Current Page: 3 of 19
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: Brad69 ()
Date: September 04, 2006 12:40AM


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.

First paragraph answer: No.
Second paragraph answer: No
Third paragraph answer: No

Also, I am not a Christian.

I regard myself as a spiritual being. In very simple terms, I have a conscience and I try to act according to what is right. I have a good sense of what doing right is towards myself and others, and likewise I have a good sense of what doing wrong to myself and others is. I attempt to treat each person as an individual and with respect.

Actually, I subscribe to past life stuff, to guides, and gods. I believe there is a whole lot more to this life than what is obvious and in front of our eyes. I have had experiences that I can only explain to myself by the presence of such beings.

So, no, I am not saying those things.

My point is when there are questions surrounding the veracity of someone's qualifications and they make great claims, surely the red flag should be raised.

If Hawkins is claiming qualifications on paper that are doubtful, then I would apply as much doubt to his other non-verifiable, and pretty big, claims.

Yes, an enlightened being can proclaim him/herself enlightened. I don't doubt that. But when that enlightenment claim is made along with other claims that are not true, then, I believe, serious doubts should exist.

For me, a truly enlightened being operates from a position of truth, not his or her truth, but [i:9dc97196c0]the truth[/i:9dc97196c0]. And...that truth remains true at all times. It is not selective.

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: PhoenixPotter ()
Date: September 06, 2006 11:16AM

[i:10f2ecc5ac][b:10f2ecc5ac]Overcome the liar by truth[/b:10f2ecc5ac] – the Buddha[/i:10f2ecc5ac]


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?
No. Again, please do not set up a straw man. There are eight criteria of NPD. Cult experts claim that he appears to fit the DSM-IV criteria.

Here are the criteria for NPD from the DSM-IV:


[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]
He calibrates his own book at 999.8, 0.2 away from those worthy of the title “Lord” per Hawkins (i.e., Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, and often Zoroaster / Zarathustra [Hawkins calibrates him at both 850 and 1000…contradiction? No, whenever Hawkins changes his mind, that change is once again the absolute truth…]). He claims Napoleon dropped in calibration after claiming himself emperor, but I guess claiming to be God doesn’t make one’s calibration drop.

His Ph.D. is from a diploma mill, his knighthood has been questioned, his work with Linus Pauling is not recognized by mainstream science, etc. (Please see below for quotations from others in regard to Hawkins’ mathematics, science, orthomolecular psychiatry, and even scorpion knowledge**.)

[i:10f2ecc5ac](2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love[/i:10f2ecc5ac]
He seems to calibrate himself and/or his work pretty highly. He has stated that the Buddha, when Hawkins talked to him (?!), told him to correct something that the Buddha taught 2 and a half millennia ago. He believes he experiences omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence. Einstein, Newton and other geniuses of history calibrate at 499. All of Hawkins’ work, per his own calibrations, are higher than all of these geniuses, and even the Bible!

[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]
Obviously…His calibrations, among other observations, would seem to indicate this one.

[i:10f2ecc5ac](4) requires excessive admiration[/i:10f2ecc5ac]
Seems to, even if he claims to the contrary.

[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]
Seems to be the case, especially with his AK pronouncements. For example, when the sweet women on Beyond the Ordinary (BTO) questioned his calibration of President Bush (“460” – very intelligent), Hawkins snipped, “It’s not hard to understand!”

[i:10f2ecc5ac](6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends[/i:10f2ecc5ac]
He charges quite a bit of money, that’s for sure. He has clear opinions that he is attempting to get across, though he claims his opinions are "science" and "truth", while everyone else's ideas are "vanity". The irony is that even AK's workability itself is an opinion. In science, you will never see such arrogance and absolute statements as you find in Hawkins' writings.

[i:10f2ecc5ac](7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others[/i:10f2ecc5ac]
Seems to be the case in some instances.

[i:10f2ecc5ac]( 8 ) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her[/i:10f2ecc5ac]
Seems to be the case.

[i:10f2ecc5ac](9)shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes[/i:10f2ecc5ac]
When a person on BTO stated that he had learned from Hawkins, but it was time to move on, Hawkins replied angrily and haughtily, “He can’t leave me!” On another radio program, he stated, “I don’t like to talk to dumb people.” (Meanwhile, his students are supposed to be “unconditionally loving”.)

Even if a person [i:10f2ecc5ac]questions[/i:10f2ecc5ac] AK, or recognizes that science has shown AK is "not more useful than random guessing", that is supposedly "below 200".

Per Hawkins:

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 []
That is, below 200.

This is a cult, not science.

Remember that only 5 of the 9 traits need to fit the subject for a diagnosis of NPD to be applied by a trained professional. One could make a case for many or most, if not all, of the criteria applying to Hawkins; but certainly 5. Again, cult experts make the claim that Hawkins appears to suffer from NPD; I just applied the criteria as an exercise for purposes of demonstration. I know that Lifton's criteria applied to Hawkins should be online soon, but I do not know if cult experts are providing online the NPD criteria applied to Hawkins. We'll see.

