Current Page: 13 of 19
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: shimon ()
Date: June 19, 2007 12:20PM

what are the good groups where I can read this kind of stuff you are posting on hawkins. Please post a post where you can list the links to these other groups to read about these discussions on hawkins. Is it steve pavlinas forum, wayne dyers forum, ken wilber forum? Thanks for the info.

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: shimon ()
Date: June 19, 2007 12:40PM

I just found another devotee of hawkins and their website dedicated to hawkins calibrations. Wow more and more people are buying this nonsense than ever before and promoting it. They obviously dont realize that many of Hawkins calibrations are off and vary according to which book he published them in. There are no consistent hawkins calibrations. ANd I had to laugh, the Bee Gees and Santanas music calibrates higher than Elvis PResleys, the originator of Rock n Roll.


Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: PhoenixPotter ()
Date: June 20, 2007 01:44AM

I just found out that Hawkins cancelled his europe schedule for Hay House and will be issuing refunds. Ah darn, those europeans wanted to see Hawkins and see his ktesting in person...Phoenix Potter if you can find out why he cancelled his european schedule I would find that interesting.
According to Hay House in London:

Due to health reasons David Hawkins has had to cancel his talk and all bookings refunded
I contacted a friend in Germany, and he pointed out that the announcement has been crossed out.


It is to be allowed to announce us a large joy and honour that
Dr. David R. Hawkins
to 28.10.2007 to Cologne
will come!


(Translated: [] )
I just went and checked out the wikipedia article on hawkins and was shocked to see all of the article gone and censored. What a shame, I thought it was a good article with a lot of good references on hawkins...I found it to be a great resource. It is shocking to say the least to see it all down at the moment. I wonder if hawkins or veritas had anything to do with this. ANd if so, why. Why are they concerned.
Hawkins' Wikipedia article currently reads since June 4, 2007:

[b:3af93ec219]David R. Hawkins[/b:3af93ec219], M.D. (born June 3, 1927) is an American psychiatrist, mystic, author and spiritual teacher in Sedona, Arizona.
That's it.

Scott Jeffrey ( [] ), one of the two people behind Conciousness[i:3af93ec219]Project[/i:3af93ec219].org: [i:3af93ec219]A Resource for Spiritual Aspirants and Students of Dr. David R. Hawkins' Work [/i:3af93ec219] ( [] ), started editing the Wikipedia article on May 8, 2007 with direct consultation from Hawkins.

[b:3af93ec219]Who’s Behind[/b:3af93ec219] is a site supported by a growing team of students of Dr. Hawkins' work.

The site was founded by two students in 2004:

[b:3af93ec219]Scott Jeffrey[/b:3af93ec219]
Scott’s interest in consciousness and spirituality began over five years ago. In September 2002, Scott discovered Dr. Hawkins’ seminal text, Power vs. Force. As a dedicated spiritual aspirant, he began work on in mid-2004 as a contribution to the spiritual community. He has personally interviewed Dr. Hawkins, created numerous indexes of Dr. Hawkins' work, and has written several papers and articles related to the work.
You can see all of his edits here: [] .

According to Jeffrey:


Anything that has been sited [[i:3af93ec219]sic[/i:3af93ec219]] on is a direct source and/or actual documentation from Dr. Hawkins himself. This documentation is simply being posted on for reference on Wikipedia. is a community website run by multiple people, however, no one is referencing any individual opinion or commentary to Wikipedia.Sjeffrey 02:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Jeffrey took special issue with James Randi's challenge to Hawkins and the factual information regarding Hawkins' knighthood on the Wikipedia article.

In regard to James Randi's challenge to Hawkins (see [] ), Jeffrey stated that "the fact is that James Randi did NOT challenge Dr. Hawkins." Of course, this is not true. I think he meant that he did not contact Hawkins directly, but he nevertheless publicly challenged Hawkins to win the $1 million prize. And Hawkins is clearly aware of the challenge, but is not applying for it, as Randi predicted he would not. Hawkins can apply for the challenge any time he would like to at [] . "But will he apply? No, of course not. Why? The answer is obvious." -Randi.

Regarding Hawkins' knighthood, Jeffrey wrote:

I contacted the Order of St. John regarding this article and this is what I received this morning from Andrew Gough, Secretary General, of the Order of St. John:

"I fear that you and the Wikipedia correspondents have misinterpreted Guy Sainty’s article which was defending the 5 recognised Orders of St John (The Sovereign Military Order of Malta, our own Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem (The Order of St John) and the three Johanine Orders of St John in Germany, Sweden and The Netherlands) against the self styled Orders of St John (plural for Orders here is critical). Guy is not saying that the Venerable Order is self styled but that the other non-recognised Orders are. Guy Sainty is a senior and well respected member of our Order, and is certainly not attempting to discredit our Order. Nevertheless in view of what you say about Wikipedia I will ensure that this is looked into."

Guy Sainty's article is not addressing the Order Dr. Hawkins was knighted into -- in fact, he was affirming its validity. Feel free to contact either the Order or Guy Sainty for your own proof, but either way, this section needs to be updated to reflect the truth. At this point, there's simply no reason to have a Knighthood section under criticism. If you feel the need to state Dr. Hawkins misquotation of the Prince in his earlier work, so be it, however, you now have the knighthood documentation on as well as confirmation of the validity of the Order from the Secretary General of the international Order of St. John. (And the fact that they may have rented the facility at San Fran Theological Seminary is completely irrelevant.)

I request that this section be removed and the facts be stated accurately (and without negative tonality) above the "Criticism" section immediately.Sjeffrey 14:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that Hawkins' order is [i:3af93ec219]not[/i:3af93ec219] referenced as one the 5 recognised Orders of St John. The "Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem (The Order of St John)" is very respected. This is not the order that Hawkins referenced. "Guy is not saying that the Venerable Order is self styled but that the other non-recognised Orders are," is, of course, accurate. Hawkins' and Jeffrey's sites did not reference the "Venerable Order" but the "The Sovereign Order of the Hospitaliers of St. John of Jerusalem" or "Sovereign Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem in the Americas," which are, indeed, self-styled. The claims as they appeared in the criticism section were accurate given the information provided by Hawkins, including the fact that the "Danish crown" was removed from his website, as well as Pedersen's statement that it is not a Danish order (which remains an incorrect statement on Hawkins' website).

