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.
Of course. I was indicating the fact that he is stating that he became enlightened; realizing the context in which it was stated does not change the fact of his comment.
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..."
You contradict yourself when you say there is no personal self and he is the witness. Is he the witness, or is he the presence? Does he teach Dvaita or Advaita? Would you not concede that he is the presence? That is what he teaches.
Further "In the presence of omniscience, there is no ignorance"
That is far different than saying "I am omniscient"
In context it is not as you put it:
“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 [b:f77645072b]me[/b:f77645072b] what question would [b:f77645072b]I[/b:f77645072b] like to know, there isn't any, to tell the truth. There isn't any answer [b:f77645072b]I[/b:f77645072b]’m interested in…”
what I am hearing him say is that God is, and not "I am God".
When people say, “God is”, they don’t usually add that because God is omniscient they no longer want to know anything. People say, yes, God is omniscient, and I still want to learn everything I can about the universe He created. To say “God is” and there is not personal “I”, is to say, “God is all that is” and likewise, “I am God”; it comes to the same. He also states that he is “Nature”, his book calibrates at 999.8, and he relates with Huang Po (at 960). What about these claims?
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...
That’s true, sort of. I’ve studied all of those teachers as well. When Hawkins states, “the Self… which always was, always will be, before and after all worlds or universe”, this statement falsely adds the component of time. Listen to the difference in Nisargadatta’s words: “Before all beginnings, after all endings – I am.” From the [u:f77645072b]Tao Te Ching[/u:f77645072b]: “Before time and space were – the Tao is.” And from Christ: “Before Abraham was – I am.” The Self IS, not was or will be. (Thus it is eternal factually, not in words, as there is no time in the Absolute.) Ramesh states that the only truth that is not a concept is “I am”. The Buddha also states that the only absolute truth is consciousness. Po states that “Pure Mind” is the only truth. Even with Descartes, everything could be questioned except existence; he could be incorrect regarding everything [i:f77645072b]about[/i:f77645072b] existence, but not that there is existence.
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.
I would point out that very few people according to Hawkins reach this state. Thus I believe there is an exclusivity in his teachings – and you do admit that he is claiming to be God, but not as a personal me. However, the vast majority of people are below 200 according to Hawkins, let alone enlightened or “God”. Thus, he is God or the Self, while the vast majority are below 200. Compare this teaching to Ramana, Po, Ramesh, etc. – “You are already and eternally That.”
It is the one state common to all when the "each/seperate" identity falls away.
Is not calibrating people a contradiction to the “each/separate identity” falling away? If nothing Real can be threatened, and nothing unreal exists, then Hawkins’ entire system is unreal from a spiritual (absolute), as well as scientific (relative) perspective.
But if you want to add that to the looney pile, then so be it,
Again, happy “enlightenment” or “mystical” experiences are not being judged here as “loony”. Your experience sounds fine to me. Note that it is vastly different from being offered the power to control worlds from :evil: Lucifer :twisted: , and other similar claims from Hawkins. There are many legitimate concerns regarding Hawkins that continue to go unacknowledged by you.
And that is why the "observation" (and not opinion) that all thought is vanity is true,
It is similar to the statement, “All generalities are false”; the point being that this too is a generality and for the statement to be true, it must also be false. “All opinion is vanity” is an opinion because this is a subjective statement. I personally appreciate and respect individuality, and enjoy the fact that there is so much diversity of thought. That to me is not vanity, but beauty. There are many types of flowers in my garden. It is subjective, and thus reveals Hawkins own psychology rather than a fact about the universe in which we live. How do you suggest that this “observation” be considered a fact?
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.
I have no critical comment to make regarding Realization. I would suggest that AK contradicts your point here, however, and in spiritual terms reinforces the illusion of separateness rather than the truth of reality.
It is a play, and a wonderous one to participate in this lila. Nothing Real can be lost, nothing can be gained.
How do you account for calibrating people then? Is it not reinforcing illusion from a spiritual perspective?
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.
And so do you admit that spiritually as well as scientifically Hawkins’ entire AK system, including his “Map of Consciousness” (followers call it “MOC”) and ascribing a “level of consciousness” (likewise, “LOC”) to people is opinion and vanity? (Not to mention judgment?)
That people wake up to this is not only for Huang Po. Some stay there apparently. For others, the personal I rebirths.
When a person asks, “Is reincarnation true?”, Ramana states: "Only so long as there is ignorance. There really is no reincarnation at all, either now or before. Nor will there be any hereafter. This is the truth."
