,but as a source of truth it is worthless.

2) Numerous people have pointed out to me that Hawkins completely abuses the mathematics and physics in his book. He consistently refers to his calibration scale as "logarithmic" when it is in fact "exponential"; he uses the term "critical point" when referring to his exponential scales, when an exponential graph by definition cannot have a critical or "flat" point; and he uses leading-edge scientific terminology such as "chaos theory" and "attractors" in contexts that only demonstrate undeniable scientific and mathematical ignorance… which is rather strange considering that he calibrates his own books as the most "truthful" ever published. [www.energygrid.com]

Quote

1) Power Vs. Force is filled with attempts to be scientific that wind up worthy of ridicule rather than respect. [www.spiritualteachers.org]

2)One would think that a trained psychiatrist such as Hawkins would give more credit to the power of the unconscious mind to cause muscles to tense or relax (ideomotor action) and would not be buffaloed by the applied kinesiology quackery. [skepdic.com]

Quote

1) Mis-information and disproven theories on Schizophrenia Avoid this old book on long-disproven "vitamin cures Schizophrenia" theories - and buy a book by Nancy Andreasen or Irving Gottesman on the new genetics and genomics of schizoprhenia.

This book covers an approach which Dr. Abram Hoffer and others developed in the 1950s, but which by the 1970s was proven to be fruitless. The work of Dr. Hoffer and others is discussed in detail in the American Psychiatric Association Task Force Report, July 1973, which points out methodological flaws in the early work and reviews later studies which failed to show any benefit for such treatments.

In recent years, new medicines, with improved side-effect profiles and techniques to overcome problems with social and occupational functioning, have been well proven advances for the treatment of schizophrenia. Early intervention programs should prevent some of the serious dysfunction of the disease.

Serious illnesses like schizophrenia require proven treatments. Vitamin treatments as "alternative" therapy for schizophrenia should not be recommended.

2) Interesting for historical reasons An amazing collection of writings from some of the leaders of the "orthomolecular medicine" movement. It was co-edited by the movement's founder, Linus Pauling, who also wrote or co-wrote many of the chapters. Almost everything this book proposes in terms of diagnosis, causes and treatment of mental disorders has either never been supported or has been disproven by subsequent research.

This is not a book to read for information on mental disorders and their treatment - it is for historical reference only. Like an ancient Egyptian medical papyrus, it is fascinating reading but has little or no valid medical or scientific information. It does, however, explain where some of the current medical nonsense seen in "alternative" or "complementary" medicine got its start.

If you have an interest in medical history or the strange side-alleys of medicine, this is a book you'll want to have in your collection.

Quote

1) Not worth the paper it is printed on. This book is an example of an inflated ego believing it is an expert on everything. The author claims expertise due to the fact that he lives in an area where scorpions also live. He writes:

'Ten years of living in the high desert country of Arizona provided my background experience for studying ways of handling the scorpion menace. Let's be honest: they are a menace to the comfort and safety of adults and to the lives of children, the elderly or infirm and all friendlier domestic life forms-our pets.'

The author describes scorpions as 'killing machines' and 'lethal', and yet in the final pages he admits that no scorpion has killed anyone in the United States within the last thirty years! Meanwhile we read in the newspaper many times a month about how one of our 'friendlier domestic life forms-our pets' has taken the life of yet another human.

Oddly the author recommends, since scorpions are so 'lethal', that every one (along with cobras, water mocassins, etc.) be exterminated. According to the numbers (scorpions - 0, dogs - manyfold) if we were to follow his logic we should exterminate our dogs instead (not that I'm a fan of that idea either).

The book shows many pictures of scorpions identified as the 'lethal' bark scorpion. Instead, the pictures are of a Vaejovis species, a different, and essentially harmless type. Further, though the scorpion is pictured 'on the porch', 'on the ceiling' etc., the images are clearly of a dead scorpion whose legs are in identical position throughout. No doubt the picture of it on the ceiling was taken on a sheet of paper then the image was turned upside down. The captions on the photos are about as accurate as the rest of the 'information' in the book.

We currently keep several thousand live scorpions of various species. I have surveyed the bark scorpions of the Grand Canyon on scientific expedition. We deal with live scorpions on a daily, sometimes hourly basis. When asked her opinion of the book my girlfriend read it through carefully and finally pointed to a small section and said,'This paragraph isn't so bad'. Unfortunately it was the only one.