Obviously one cannot verify someone's inner subjective experiences,
Hawkins claims that one can with AK. This claim is false.

Buddha claimed full memory of past lives, so are we saying he is dangerous too?
Of course not. It is helpful to consider the cultures involved in juxtaposing the Buddha and Hawkins. Siddhartha Gautama lived nearly 2,600 years ago in India in a Hindu culture with a prevailing belief in reincarnation already existing when he was born. Hawkins is a psychiatrist now living in 21st century America. He had training in Freudian psychoanalysis; Freud was one of the most influential atheists of history. Hawkins grew up an Episcopalian Christian, with a belief in only one lifetime. The Buddha would have claimed past life memories perhaps out of innocence due to his culture; but in any case, peace is the essential message of the Buddha, not anything else in addition to his beautiful and simple message. Hawkins is quite far from the Buddha’s environment. I personally believe that Hawkins is revealing aspects of his own psychological make-up, rather than insights about his factual past lives. The two examples of Hawkins’ claimed past lives given on Wikipedia are 1) A Christian knight during the Crusades, and 2) A pirate who stole gold. If we look at this through the lens of Occam’s razor ( [] ) [i.e., what is more likely, Hawkins actually lived these past lives, or he is revealing his own unconscious?], I conclude that perhaps this is revealing aspects of his own psychology 1) He “kills” infidels [e.g., calibrating them below 200. BTW, this applies to one of Lifton’s criteria, “Dispensing of Existence”], those who disagree with his truth about "God" and so on, and 2) He charges money for his teachings, perhaps unconsciously this registers as being a thief for him.

I too have met with inner temptations, that came on as full on experiences in consicousness...
Did you have this experience before encountering the work of Hawkins? Are you also claiming Christ-like Divinity as Hawkins does? This sounds very reminiscent of Hawkins’ own experience. Keep in mind that it is common for people in cults to start to act like the leader, even potentially in grandiosity.

I’ve had mystical experiences, too. I would go so far as to say every human being has. There is no specialness here.

But how can anyone explain that to another?

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?
No. I believe if people are happy and have mystical experiences, and want to share that with each other, that is wonderful. The criticism clearly is not related to this. Please stop setting up a straw man and address our real concerns.

Hawkins falsely claims that AK is science. We are not debating mystical experiences. BTW, Hawkins uses the term "paradigm shift" incorrectly, as for AK it would imply an ontological shift in reality itself, rather than describing the universe as it actually is.

Are you saying that past lives are not real? And if so, on what basis?
The burden of proof rests with you on this one. That is, are you saying that past lives [i:10f2ecc5ac]are[/i:10f2ecc5ac] real? And if so, on what basis?

the way you talk you seem to know that they are not and therefore anyone who talks of them is a fraud and dangerous.
Please look this up: []

To simply say someone recalls them therefore they are a dangerous fraud seem to me to be simply irrational.
Yes, that would be irrational. Thank goodness that is not the claim being made.

It makes a claim to a pre-existent total knowledge of life and the universe in you.
You mean like Hawkins claims?


[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

But is it not hard to see that there could be limitations to your understanding?
How about your understanding? How about Hawkins’? He is the one claiming (quite obviously incorrectly) omniscience – to literally know everything in the universe. No one here is claiming that. And yet he is the one Wayne Dyer praises on PBS for his “radical humility”. It is amazing how the more “humble” one is, the more grandiosity and hubris they exhibit. (BTW, Dyer also still promotes [among others] Sai Baba, a pedophile who makes magic charms appear. See [] and [] and [] )

Otherwise you are making your own cult are you not?

"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.
I agree.

You ask where he gets his beliefs from? What if he gets them from direct subjective experience, as he claims.
He claims to get them from AK. Further, if you are referring to the Truth of the perennial philosophy, this Truth is one, not many.

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?

[i:10f2ecc5ac]Mind to Mind[/i:10f2ecc5ac] - Bodhidharma
Hawkins uses AK to share, which does not work.

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....
As you are asked to with Hawkins, except the Bible is meant to be taken on faith and cannot be proved or disproved in certain key aspects (e.g., God). Hawkins places a disproved pseudoscience on the level of God, which is absurd.

The Bible is meant to be taken on faith in many cases. Hawkins falsely claims his work is science, giving it the added power of assumed absolute truth in our culture, and uses a Ph.D. from a diploma mill to back up his claims (without ever noting where he received the degree from). He also claims to have been knighted, which appears to be from a dubious source, and boldly claims to be in [u:10f2ecc5ac]Who’s Who in America[/u:10f2ecc5ac] and [u:10f2ecc5ac]Who’s Who in the World[/u:10f2ecc5ac], which are so illustrious that practically anyone can get in (even people who never existed have been added).