Ramesh points out the obvious. Hawkins’ system is very odd. For example, Hawkins uses logic and reason, and exhibits intelligence, but places these in the 400’s. Ramesh is the most accurately scientific Advaita teacher I have read. (He also loves Lao Tzu, by the way, which is odd from a Hawkins’ perspective, since Lao Tzu supposedly “calibrates” lower than Ramesh.) Ramesh states that the population has grown exponentially, and so new life has been created. Thus, reincarnation of a personal ‘I’ is impossible. To account for people remembering past lives, he appeals to memories being stored in Consciousness (the collective unconscious), but they do not belong to any one person. A couple thousand years ago there were millions of people. Today, there are billions. (To hear it from Ramesh, go to [advaita.org
] , click on “Talk Excerpts”, scroll down and play “Reincarnation”.) Further, Hawkins recommends reading Ramesh, but why he does so is beyond me. Ramesh’s fundamental teaching is that there is no free will. Hawkins disagrees with this teaching. (Anticipating a possible reaction of, "How could Hawkins be a cult leader if he teaches free will"?, please just look at Dr. Lifton's criteria applied on the first page and keep in mind that actual cult experts are claiming that Hawkins is a cult leader and appears to suffer from NPD.)
Another point that is interesting is that Hawkins points out that people drop in calibration when they behave poorly, if he disagrees with the person, though he does not seem to mention people he does agree with. Case in point, when Dan Rather reported incorrectly about Bush, Hawkins stated that the “CBS Evening News” dropped in consciousness. However, when Ramesh and Bill O’Reilly had respective sexually-related scandals, I did not hear a peep out of Hawkins (perhaps you did?). I saw a bumper sticker that I liked yesterday, “A PBS mind in a Fox News world”. Hawkins calibrates Fox News higher than NPR, etc.
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.
Ramana also states: “There are no stages in Realization or degrees of Liberation…If anything can be gained that was not present before, it can also be lost, whereas the Absolute is eternal, here and now.” Huang Po states, “The Ever-Existent Buddha is not a Buddha of stages.”
I understand what you mean. However, Ramana as well as Nisargadatta and others state that God’s “omniscience” is in fact a Not-knowing. Ramana states that in fact God knows nothing, He is the “thoughtless thought”. For Hawkins, omniscience falsely means knowing everything such as revealed through AK – any question one could have practically is supposed to be able to be answered absolutely through AK and his pseudoscientific system. (To be sure, however, for Christians and others God is omniscient in a more literal sense.) For Ramana, the point is the end of questions, not through “answering” absolutely every question one could ever think to ask, or by “calibrating” everything and everyone in the universe (which is all "ego" for Ramana), but by going to the “root” and question the “I” itself – atma-vichara, self-enquiry, “Who am I?”. “All other methods retain the ego. In those paths so many doubts arise, and the eternal question remains to be tackled. But in this method the final question is the only one and is raised from the very beginning. No practices are even necessary for this quest.”
There is no other Real knowledge [than] that which is.
Again, I would suggest that Hawkins’ system contradicts this.
Anyway, your dismissal of Doc Hs accounts are unfounded.
I am not dismissing his accounts, per se, but that he props them up with a pseudoscience, a Ph.D. from a diploma mill, a false claim to absolute scientific truth, a suspicious knighthood, etc. It is one thing to believe you are enlightened, and another to need to prove it, or convince others and so on, in this fashion.
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".
Actually, he quoted the Buddha when stating that.
"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.
And what of the other facts above? The qualifications, the mathematical and scientific ignorance, the use of a pseudoscience to teach (and judge), etc.? "Truth" according to Hawkins is his pseudoscientific judgment -- AK is the "science of Truth" (which is a meaningless statement, as I pointed out earlier). Thus, to "worship the Truth" is to worship [i:f77645072b]his[/i:f77645072b] "Truth" not [i:f77645072b]the Truth[/i:f77645072b]. How do you account for him getting a Ph.D. from a diploma mill and never stating the source? Every other author notes the source of their credentials, they do not just boldly note that they are a “Ph.D.” without referencing where the degree came from. John Gray exhibits more factual integrity than Hawkins by at least noting that he got his degree from CPU [www.mars-venus-counselors.com
] and very clearly, even noting the problems with CPU, here [www.marsvenus.com
] . (See what Dr. Carroll noted regarding Gray’s degree from CPU: [www.skepdic.com
] . And also see what Rick Ross has on John Gray: [www.culteducation.com
] .) How do you account for his apparent nonsense knighthood? His reliance on vanity articles? How do you account for the “truth” of his system when it judges people, contradicts itself repeatedly, clearly demonstrates ignorance of mathematics, physics, science, etc., and is a pseudoscience? None of this is to get followers? He lies for what purpose then? For a “higher purpose” perhaps? Well, this would be quite similar to the Moonies’ “heavenly deception”, for example, and would also contradict the Kantian categorical imperative that Hawkins states he is so fond of (and makes an arm go weak if not followed); i.e., the end does not justify the means.