Jeffrey did not provide an email address for Andrew Gough or Guy Sainty.

Shortly thereafter, a Wikipedia volunteer did a "Protected David R. Hawkins: emergency blanking (as per OTRS Ticket #2007053110014486)" of the Hawkins article. OTRS is in response to parties emailing Wikipedia and the information in their emails are private in nature. The subjects emailed Wikipedia and according to policy they had to blank the article. Dispute length is undetermined, and until Wikipedia gets something back from the parties involved, the article will just be left the way that it is. Wikipedia cannot mention who sent the email at all or the contents inside of the email, but it was serious enough to warrant removal. Apparently Wikipedia was protecting the project from possible legal issues.

This action happened literally hours after Jeffrey made his last comment at Wikipedia.

So what has been deleted from Wikipedia, you may ask?



Applied kinesiology
Mainstream scientists and scientific skeptics, notably professor of philosophy and author of The Skeptic's Dictionary, Robert Todd Carroll[59], state that AK's results are triggered by ideomotor effect and recognize Hawkins' use of applied kinesiology to be a pseudoscience when scrutinized with the scientific method. This is evidenced by double-blind studies, including some that found AK to be "no more useful than random guessing," as well as additional research and reviews contained in the National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health. [60][61][62] [63] [64] [65] [66][67]

Since the publication of Power vs. Force in 1995, wherein Hawkins deemed AK as a “well-established science“ (Introduction, p. 29) being capable of universal replication, he now refers to it as a right brain exploration, which is neither arithmetic, nor even mathematical, and is not open to reason, logic or proof. According to Hawkins, AK-tested results are derived from a field of multi-millions interacting factors; some known, some unknown. Although Hawkins reports to have carried out large-scale scientific testing of his version of AK methodology mostly with the audiences at his seminars that showed a high degree of accuracy, his perspective is controversial.[68] Hawkins' AK research has not been published in peer-reviewed journals, a criterion to make authors meet the standards of science and minimize bias, nor did he provide double-blind studies of his own to eliminate observer-expectancy effect; whereas, one study, which was not double-blind, appears to support some aspects of his hypothesis.[69]

Scientific skeptics point out that Hawkins' teachings beg the question, that he turns to fallacies such as argument from authority and ad hominem (personal attack), relies on anecdotal evidence, and creates ad hoc hypotheses in order to rescue his method from falsification. Hawkins' version of AK muscle testing (rated by him with AK testing at 605 or nonlinearity) does not provide provable empirically precise statements or outlooks, thereby eluding verification and scientific method and fails to meet the criteria for a science (rated by him with AK muscle testing at 400 to max. 499 or linearity, this being an example of circular reasoning).[70]

James Randi of the James Randi Educational Foundation has publicly challenged Hawkins via the New England Institute of Religious Research's website to win Randi's One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge prize with Hawkins' "arm-pressing technique," suggesting it would only take thirty minutes of easy work, but believing that Hawkins would not even attempt to apply for the challenge for "obvious" reasons.[71]

Eric Pierotti, the current president of the International College of Applied Kinesiology since 1999[72], states that it "could not be further from the truth" that Hawkins' methodology even is applied kinesiology, further adding that Hawkins' "assertion that what he does is AK is akin to suggesting that lancing boils is total medical practice."[73]

Psychiatrist John Diamond, who originated Behavioral Kinesiology (BK) with the approval of the founder of applied kinesiology, George Goodheart, did not train Hawkins and never gave approval to use his name in Hawkins' book. Hawkins only attended one of Diamond's seminars. Diamond believes Hawkins has had no training in AK, and if that is the case he should not be using AK. As a "serious researcher," Diamond uses neither AK or BK as a "truth detector."[74]

Source of Ph.D.
Admitted to the program on March 21, 1991, Hawkins received his Ph.D. in Health and Human Services on September 30, 1995 from Columbia Pacific University (CPU).[75] CPU was never accredited but it was at that time still approved to operate by the State of California. CPU's approval was revoked in December 1995 after a period of review and response following CPU's application in 1994; pending appeals, CPU was authorized to issue degrees through June 25, 1997.[76] California's Deputy Attorney General Asher Rubin called CPU "a diploma mill" as well as "a consumer fraud, a complete scam" and a "phony operation" which offered "totally worthless [degrees] enrich its unprincipled promoters."[77][78] The Associated Press reported that the state had been trying to shut down the correspondence school almost from the day it opened, saying CPU "had virtually no academic standards."[79] Neither in his books nor on his website does Hawkins disclose the source of his Ph.D. Stating to be reinstalled into worldliness as an "ordinary man" after a decade of seclusion, Hawkins explains his engagement for an additional title was due to the "credibility problem in society". Two "Dr. Dr.s" would grant "greater fire power to the truth" of what he has to say.[80]

Hawkins' CPU faculty mentor was Sheldon Deal, a chiropractor who was a former chairman (1978 to 1983[81]) of the "International College of Applied Kinesiology" (ICAK). Chiropractic researchers who reviewed the studies that came out of ICAK concluded that “no valid conclusions could be drawn concerning their report of findings.“[82]

Orthomolecular psychiatry
The use of orthomolecular psychiatry in the treatment of schizophrenia and other mental illnesses by using large amounts of vitamins, known as megavitamin therapy, is criticized by mainstream medical experts due to being ineffective and potentially toxic, including the American Psychiatric Association which reported in 1973 that "the credibility of the megavitamin proponents is low" and "is further diminished by a consistent refusal over the past decade to perform controlled experiments and to report their new results in a scientifically acceptable fashion," considering their PR campaign to be "deplorable."[83][84][85][86][87] Other organizations agreed and various claims made by proponents were further contradicted by the National Institute of Mental Health (1979), CHAMPUS, the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics (1990 & 2000), and the American Academy of Pediatrics (1976 & 1981), with the AAP concluding that a "cult" of megavitamin therapy followers had arisen.[88] Two longterm studies in which Hawkins was involved within the period of 1963-1983 and after which were presented in the controversial Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, which Hawkins co-founded and is an editorial review board member of,[89] indicated that therapy with neuroleptica (antipsychotic medications) used in conjunction with megavitamin dosages prevented tardive dyskinesia in more than 61,000 patients to less than 0.05%.[90][91] Hawkins was the founding president of the Academy of Orthomolecular Psychiatry (1971),[92] was awarded the Huxley Award from The Huxley Institute for Biosocial Research, a non-profit organization that treats schizophrenics with orthomolecular methods whose president is Abram Hoffer,[93] and was inducted into the 2006 Orthomolecular Medicine Hall of Fame. The co-editor of Orthomolecular Psychiatry (1973) was double Nobelist (in Chemistry, 1954, and Peace, 1962) Linus Pauling, who has been specifically criticized by mainstream physicians for his research in this area.[94]