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.
I think all of that is good stuff. You can do that without ever buying one book. Hassan has asked this question of cult members before, “Would the real God need to lie?” Or as Brad69 brilliantly pointed out, “Yes, an enlightened being can proclaim him/herself enlightened. I don't doubt that. But when that enlightenment claim is made along with other claims that are not true, then, I believe, serious doubts should exist. For me, a truly enlightened being operates from a position of truth, not his or her truth, but the truth. And...that truth remains true at all times. It is not selective.”

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.
This is false. Please read about the subject of cults before making a claim like this. Thank you.

if another has non-ordinary awareness and says the kingdom of heaven is at hand, you say they are loonies.
To reiterate, that is certainly not what is being done here.

Wishing you all the best as well.

Take care,



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. []


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

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. []

Orthomolecular Psychiatry (note that the book with Pauling was co-edited with Hawkins):


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.

Scorpion knowledge: (Hawkins wrote a book in 1996, a year after his release of [u:10f2ecc5ac]Power Vs. Force[/u:10f2ecc5ac], titled, [u:10f2ecc5ac]Goodbye, Scorpion; Farewell, Black Widow Spider: How to Avoid the Stings and Bites of the Southwest's Dangerous Arachnids - And What to Do If You Don't[/u:10f2ecc5ac])

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.

P.S. One other point that I found amusing: On Hawkins' site he states


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].

Assuming that he only sold ten books the first week, in just ten weeks sales would have far exceeded the entire population of earth. I presume sales did not keep up at this rate for long... :wink:

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: defygravity ()
Date: September 06, 2006 06:56PM

I have been studying Dr. Hawkin's research for going on 3 years. He is a very humble teacher who merely presents the results of his lifetime of research in psychiatry, spiritual studies, and the study of pure consciousness and shares it with the reader. He does not tell you to do anything. He lets you decide for yourself.

Here are two of his core teachings:

The first major leap in consciousness is the willingness to stop blaming and accept responsibility for one's own actions, feelings, and long as cause and responsibility are projected outside oneself, one will remain in the powerless mode of victimhood.

The second major leap in consciousness is reached by accepting love and nonjudgemental forgiveness as a lifestyle, exercising unconditional kindness to all persons, things, and events......without exception. Once one makes the commitment, he or she begins to experience a different, more benign world as his or her perceptions evolve.

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

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: Brad69 ()
Date: September 06, 2006 08:26PM

Cognitive dissonance is something that is prevalent in accepting the teachings of people about whom there are questions.

In David R Hawkins' example: There are plenty of questions about the validity of his qualifications. But, as is obvious from this thread, some people believe him to be an amazing teacher.

So, how do they reduce the dissonance created by his wonderful teachings as opposed to his questionable qualifications. Somehow, some way is needed to lower the dissonance --- the teachings sound great, but why would he embellish his qualifications?

To my mind, no true spiritual teacher has any reason whatsoever to lie about his/her qualifications.

If you wish to buy into their teachings, be aware that there is a strong likelihood that they too are filled with inaccuracies and lies.

And how do you discern the truth from the lies then?

P.S Phoenix Potter...Great post :D

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: PhoenixPotter ()
Date: September 07, 2006 01:19AM


He does not tell you to do anything. He lets you decide for yourself.
I love the freedom afforded in authoritarian systems: They have the absolute, 100% truth which has been totally scientifically proven, and you are at a “lower” level of consciousness if you do not accept it…but, you know, you can take it or leave it! Free choice has never been so appealing.

begins to experience a different, more benign world as his or her perceptions evolve.
Is this true for Hawkins as well? He states that he is enlightened, yet to him more than three quarters of the world population are below 200.

I notice so many comments referring to him thinking he is God.
Yes, and quotes are provided.

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.
You mean like: I-experience-the-attributes-of-God-and-my-work-calibrates-higher-than-the-Bible-and-all-the-geniuses-of-history humility? If only I too were that humble then I could make a big leap in consciousness. I guess I am stuck with 160 however (I love being judged by “God”), below 200 like most of the planet, because I trust double-blind studies, science, my own senses, experience and heart, and believe it is okay to think for myself. Shucks. Maybe [i:3e6d50e22f]next[/i:3e6d50e22f] lifetime I will be cured…

The best quotation is from a reader of Hawkins’ scorpion book, though it could apply to his other books as well:

[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]

Of course his scorpion book was also self-published, along with his other works of fiction -- oops, I mean his other books on AK and spirituality.