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.
Ad hominem [ [en.wikipedia.org
] ]. I would suggest some people look at the evidence and others see what they want to see. If you have time, check out James Randi’s ABC News Special, “The Power of Belief” [www.xenutv.com
] . He tricked an entire country into believing in a "guru" he trained (for the purposes of education about nonsense). When he and the pretend guru revealed the hoax, people still came up to the “guru” and said that they believed in him, regardless of the fact that he revealed himself to be a fraud. (Check these out too: [www.xenutv.com
] especially “The Wave” [www.xenutv.com
] And very importantly, "[i:f77645072b]Discovering Psychology: Constructing Social Reality[/i:f77645072b]" which includes an interview with cult expert Steven Hassan [www.learner.org
] . "[i:f77645072b]Cults are also on the rise because people are under more stress, we're more sleep-deprived, and our society has less confidence in government and religious institutions. Combine all those factors and I would say people are more susceptible to someone who comes along who's very confident and loving -- and offers answers....Essentially, people are not allowed to be themselves as unique individuals in a mind-control group. Any traumatic experience or rough period in life can make a person more vulnerable to a cult, but the greatest vulnerability is a lack of understanding about how destructive cults operate.[/i:f77645072b]" - Hassan. His website by the way is [www.freedomofmind.com
On this subject, if Hawkins’ claims are true, as he states that they are, he (or any one of his followers who use AK) should be able to take Randi’s challenge [www.randi.org
] and win $1 million. No one has passed thus far.
"[i:f77645072b]AK has been tested thoroughly, and has always been found useless[/i:f77645072b]." - James Randi, [u:f77645072b]An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural [/u:f77645072b]
Skeptics are aware that evidence will never take down gurus:
[i:f77645072b][u:f77645072b]The Skeptic’s Dictionary[/u:f77645072b] does not try to present a balanced account of occult subjects. If anything, this book is a Davidian counterbalance to the Goliath of occult literature. I hope that an occasional missile hits its mark. Unlike David, however, I have little faith, and do not believe Goliath can be slain. Skeptics can give him a few bumps and bruises, but our words will never be lethal. Goliath cannot be taken down by evidence and arguments. However, many of the spectators may be swayed by our performance and recognize Goliath for what he often is: a false messiah…I hope to expose Goliath’s weaknesses so that the reader will question his strength and doubt his promises… You may not change your teacher’s mind, but you may take away some of his power over you.[/i:f77645072b] – Dr. Robert Todd Carroll [skepdic.com
] see also the AK/Hawkins entry: [www.skepdic.com
The fundamental fallacy of Hawkins and followers is to use Ad hominem attacks against people, rather than deal with the factual evidence confronting them. By stating "160" or "430" or “ego”, etc., or as TossedSalad above assumed we are “mad”, “angry” or there is "just a hate mentality" and this is why we present relevant facts that legitimately discredit Hawkins. As Andrew P. stated:
[i:f77645072b]Hawkins' supporters [are] incensed that someone should be so dismissive of their teacher and his philosophy. I firmly believe that Hawkins' calibration worldview is religious fundamentalism disguised as pseudo-science, and the nature of the criticisms I receive bear this out: specific points and objections are not discussed, but rather the disciple, in the spirit of his teacher, rants on about my ignorance and my low calibration… all classic fundamentalism.
Having learned the hard way that it is a complete waste of time trying to talk reason with a fundamentalist, I no longer bother to reply to emails from Hawkins' supporters, for their authors are almost invariably not after mutual understanding but symbolic annihilation of anything and anyone that opposes their ideology.[/i:f77645072b]
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.
I am personally not on a quest. To quote Huang Po, “Eons of striving will prove so much wasted effort. Put an end to your seeking and you will already be there.”
Best to you,