Hawkins states that he has been knighted by a "Danish Order" called "The Sovereign Order of the Hospitaliers of St. John of Jerusalem,"[95] however, the current Deputy Private Secretary to Her Majesty the Queen of Denmark, Bjarne E. Pedersen, states to the contrary that the order referenced by Hawkins is not of Danish origin.[96] The statement that Hawkins has been "knighted by the Danish crown" has been removed from his website.[97]

According to another website run by students of Hawkins' work, Hawkins was made a Knight Brother of the Sovereign Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem in the Americas, at "San Anselmo Theological Seminary" in 1995, officiated by H.H. Prince Waldemar of Schaumburg-Lippe (originally incorrectly cited as Prince Valdemar of Denmark, who died in 1939) under the sponsorship of Ambassador Fernando E. Flores.[98] However, this Order is referenced by Guy Stair Sainty as being "self-styled,"[99] it is not recognized by the Mutually Recognised Orders of St. John, and along with its Grand Master F. Flores-Banuet of San José, Costa Rica it is noted to "illegitimately claim to be an offspring" of a "genuine Order of St. John."[100] Further, the San Francisco Theological Seminary in San Anselmo, California did not endorse and was in no way affiliated with the event, but rented out their facilities.[101]

Rating as a spiritual teacher
The New England Institute of Religious Research, a non-profit organization founded in 1991[102] and headed by executive director and cult expert Rev. Robert T. Pardon,[103][104][105][106] has applied Harvard Medical School psychiatrist Robert J. Lifton's cult and mind control criteria outlined in his book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism to Hawkins.[107]

Psychiatrist and cult expert Peter A. Olsson, author of the book Malignant Pied Pipers of Our Time: A Psychological Study of Destructive Cult Leaders from Rev. Jim Jones to Osama bin Laden, believes his former colleague Hawkins "has apparently taken a grandiose road less traveled, and...may have morphed into a malignant pied piper."[108]

The International Cultic Studies Association has included two articles by Robert Todd Carroll regarding Hawkins and applied kinesiology in its electronic library.[109][110]

Andrew Paterson of EnergyGrid Alternative Media[111] in London, Shawn Nevins of[112] in the United States, and Sarlo of Sarlo's Guru Rating Service[113][114] in Canada rate Hawkins negatively. Hawkins states that he has studied cults in detail and has listed 39 criteria[115] for identification of teachers and teachings with integrity[116] and he finds that his teachings fulfill all of them.

In his book Your Immortal Reality: How to Break the Cycle of Birth and Death, the controversial author Gary Renard writes that one of his ascribed Ascended Masters named Arten refers to Hawkins' AK system as constituting a "hidden ego hook" by focusing readers on illusion rather than forgiveness, and that enlightenment has no levels.[117] Renard's bestseller The Disappearance of the Universe, originally published by Fearless Books in 2003 and by Hay House since 2004, is a popular explanatory guide for A Course in Miracles (LoC 550-600) which was calibrated by Hawkins at LoC 250 when questioned about this subject in a public seminar in Sedona (July 2005).

The bestselling author and motivational speaker Wayne W. Dyer is one of Hawkins' outspoken promoters, as noted in his presentation on PBS titled The Power of Intention. David Riklan, a self-improvement author, rates Hawkins among the 101 best spiritual teachers, along with controversial public figures such as L. Ron Hubbard and Werner Erhard.[118] Emphasizing the imminent importance of evalutating the truth rate of spiritual teachings and teachers, Hawkins engages himself in AK measuring the consciousness level of deceased as well as contemporary spiritual teachers; 55% of which he finds as verifiable teachers.[119] In 1996 he demonstrated that Lester Levenson, Sathya Sai Baba, and Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh range among the “fallen teachers.“[120] Erhard and Hubbard were also among those who Hawkins stated did not meet the required level for guru status.[121]

Rev. Pardon and NEIRR have also temporarily removed Dr. Lifton's criteria applied to Hawkins from the internet! I would love to go into more detail, but every critic that was contacted received this message:

The information transmitted in this email and any attachments is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients. This message may be or may contain privileged and confidential communications. If you as the reader are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any retention, review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or the information contained is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message from your system. This information is not for public dissemination by electronic or written publication.
Hopefully I will be able to share more in the future. There are other interesting developments taking place as well.

Leave the critics alone and just lead a integrous life, that will speak higher than defending himself.
Some teachings point out that "defense" is also an "attack." (ACIM)

what are the good groups where I can read this kind of stuff you are posting on hawkins. Please post a post where you can list the links to these other groups to read about these discussions on hawkins. Is it steve pavlinas forum, wayne dyers forum, ken wilber forum? Thanks for the info.
The one I quoted from is Steve Pavlina's forum [] . Other good places for comments are simply Amazon or Barnes and Noble. For example:


A reviewer (, an Objectivist., 08/18/2003
[b:3af93ec219]A Sad Day For Philosophy....[/b:3af93ec219]
This book is filled with contradictions from field to field, and is riddled with wholes...