If you want a book chock full of misinformation, hype, and paranoia, this book is for you. If you'd like an accurate depiction of scorpions look elsewhere. I'd recommend buying this book only if one is already quite familiar with scorpions and is interested in a bit of humor in the manner that old black and white movies about arachnids are often so bad they're good.

The only reason I gave this book two stars instead of one is because it made us laugh several times and one can never have too much laughter.
Oddly the author is apparently a psychiatrist yet admits a virulent phobia of scorpions. Physician, heal thyself. And stop writing 'books'.

2) This book was so awful and I hardly know where to begin. Near the beginning of the book the author makes it painfully obvious he knows next to nothing about scorpions or ecosystems with his statement that "The world does not need scorpions" and goes on to suggest that snakes, scorpions, spiders, etc. should be wiped from the face of the earth. In truth, scorpions eat insects which are far more damaging to human health and economics than scorpions ever were.

Throughout the book scorpions are frequently referred to as "poisonous" when in fact they are venomous, and in a few places it even refers to scorpion "bites" instead of stings (scorpions do not bite). These may seem to be minor details but considering the author's credentials such oversights are a little disturbing.

The book was also inconsistent and confusing. The first few chapters make scorpions out to be most dreadful creatures that "wish you no good" and exist only to torment humans, then the author goes on to explain you don't need to fear them, and then reiterates how horrible they are.
The section on black widows was not nearly as bad as the scorpion section, but the author does recommend using pesticides to eliminate them. The hazards of using pesticides in and around the home far outweigh the hazards of having black widows present. Black widows, like scorpions, feed on those insects which pose a greater threat to human health, for instance the mosquitoes which carry West Nile Virus. Even if you cannot bring yourself to catch the spider in a cup for release outside, they are easy enough to squash with a flyswatter and avoid the lingering poisons of pesticides.

As someone who very much likes spiders and scorpions and keeps them as pets (including the "deadly" and "poisonous" species the book focuses on), I found much of this book very offensive and was often quite saddened by it. I will admit however that the chapter on "scorp proofing", done without pesticides, actually contains some pretty good advice. The rest of the book, however, contains little more than hype and misinformation.

Quote

By the end of 1995, word-of mouth sales of POWER vs. [i:10f2ecc5ac]FORCE[/i:10f2ecc5ac] were increasing [i:10f2ecc5ac]by ten per cent a week[/i:10f2ecc5ac].

Quote

He does not tell you to do anything. He lets you decide for yourself.

Quote

begins to experience a different, more benign world as his or her perceptions evolve.

Quote

I notice so many comments referring to him thinking he is God.

Quote

With that in mind......HUMILITY is the one key trait that he felt was most important for the person whose goal was to transcend the levels of consciousness and reach enlightenment.

Quote

[i:3e6d50e22f]This book is an example of an inflated ego believing it is an expert on everything…The book was also inconsistent and confusing...Stop writing "books".[/i:3e6d50e22f]

Quote

[i:3e6d50e22f]The research stands or falls on its own. There is a heavy use of pseudoscience when it fits and leaping to spirituality to fill in the gaps. If you are cautious about the leap, then you just are not sufficiently spiritual. Try a dab of appeal to authority [ [en.wikipedia.org] ] combined with ad hominem [ [en.wikipedia.org] ] to fill in the holes, i.e., the enlightened master has spoken and who are you to challenge these words?[/i:3e6d50e22f] [skepdic.com]

Quote

[i:3e6d50e22f]Not to nit-pick, but . . .twice Dr Hawkins states that every sentence in the book was tested by his techniques for veracity. The problem that kept eating away at my suspension of disbelief was the statement that trees are not as robust at higher altitudes due to a lack of oxygen. This is untrue. Our plant brothers and sisters use carbon dioxide in their metabolism and not oxygen. The effect of altitude [is] comparable to a change of latitude. There is not less oxygen at 5000' Alaska than at 15000' Kenya, yet they have the same alpine climate and tree growth.

It just bugged me. Every sentence was checked by these methods then the method has some failings on a very simple, checkable fact.

I am predisposed to agree with the content of the book but you could spend your time more prophetably playing Wild Divine [/i:3e6d50e22f][ [www.wilddivine.com] ].

Quote

[i:3e6d50e22f]How People Are Fooled by Ideomotor Action [ [skepdic.com] ]

Some Common Features of Ideomotor-Based Systems

Although the effects of ideomotor action have been understood for at least 150 years, the phenomenon remains surprisingly unknown, even to scientists. To conclude, the following are some of the psychological features that characterize nearly all the systems and schemes that have bases in ideomotor action.