A good point is made by one of Dr. Carroll’s correspondent’s:

[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 [ [] ] combined with ad hominem [ [] ] to fill in the holes, i.e., the enlightened master has spoken and who are you to challenge these words?[/i:3e6d50e22f] []
Another recent review of [u:3e6d50e22f]Power Vs. Force[/u:3e6d50e22f] states in part:

[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][ [] ].
I would also like to point out that by “mystical” I personally mean a happy experience of some sort, rather than negative things like the “astrals” that Hawkins refers to. For example, an experience of the presence of God, rather than a temptation from Lucifer. Another helpful thing to consider is the context in which claims are being made. Much of the mythology of mainstream religions was created by subsequent followers of the religion’s founders. Hawkins himself is making his own claims directly and establishing his own myth.

Psychologist Dr. Ray Hyman offers insight into AK and the psychology of a person who uses it:

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

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.
[] [/i:3e6d50e22f]
In one of his books, Hawkins also states that he is Nature, and that humans wanting to survive is ego and vanity, and nature would be better off without humans.

[i:3e6d50e22f]Cognitive dissonance is something that is prevalent in accepting the teachings of people about whom there are questions.[/i:3e6d50e22f]
Great point. Here are some links for those interested:

[i:3e6d50e22f]And how do you discern the truth from the lies then?[/i:3e6d50e22f]
Hawkins states that one should use AK. He ironically wrote a book titled [u:3e6d50e22f]Truth Vs. Falsehood: How to Tell the Difference[/u:3e6d50e22f]. I am reminded of Hitler's statement (though I am not comparing Hawkins to Hitler), "The great masses of people…will more easily fall victim to a great lie than to a small one."

The following website, in line with Hawkins’ teachings, recommends utilizing the pseudoscience AK itself to determine whether or not a group is a cult! []

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.
By the way, "Truth" with a capital "T" is misused here, as it is in Hawkins' books. He refers to AK as a "science of Truth". Of course the problem with this is that it is a misuse of the word "science" as well "Truth". Science is the realm of the many and the relative; it changes, and in all humility and factuality, never makes a claim to absolute truth. Science is always open to refutation, experimentation and revision. This is its strength rather than a weakness. "Truth" with a capital "T", however, refers to the Absolute - it is unchanging, eternal, and One (not many). Do you see the difference?

Other criteria to establish whether or not a group is a cult are listed on the above website as well besides using AK, and out of interest at one point I even applied them to Hawkins, and they fit for him.

Reason might indicate he is a cult leader, if not pressing on an outstretched arm. :lol: :roll:

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: TossedSalad ()
Date: September 07, 2006 09:58PM

I'd be very interested in seeing this quote that is being past down that says that Dr.H explicitly expresses possessing the classical attributes of God: omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

Claiming that "he" has them vs. claiming that they are, are very different things. Clearly there cannot be a seperate "he" in Truth if they exist as Truth. That would be a dead give away that he is delusional. But it might be that the quote is being misunderstood through the readers own misidentification or their simple motivation to see something a certain way.

I expect the quote will reveal which is which in this case.

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: PhoenixPotter ()
Date: September 08, 2006 02:47AM


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

He also states that he is "Nature", and that he existed (as God or the Self) before the universe and will exist after it ends. He further "calibrates" one of his books at 999.8, practically 1,000 (the level of Christ, Buddha, Krishna; those "worthy" of the title of "Lord"). In a Beyond the Ordinary interview he stated that to know the "level" of a teacher, calibrate their work (therefore, he could be seen as being 999.8 ). He states in [u:002574c8f1]Dialogues on Consciousness and Spirituality[/u:002574c8f1], from 1996, that he is at the level 850. More recently, he stated that he identifies with Huang Po and shares a similar experience as the Zen master, and he calibrates (now) Po at 960 (in the [u:002574c8f1]Power Vs. Force[/u:002574c8f1] video he calibrates Po in the 700's, as with most Zen masters).

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: TossedSalad ()
Date: September 08, 2006 03:42AM


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, " 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 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,

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: Lifestyle ()
Date: September 08, 2006 11:09AM

I found this "enlightening": []

Anyone who touts obvious quackery like Kinesiology deserves a place on your radar screen. He is not a credible authority on anything if he bases his central tenets on such nonsense as Kinesiology.

One clue is that he received his Ph.D. from the diploma mill Columbia Pacific University," an unaccredited correspondence school.

An open mind is not a good thing if you lack the ability to filter out nonsense and nonsense characters. Some claims are supported by evidence and rational thinking and logic while other are primarily based on magically thinking and have long been discarded as not credible. Kinesiology belongs in the latter category, as far as I can discern. Not all claims deserve equal consideration, once they have been fairly debunked (for want of a better term) as Kinesiology has been.

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: Lifestyle ()
Date: September 08, 2006 11:33AM

I should have said "Applied Kinesiology" is nonsense and not "Kinesiology" because Kinesiology is the legitimate study of movement.

Options: ReplyQuote
Current Page: 3 of 19

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