[b:3af93ec219]Also recommended[/b:3af93ec219]: Aristotle - Metaphysics

Warren (, a critical thinker from Toronto, 05/03/2004
[b:3af93ec219]How Did I Get Suckered Into Buying This Book?[/b:3af93ec219]
The author David R. Hawkins MD, PhD proposes one of the most wildly unscientific theories I've heard in a long time. According to him, measuring the amount of muscle resistance on a person's arm will determine whether any given statement is true or false (p.116). He goes on to say in the next paragraph that this method 'can be used to identify the level of truth of any statement, belief system, or body of knowledge.' We can even compare historical figures such as Leon Trotsky and Vladimir Lenin. Hey - the last time I checked, these individuals were dead. You won't get much muscle resistance from them! But that's not a problem for this author because he simply uses test subjects that are alive today and measures their reaction to the mention of such historical figures. Sure, that will work. This is patently absurd!

A reviewer, YOUR WAKE UP CALL, 10/02/2005
[b:3af93ec219]WORST BOOK I'VE EVER READ[/b:3af93ec219]
Someone once said, 'Don't argue with an idiot. People watching might not be able to tell the difference.' I'm sure the same applies to raving lunatics like Dr. Hawkins and his devotees. The problem with criticizing this book, or any doctrine on the paranormal, is that it's completely ad- hoc. That is, if it doesn't work, it's because there's something wrong with you. Most advocates of the paranormal retort with 'you have to believe' or 'you have bad energy.' But Dr. Hawkins is more sophisticated. His 'science' combines distortions of chaos theory with an arbirary and mathematically flawed scale for measuring consciousness to explain why you can't replicate his testing -- you calibrate below 200 on the scale of consciousness. Cute, huh? By the way, good luck finding even one published article substantiating any of his claims. What kills me is that he knows the vast majority of his readers have no knowledge of advanced mathematics, physics, or scientific methods in general. Ironically, he doesn't seem to have a strong grasp of these things either. Like his logarithmic scale of consciousness -- it's actually exponential. Consequently, you'll see ridiculous numbers like 10^300. That's a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion... you get the idea. His application of the scale is just as outrageous. In his applied kinesiology -- not to be confused with the real science of kinesiology -- you ascertain absolute truth via muscle testing. Well, what are we waiting for? Hold out your arm and we'll solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict once and for all! Remove the whole applied kinesiology hoax and you're left with rambling and sometimes insulting prose on common-sense. Compassion defeats resentment. Sure, no problem. This book calibrates higher than Albert Einstein himself!!!??? Oh, but wait. Einstein was just a scientist. Dr. Hawkins reveals eternal and absolute truth, right?

Hawkins greatly benefits from the fact that his claims are so absurd. People who are ignorant of science will buy into his claims, and people who are intelligent enough to debunk his absurd claims can be relegated to the "below 200"/"intellectual vanity" non-people crowd. features a lot of discussions [] . For example, take a look at this one [] .


[b:3af93ec219]Skeptics, skeptics, skeptics [/b:3af93ec219]

Bruce: I have been on the lookout for skeptical views of Dr. Hawkins' work and have found some in both the Skeptics Dictionary and Both of these sources claim that AK (applied Kinesiology) is not nearly as trustworthy or effective as Dr. David R. Hawkins leads people to believe. These sources refer to various "scientific" experiments verifying their position. These folks are saying that Dr. Hawkins is a cult leader, not a man of truth and spiritual enlightenment.

This fellow named Andrew P. of seems to have a mjor problem with Dr. Hawkins' Map of Consciousness and testing procedures which produce an "absolute" number, as if this number is "it", no exceptions.

Others say that the results Hawkins is getting are related to the phenomenon known as "ideamotor response", which is essentially an unconscious reaction to "suggestion", as if participants in a test are actually being brainwashed or hypnotized somehow.

Of course, I remember when Copernicus suggested that the Earth was not only not flat but that it also revolved around the Sun, he was the only person on the Earth at that time who believed it. "Everyone" else on the planet thought Copernicus was wrong, didn't they?

When Marconi told his "friends" what he was doing in his laboratory, working on a way to send words and sounds over great distances, using only the ether in the air as the conducting medium, his "friends" had him straight-jacketed and questioned by a team of psychiatrists. Why? His skeptical friends just "knew" Marconi had gone mad.

Also, the day after Orville and Wilbur Wright flew their airplane at Kitty Hawk, NC., a reporter from the Elizabeth City, NC newspaper, having witnessed this event, refused to report it in the next edition of his newspaper saying, "I saw it but I don't believe it. They must be magicians employing some kind of trickery."

I have read Dr. Hawkins' books, yet I haven't done any "testing' myself as a means of really getting to "know" precisely how it all works. Perhaps Dr. Hawkins can help folks like me to figure out how I can test this science myself to make sure it really does work.

If anyone can come up with such a "testing" procedure that really has some "teeth", then we can silence the skeptics while demonstrating the power of this technology for all the world to see and benefit from.

God Bless us all...


Scott Jeffrey: Hello Bruce,

Unfortunately, there is no tool to silence the skeptics in the matter of applied kinesiology (AK), Hawkins' Map of Consciousness (MoC) or any other matter which calibrates above 500 (i.e. outside of the realm of the linear, Newton paradigm).

The reason for this lack of "proof" is found in understanding the nature of intention as it relates to Quantum Mechanics (i.e. the Heisenberg Principle). Put simply, what we put our intention on tends to manifest. The intention of the skeptic is to disapprove AK and Hawkins' MoC; as a consequence, they are likely to manifest results aligned with this intention.

Furthermore, the energy field of the skeptic calibrates around 160. As you probably already know, a person must calibrate at 200 or above to accurately conduct AK and the intention of the questioner must also be above 200.

Here's a passage relating to this from Appendix C of Dr. Hawkins' latest book, Transcending the Levels of Consciousness: "Both skepticism (cal. 160) and cynicism calibrate below 200 because they reflect negative prejudgment. In contrast, true inquiry requires an open mind and honesty devoid of intellectual vanity. Negative studies on behavioral kinesiology all calibrate below 200 (usually at 160), as do the investigators themselves."

I believe another core reason so many people have difficulties using AK (especially in the context of calibrations) is because of the many subtleties involved. Dr. Hawkins intends to simplify the technique (because it comes naturally to him), but in actuality, it can take a great deal of time and dedication to master. Many of the elements of the techniques can be found here.

The appendix of gives an updated treatise on the AK technique with new discoveries from the past year.