Ideomotor action. To reiterate, all systems using the rubbing plate, the dowsing rod, the exploring pendulum, or related technique depend on an almost undetectable motor movement, amplified into a more noticeable event. The impetus arises from one's own subtle and unperceived expectations. Elaborate, grandiose theories are then devised to explain the observed effects.

Projection of the operator's actions to an external force. This is one of key properties of ideomotor action. Although the operator's own actions cause the fingers to stick, the rod to move, or the pendulum to rotate in a given direction, the operator attributes the cause onto an external force. Subjectively, that is what it feels like. Lacking a sense of volition, one credits unknown forces, radiations, or other external emanations.

The cause of the action is attributed to forces new to science and revolutionary in nature. This is implied in the previous point. Not only is the cause attributed to an external source, but each time the phenomenon is encountered anew, those who have not read their history attribute it to a force previously unknown.

[b:3e6d50e22f]Delusions of grandeur[/b:3e6d50e22f]. Not only do the proponents insist that the cause is external, but they tend to see themselves as revolutionary saviors of mankind. They claim to have discovered new principles and forces, ones whose ramifications will transform contemporary science, not to mention society as we know it.

Delusions of persecution. Those who suffer from delusions of grandeur frequently exhibit delusions of persecution. Self-styled revolutionaries assert that orthodox scientists dismiss discoverers of breakthroughs such as radionic devices and the like merely out of envy, pig-headedness, conformism, or unwillingness to give credit to brave outsiders who are not part of the scientific establishment.

To be forearmed Is to be disarmed. Proponents of quack devices and procedures will often argue that they are aware of ideomotor action and the role of expectancies. They often assert that their awareness makes them immune from its effects. Many dowsers now admit unconscious expectations can affect the action of the divining rod. They assert that their awareness prevents ideomotor action and allows expression of the "true dowsing response." Unfortunately, the awareness of ideomotor action does not make one immune from its expression.

Self-sealing belief systems. Once the proponent becomes convinced that his favorite system "works," then the psychological forces discussed by James Alcock come into play. These self-serving biases serve to protect the belief system from falsification. Loopholism is one way proponents protect their beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Saying "It is not the same thing" allows the believer to shield the system. Alcock supplies more examples of this ability to distort, forget, or ignore evidence. The true physician is aware of distortions of one's own judgement, as well as those of pseudoscientific competitors.
[www.quackwatch.org] [/i:3e6d50e22f]

Quote

[i:3e6d50e22f]Cognitive dissonance is something that is prevalent in accepting the teachings of people about whom there are questions.[/i:3e6d50e22f]

Quote

[i:3e6d50e22f]And how do you discern the truth from the lies then?[/i:3e6d50e22f]

Quote

How to Identify a Cult: Religous cults are best avoided by performing a kinesiology test after you are sufficiently skilled will instantly reveal the level of Truth of any spiritual group.

Quote

[i:002574c8f1][b:002574c8f1]There was this miraculous change, but there was nothing I could say about it[/b:002574c8f1]. There is nothing one can say about such things. [b:002574c8f1]They are so far-reaching and of such a dimension, and so far beyond orindinary human experience that there is nothing one can say[/b:002574c8f1]. One could not just walk down the sidewalk and say, "Hey, by the way. [b:002574c8f1]I just got enlightened yesterday[/b:002574c8f1]." And the other person would say, "Yeah, right, sure. Does it pay anything?"

[b:002574c8f1]Now everything is transformed[/b:002574c8f1] and there is absolutely nothing one can say about it. It was like the inner part of me - whatever had been my individual self - was struck dumb with awe. It was awesome beyond all meaning of the word - to be the witness of the presence of that which is in its naked expression as all of existence.

Although the mind is stopped, [b:002574c8f1]one is at one with all that is known[/b:002574c8f1], so [b:002574c8f1]there is[/b:002574c8f1], in the instant, [b:002574c8f1]the experience of those attributes of God described as omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence. The power is infinite. The knowingness is also infinite. All things are known. [/b:002574c8f1] It does not mean that all things are denoted by the intellect because one would have to have an interest in such things. It is like, in the presence of omniscience, all things are knowable; therefore, one does not bother knowing about the specific.

Once you know how to make gold, there is no point in collecting it anymore. There is no point in collecting information. It is like you have the infinite computer of all possibility, so if there is anything you would want to know, all you would have to do is ask. And in that state, what do you suppose you ask? Nothing. There is nothing to ask! [b:002574c8f1]To ask a question is coming out of ignorance, is it not? In the presence of omniscience, there is no ignorance, so there is nothing to ask. So if you ask me what question would I like to know, there isn't any, to tell the truth. There isn't any answer I'm interested in[/b:002574c8f1], except to demonstrate [with AK] for a viewer.[/i:002574c8f1]-Hawkins

Quote
PhoenixPotter

Quote

He clearly claims omniscience when stating "I" and "me". He believes he is God.