Scott Jeffrey

George Griffin: Over the past few years, I've experienced an interesting evolution in my grasp of Dr Hawkin's teachings. I've read all of his books at least 5 times and my understanding has gone from a cautious confusion-- to reasonable understanding-- to understanding-- to gut understanding--and eventually to BEING what he's written about. In short I find that I've always known what he's been trying to teach but didn't know I knew and when I allowed myself to be present with the material, the fog parted and the material became clear. I think the key to this evolution in my understanding has been to maintain, to the best of my ability, a posture of humble openness.

I agree that the skeptics create the very block that obscures the answers they seek. As Hawkins points out-- being in the 400s can present a huge block to spiritual advancement. They may be looking for answers but they are working and looking in the wrong paradigm.
Clearly this is circular reasoning and pseudoscientific thinking. If Hawkins' claims are [i:3af93ec219]as he describes them[/i:3af93ec219] then he can go win $1 million from Randi; Randi is [i:3af93ec219]still[/i:3af93ec219] waiting for Hawkins to apply...

The best responses to the irrationality are still:

Positive skepticism…involves much more than the negative disposal of false claims. In fact, the word “skeptic” comes from the Greek skeptikos, for “thoughtful.” According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “skeptical” has also been used to mean “inquiring,” “reflective,” and, with variations in the ancient Greek, “watchman” or “mark to aim at.”…Positive skepticism is a way of thinking that leads to deeper understanding, and it is a vital tool in the science kits of practicing scientists…there is more than one way to be spiritual in this world…spirituality is the quest to know the place of our spirit within the deep time of evolution and the deep space of the cosmos… In skepticism we have two canonical sayings: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and “Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.”

The skeptical fences are there for a reason — to keep the borderlands of science from shading too far into pseudoscience, non-science, and nonsense. [b:3af93ec219]For every Copernicus, Newton, and Einstein, there were a thousand cons, cranks, and quacks with their revolutionary theories that turned out to be flummery and flapdoodle[/b:3af93ec219]. ~ Dr. Michael Shermer []

It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas … If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you … On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones...I maintain [b:3af93ec219]there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience[/b:3af93ec219]. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, [b:3af93ec219]science has the additional virtue[/b:3af93ec219], and it is not an inconsiderable one, [b:3af93ec219]of being true[/b:3af93ec219]. ~ Dr. Carl Sagan
See also:
"VoyForums: Devotional Nonduality Forum" []

I just found another devotee of hawkins and their website dedicated to hawkins calibrations. Wow more and more people are buying this nonsense than ever before and promoting it. They obviously dont realize that many of Hawkins calibrations are off and vary according to which book he published them in. There are no consistent hawkins calibrations. ANd I had to laugh, the Bee Gees and Santanas music calibrates higher than Elvis PResleys, the originator of Rock n Roll.

Thanks. Here is a similar site: [] .

The Conscious Multimedia Database applies Dr. David Hawkins' revolutionary conscious calibrations through the use of applied kinesiology to determine the consciousness levels of popular media. We invite you to use to immerse yourself in films, music and books that bring you power.
I think on this site the calibrations do not agree with Hawkins' though (that's the surprise of the century). Hawkins has been committed to a lifetime of narcissism so one wouldn't expect him to admit a mistake of this proportion, even if people are suffering because of it. I remember Hawkins said the Bee Gees are in the 500s (love) because when you hear their music you have to dance.


[i:3af93ec219]Whether you're a brother or whether you're a mother,
you're stayin' alive, stayin' alive.
Feel the city breakin' and everybody shakin',
and we're stayin' alive, stayin' alive.
Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin' alive, stayin' alive.
Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin' alive.
[/i:3af93ec219] 8)
Feel the love! And here I thought the Bee Gees were enlightened.

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: shimon ()
Date: June 20, 2007 06:51AM

So you feel Steve Pavlinas forum is the best place at the moment to discuss Hawkins.

Are you on that forum?

Have you had any discussions with Scott Jeffrey over at consciousness For you said he is in touch with hawkins. Do you feel he is open minded to discuss this stuff or closed?

I havent spent any time at either site and will check it out soon.

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: shimon ()
Date: June 20, 2007 06:54AM

The conscious multimedia database site is criticized highly by hawkins followers. They know the calibratiosn dont match their teachers so they dismiss it as not reliable. I kinda like the site and enjoy reading their calibrations on things.

There was a guy named Brian Nager who also used to have calibrations up a long time ago on his site and the hawkins followers criticized him too. Even hawkins I read criticized him for his charging money to calibrate you, from every week to daily. Check him out to see his schtick.

So many people are running with this calibration thing and trying to make money off of it.

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: shimon ()
Date: June 20, 2007 06:57AM

I did look at amazons book reviews for hawkins latest book, Devotional Nonduality and I only saw 5 reviews, and all five of them gave it the highest marks, and highly recommend the book. Truth vs Falsehood has many review s that are very bad and dont like the book, but hawkins latest book seems to be well liked like his previous ones, like Eye of the I and I. I only browsed through this book and never bought it. I think he is still writing more books as we speak. The trilogy continues and he continues to have a fan base who snaps them up, cant get enough o f them.

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: shimon ()
Date: June 20, 2007 07:00AM

What i find interesting about hawkins having to cancel his european tour is that he is old, around 80 i think, and it is a long trip over there and the travelling and speaking engagements. What was he thinking? He cut back initially his speaking here in teh states, and now he had big eyes and couldnt produce. It has to be a huge disappointment and let down to the hawkins fans over there. He would have been better off and more honest never to commit to it, to something he couldnt produce.

ANd didnt his ktesting tell him a no, not to do it rather than a yes and to commit to this engagement. I guess his ktesting backfired on this one. Oh well, ktesting is not a perfect instrument as we know.

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: PhoenixPotter ()
Date: June 20, 2007 10:53PM


[b:0d55c2467a]Skeptics, skeptics, skeptics[/b:0d55c2467a]

…Of course, I remember when Copernicus suggested that the Earth was not only not flat but that it also revolved around the Sun, he was the only person on the Earth at that time who believed it. "Everyone" else on the planet thought Copernicus was wrong, didn't they?

When Marconi told his "friends" what he was doing in his laboratory, working on a way to send words and sounds over great distances, using only the ether in the air as the conducting medium, his "friends" had him straight-jacketed and questioned by a team of psychiatrists. Why? His skeptical friends just "knew" Marconi had gone mad.

Also, the day after Orville and Wilbur Wright flew their airplane at Kitty Hawk, NC., a reporter from the Elizabeth City, NC newspaper, having witnessed this event, refused to report it in the next edition of his newspaper saying, "I saw it but I don't believe it. They must be magicians employing some kind of trickery."…

God Bless us all...


[b:0d55c2467a]Heresy Does Not Equal Correctness[/b:0d55c2467a]

They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at the Wright brothers. Yes, well, they laughed at the Marx brothers. Being laughed at does not mean you are right…[There] is a famous quote from the nineteenth-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, which is quoted often by those on the margins: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident." But "all truth" does not pass through these stages. Lots of true ideas are accepted without ridicule or opposition, violent or otherwise. Einstein's theory of relativity was largely ignored until 1919, when experimental evidence proved him right. He was not ridiculed, and no one violently opposed his ideas. The Schopenhauer quote is just a rationalization, a fancy way for those who are ridiculed or violently opposed to say, "See, I must be right." Not so.

History is replete with tales of the lone scientist working in spite of his peers and flying in the face of the doctrines of his or her own field of study. Most of them turned out to be wrong and we do not remember their names. For every Galileo shown the instruments of torture for advocating a scientific truth, there are a thousand (or ten thousand) unknowns whose "truths" never pass muster with other scientists. The scientific community cannot be expected to test every fantastic claim that comes along, especially when so many are logically inconsistent. –Michael Shermer, "How Thinking Goes Wrong: Twenty-five Fallacies That Lead Us to Believe Weird Things" from his book [i:0d55c2467a]Why People Believe Weird Things[/i:0d55c2467a] []
So you feel Steve Pavlinas forum is the best place at the moment to discuss Hawkins.

Are you on that forum?
I am not at any forum other than this one. I think this one is the best for an open and honest discussion of Hawkins’ teachings and cultic behavior, but there have been other good discussions at other sites such as Pavlina’s [] , and [] .

Have you had any discussions with Scott Jeffrey over at consciousness

For you said he is in touch with hawkins. Do you feel he is open minded to discuss this stuff or closed?
Very closed is my impression from reading some of what he has written. He's too special to worry about trifling details such as facts and proof. Blind faith is the key to the higher levels of consciousness in Hawkins' system; being a true believer gets respect and admiration from his groupies. ( [] ) That is, not faith in God and the inherent goodness of all of humanity, but in a disproved pseudoscience and one man's narrow and biased judgment of the entire universe.

The conscious multimedia database site is criticized highly by hawkins followers. They know the calibratiosn dont match their teachers so they dismiss it as not reliable.
Who’s calibrations are reliable (besides uber-authority, extra special enlightened, savior of the universe Hawkins)?

There was a guy named Brian Nager who also used to have calibrations up a long time ago on his site and the hawkins followers criticized him too. Even hawkins I read criticized him for his charging money to calibrate you, from every week to daily. Check him out to see his schtick.
Thanks. I had come across him a long time ago and hadn’t found him since. [] []

So many people are running with this calibration thing and trying to make money off of it.
Hawkins being the first.

I did look at amazons book reviews for hawkins latest book, Devotional Nonduality and I only saw 5 reviews, and all five of them gave it the highest marks, and highly recommend the book.
He’s lost a lot of followers as you pointed out before, so I guess only the die-hard Hawkinbots, Hawkinuts, and Hawkinazis are left -- those who think it is God's absolute truth coming from one man's wife's arm to be a meat-eatin', gun-totin', Republican-votin' hawk.

I think he is still writing more books as we speak. The trilogy continues and he continues to have a fan base who snaps them up, cant get enough o f them.
Same with [i:0d55c2467a]The Lord of the Rings[/i:0d55c2467a] trilogy. I bet Tolkien was enlightened. I think he calibrated at 25,000.2.

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: PhoenixPotter ()
Date: June 21, 2007 02:36AM

I did look at amazons book reviews for hawkins latest book, Devotional Nonduality and I only saw 5 reviews, and all five of them gave it the highest marks, and highly recommend the book.

[b:f014d0512d]Devotional Nonduality (Discovery of the Presence of God) Sales Rank:[/b:f014d0512d] #105,018 in Books
I took a look at the Amazon reviews. Here is a sample:


May 11, 2004 By John Cole (Dallas, TX USA)
I have a rule: never take seriously anything that discusses quantum physics unless it contains equations. Although Dr. Hawkins makes numerous references to "advanced theoretical physics" he never ties it to anything in his work. Thus the book is full of questionable science. (For a really good book tying quantum phenomena to consciousness, see "The Physics of Consciousness" by Evan Harris Walker.) For example, when he gives the power, in megawatts, of a negative and positive thought, there is no discussion of how he derived those numbers. Nor is there any real explanation of how he derived his scale of levels of consciousness or why it is logarithmic. Nor are all of his terms mutually exclusive. It seems to me he has built a self-referential system that is true because the system tests as true using the hands of untrained people who might be working an agenda, this could be, to be charitable, misleading. And why would just reading his book increase one's level of consciousness? What will be the noticeable effects upon one's outer life? I also have a problem with his use of the term "strange attractor." It seems clear he has little understanding of chaos theory, since a "strange attractor" is a mathematical abstraction that explains certain observed phenomena. He treats is as though it is a real, physical entity, and goes on to discuss "attractor fields" as though they are real and measurable. Even the discussion in "Chaos" by James Gleick, which is a brilliantly written book for the layman, goes beyond what Dr. Hawkins knows. A more complete discussion can be found in "Fractals Everywhere" by Michael Barnsely. Read these, then see if anything Hawkins says makes sense as anything other than an analogy. A simple magnetic field would be a better analogy, however...I just don't like something so poorly substantiated to be offered as good science. I'd like to see his this with a critical eye and questioning mind if you read it at all.