I don't read it that way at all.

First: "Hey, by the way. I just got enlightened yesterday." And the other person would say, "Yeah, right, sure. Does it pay anything?" - I hope you can hear the humour here.

Further: I clearly read him say he was the witness of that presence "to be the witness of the presence..." He further calls the presence omniscient, "...in the presence of omniscience..."

Further "In the presence of omniscience, there is no ignorance"
That is far different than saying "I am omniscient"

what I am hearing him say is that God is, and not "I am God".

Later you get him as saying that he existed before the universe and will exist after it ends. Likewise has said Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ramana Maharshi, Ramesh Balsekar, and I am sure others...

Years before I had even heard of Doctor Hawkins I had been studying Ramana Maharshi and his technique of self-enquiry, to the point of almost constant in-looking. But nothing, no marvellous insight, and then one night the meditation continued as I fell asleep as I liked to meditate up until the last waking moment. Then somehow I awoke but as awareness. I was fully aware. In a flash of recongition I knew that who I thought I had been had been but a whisp of a dream, and I knew the world had come out of that I-thought, and that too was gone in a whisp, as if it had been only a moment for the whole of the lifetime. What was present was totally unbounded awareness. I was that point of awarness and everything I was aware of as surround. It is really hard for me to put it in words so I hope you can avoid attacking the spiritual-correctness of this. but subject-object distinction was not. Just seeing as awareness. I laughed so deeply and so truely as I recognized/remembered that I am, as free unbounded awareness, before all universes, during and will be after, as this that was.

This to which and in which the universe arises within. I cannot say how I knew, I can only say it is innate to Consciousness, but I knew I was eternal, that which always is. But not the "me", not the personal me, which was seen though and gone.

Then I only remember waking up in my dream. The page I then turned to in Ramana's book said - that which is present in deep dreamless sleep is the eternal state. When all else is gone, that which remains is the eternal.

So I do not doubt the claim that "...he existed before the universe and will exist after it ends." but he is not talking about Doc. Hawkins, he is talking about the one universal I, that each actually is. Actually it is You, "personal you" are not anything but a collection of ideas.

It is the one state common to all when the "each/seperate" identity falls away.

I expect that there are many many times that consicousness has awoken to itself after identifying itself as each person.

But if you want to add that to the looney pile, then so be it, it matters not one iota what someone believes as nobody outside yourself can tell you who/what you are in essence.

One might as well insert Doc Hs joke here about walking down the street, because that is precisely what is going to happen here. What does it gain you?

And that is why the "observation" (and not opinion) that all thought is vanity is true, it is an observation not an opinion, because all thought is about or from the personal I, and it has no eternal reality as the One without a second. It is a play, and a wonderous one to participate in this lila. Nothing Real can be lost, nothing can be gained. The thoughts can be fun, opinions can be fun to play with, but they are vanities if they ascribe reality to what is not Real. Then they are false, they are vane.

That people wake up to this is not only for Huang Po. Some stay there apparently. For others, the personal I rebirths. Ramana goes one further and calls that a certain type of Samadhi...cannot recall its name frm the yoga texts, but he says there is still a duality at play - the real and the unreal, and in the highest Samadhi then the arisings are not different to the emptiness. This natural state, being that which is Real is thus omniscient. It is known by virtue of being it. There is no other Real knowledge that that which is. I have no idea what it would be like if the world was arising and that awareness was retained....
Would omnisceince apply to all manifestation.
Will have to wait until that dawns.

Anyway, your dismissal of Doc Hs accounts are unfounded. Maybe he made them up...it doesn't seem like it, just from the way he talks. And it doesnt matter, the task is still to see it for oneself and to that he says "place no head above your own". "Do not worship a teacher or a teaching, worship the Truth"

Harldy the words of someone trying to get followers. I mean what a lousy approach.

I cannot add much more to this thread. Through someones perspective, tainted by their conditions, they see him one way. To others they see a humble man pointing people to look within.

Those who are to be influenced by him will meet him. Those who are to be influenced by you will meet you, etc, etc.

Q"Why are there so many false gurus?"
A"Because there are so many false seekers"

I am content to let it be.

Wishing you much peace in your quest.
With Respect,
j