[b:f014d0512d]bunk[/b:f014d0512d], April 30, 2005 By Mark Fleming
If you want to know just how bad and unscientific this book is, try referring to the foot notes. The footnotes as presented are untraceable as to origin. Why would someone do this? Are they taking someone else's ideas as their own? Are they betting that most readers, especially readers of this genre, don't look at footnotes? Have you ever seen anyone put them selves down as a footnote in support for their own ideas? It appears Hawkins does in this book but I can't be sure because the footnote is so vague as to make it unusable! As pointed out in previous reviews the use of his own method to test his method is as sound of scientific practice as testing for witches by drowning them. What about the racist conclusion that the nation of Islam vibrates at a slower vibration than the Nation of New Age? This plays into our current times prejudice which equates all of Islam with Islamic extremist, which makes as much sense as equating Christianity with the Klu Klux Klan. The nation of Islam that produced the Sufis and Rumi vibrates at an inferior level? I don't think so.

[b:f014d0512d]A course in Self-Delusion[/b:f014d0512d], June 28, 2002 Reviewer: A reader
I have seen a number of people who have fallen into believing in Applied Kinesiology. This book is a very good exposition of the basic beliefs of this 'cult'. I give it one star as it does honestly express those beliefs. I could go into the reasons why AK is so attractive to so many, but why bother? I am not interested in flame-wars with true-believers. Which is why I am posting anonymously. There are perfectly nice people out there that are deep into this. I would like to point out that there are resources on the Net that will counter the claims of this book. Before you buy this book, I suggest doing a search on the words: 'Applied Kinesiology skeptic'. This will cost you nothing and will reveal that there are in fact papers you can link to reporting scientific studies that show zero effect. This completely belies the book's unsupported statement that there are double-blind studies that show AK works. Basically, this method will allow the subconscious intervention of the two persons involved to determine outcomes that support what they believe about the method. It gives a foundation for building a shared delusional belief system fully as effective as those 'resistance meters' that the big 'Church Whose Name We Must Not Speak or We Get Sued' uses, or Ouija boards for that matter. So, if you are in the market for a book which will guide you into a group of people where you can have the comfort of sharing absolute beliefs that you do not have to examine, this book is for you. Otherwise, take a look at the information on the net using the search parameters I recommend, and get your education without buying the book. I rue the money I spent on it, that's for sure.

[b:f014d0512d]Don't believe a word of it.....[/b:f014d0512d],October 1, 2005 By Martin Thistle (Seattle, WA. USA)
After recently reading this book, and trying to absorb and understand the ideas presented therein, I have to tell the truth. "Power" is one of the worst-written books I have ever read, regardless of the subject matter. Undoubtedly one of the worst books on human behavior and 'spirituality/enlightenment' ever published. I don't think Dr. Hawkins has anything to be proud of in this work. There are several major problems with this ridiculous book. First of all, Hawkins makes many statements we are supposed to accept as truth (his truth, of course), but offers no evidence at all that any of his claims are true. He makes only passing references to a few obscure studies and research projects, but it turns out that most were done by him and his own team of experts in 'applied kinesiology'. He uses his own research and studies to prove his own claims. This in itself is highly suspicious and unethical behavior, especially for someone with his credentials. No legitimate scientist would ever conduct research in this way! Talk about self-serving! The second thing about this book that bothered me was this; it was very poorly written. The structure of the paragraphs was not on point, and the author tends to wander from idea to idea, all within the same sentence in many cases. (He could have used a good editor and proofreader for this book. I find it interesting that there are no credits or acknowledgments at the front of the book, so apparently nobody helped him write it. It shows. Hawkins' self-importance and ego are apparent throughout this book.) There are so many instances of poor writing and grammer in this book, I couldn't begin to give you any examples. (There are just too many.) Almost every paragraph and sentence is sloppy and clumsily written. A first year English major could write better than this. The third problem has to do with the veracity of his AK test for dedermining truth or falsity of any statement. Just hold your arm out and have someone push down; this is supposed to reveal the absolute truth about something? And the author expects us to take this seriously? Since this could, in theory, have far-reaching consequenses for humanity if it were true, it's reasonable to think that Hawkins might have provided some independently-derived proof or verification that this 'arm test' actually works in the way he says, but he provides no hard evidence at all in support of his claims. We're just supposed to take him at his word on this. And then there is the 'calibration scale' of energy levels of human consciousness, his theory of 'attractor patterns', his incomprehensible 'A-B-C' explanation of causation and effect, and other unproven, not well-thought-out theories of human behavior and spiritualality. Pretty goofy stuff. Even so, there is the occasional glimmer of truth to be found in this book. The problem is that one has to wade through way too much scientific, semantical and grammatical mumbo-jumbo to find it. It's obvious now why he had to self-publish this book: it's so poorly written, no publisher would touch it, without a thourough revamping. Bottom line: this is a frustrating and annoying book. If you are looking for the 'truth' about human behavior, you definitly won't find it here. In my opinion, not worth the considerable time and effort required to read it.

[b:f014d0512d]Wow, this tops the list for the biggest hoax of all time![/b:f014d0512d] , August 2, 2003 Reviewer: A reader
I don't write reviews often, but I had to say something about this book. With several great reviews and a friend of mind bragging about it, I had high hopes for it. I was really looking for a good read! Unfortunately, I'm quite disappointed. I have a in degree in physics and try to think logically about things, and most importantly don't completely accept things on blind faith. This is an obvious stumbling block for the book. Little factual info, mixed with lots of claims that have to be taken on faith. The author addresses this concern directly by pretty much telling me I'm "limited" in some way. The author basically directly says it. If you believe in the time proven scientific method, then you are just limited or it's just a perception problem. (Now isn't that clever!) I totally understand the author's problem with a person like me. I require something, anything, to substantiate or validate in some microscopic way the huge claims he makes one after another. The basic scientific method is probably quite bothersome to him because it's just "one way" of accessing information. The other way is to apparently just believe anything the author writes without any solid evidence of anything. If you can do that "effectively", you my friend, are on the path to enlightenment!

[b:f014d0512d]Not enough scientific proof[/b:f014d0512d], November 20, 2006 By Val (Boston, MA)
This book bothered me a lot. The author begins by presenting himself and his spiritual quest and accomplishments. He tells us that he attained high states of consciousness. I guess this is done as a substitute to any scientific proof of what follows...I think our time is better spent reading something else. Also, I recommend to anybody interested in reading this book to read what wikipedia has to say about the author!

[b:f014d0512d]total hogwash[/b:f014d0512d], August 22, 2004 By DC gal
This writer is still at a very rudimentary level of spiritual awareness and completely deluded about his own degree of perceptivity and insight. The most ridiculous aspect of this book is that he equates high socio-economic status with spiritual accomplishment. IOW, if you deliver the mail, you are at a low spiritual level, if you are a CEO, you are at a high level, closer to Jesus and the Buddha. That would of course be the Jesus who worked as a carpenter! I believe that the purpose of life is spiritual growth and we choose our families based on the lessons we need to learn in that incarnation. I doubt there is much correlation between income and spiritual accomplishment. There are many beings of great light, who will live their lives in complete obscurity, as they polish the last remaining vestiges of pride, self-will and fear off their noble souls.

[b:f014d0512d]No solid evidence[/b:f014d0512d], February 11, 2004 Reviewer: A reader
This book would be a gem if its premise of kinesiological testing were sound, but it isn't. All double-blind experiments refute it. The only evidence that supports it is sloppy and anecdotal... like Pauling going overboard with vitamin C as a panacea for all that ails us, Hawkins gets snookered with this pseudoscientific claptrap. A pity.

[b:f014d0512d]Adfficult to accept[/b:f014d0512d], January 3, 2004 Reviewer: A reader
Hawkins makes some claims in this book that are difficult for me to accept. He claims that muscle testing can be used to determine all sorts of things that are outside anyone's ability to know. For example, someone tests your arm strength by pressing down on it while you attempt to hold it up. If you say that there is life on Mars and your arm weakens, it means that there is not life on that planet. If your arm tests strong, it means that there is life on Mars. The same approach applies to determine if Clinton or Bush are telling the truth or to determine the level of truth in a book or a religion (20 to 1000). I have tried this with a number of issue and compared my results with those of others. I didn't find consistency...I seriously doubt that he gets consistent results either. By the way, I think that muscle testing is effective and useful in other areas, but I would not want to use it in this esoteric way. I think it's dangerous and misguiding to base our conclusions on this technique being used in this unproven way.

[b:f014d0512d]Absolute Nonsense[/b:f014d0512d], December 12, 2006 By Oren Elrad
A quick search on PubMed will reveal that "Applied Kinesiology" has failed every attempt at scientific rigor. No double-blind study has ever supported his conclusions and even the most cautious reviewers opine that there is no scientific basis to believe any of this man's claims. More digging only yields more questions - Hawkins received his PhD from the never-accredited, now discredited, Columbia Pacific University - an institution characterized by the California Attorney General as "a diploma mill". In short, there are serious doubts as to the majority of the factual claims presented in this book. The metaphysical mumbo-jumbo is past my pay grade (I'm just a scientist, after all) and is untestable at any rate (although I have my doubts on that too).

[b:f014d0512d]Sam Walton endorsement discredits the book for me[/b:f014d0512d], June 18, 2007 By Charlotte Amalie
This book came to me highly recommended by a friend who studies A Course In Miracles as being a logical extension to the course. I bought the book, and then noticed the Sam Walton endorsement on the back cover. Perhaps there is an explanation for this, but the book was first published in 1995, and Walton died in 1992. After I made that connection, the book could not overcome the suspicions that triggered.

[b:f014d0512d]What a disappointment[/b:f014d0512d], January 22, 2007 By Magnus Murphy
All that needs to be said is this: This book is a collection of the greatest bunch of pseudoscientific nonsense I've ever come across. The author uses scientific and pseudoscientific words in sentences that ostensibly reveal some truth, but in essence mean nothing, or make so many presuppositions that the claimed scientific validity of the entire volume is exposed as an elaborate hoax. Many other statements are so rediculous the book becomes a hilarious comedy, if not for the knowledge that some people may actually believe this. The whole thing smacks of cultish deceiving and misleading. Don't waste your time.

[b:f014d0512d]Bin Time[/b:f014d0512d], July 30, 2003 By "lance_k_drewes" (USA)
All messages in this book are based upon a non-science called Applied Kinesiology. No thinking person with any level of consciousness would/ could buy into this masterpiece of pure fiction. Though kinesiology is a science Applied Kinesiology is about as scientific as asking a house fly for answers yet the author, a purported scientist, has spent years in the apparently doing just that. A great book for Ron L. Hubbard fans as Hawkins has apparently bought into and rehashed Hubbard?s tone scale for part of this masterpiece. An egotistical trip to Hawkins fantasy island.

[b:f014d0512d]All You have to do is lift the lid to know that the can is full of garbage.[/b:f014d0512d], February 19, 2006 By A Reader
See Above.

[b:f014d0512d]Unsubstantiated Nonsense[/b:f014d0512d], December 10, 2006 By Reviewer
I tried to approach this book with an open mind...I have read books like the holographic universe and am willing to consider many of the ideas there as possible I gave up with this book about page 170 or so. It's filled with inconsistencies and inaccurate information, not to mention the 'dr's diploma is from a degree mill which has since shut down. he says that you can measure and calibrate things as to good and evil...

[b:f014d0512d]An Unwaranted Conclusion[/b:f014d0512d], September 10, 2006
By K. ThrasherThrasher Books (Santa Barbara, CA United States)
Since I have been using kinesiology...I was interested enough in the subject to read the results of his testing. I will only say that I was totally "non-plussed" by the naivete of the author's conclusions and by the subjective nature of the responses that the author wishes to call "truth".

[b:f014d0512d]This guy is pulling your arm![/b:f014d0512d], February 10, 2004
By Richard M. Trump "Zen Druid" (Ocean Park, WA USA)
In this junk-science based book, Hawkins relies on the method of "applied kinesiology" to determine the power of many aspects of life. Unfortunately, not only have double blind scientific studies of this technique shown it to produce results no better than random, but a review of research papers published by the International College of Applied Kinesiology from 1981 to 1987 found that none of the studies which supposedly support it used adequate statistical analyses. So there is no science behind it, just testimonials.
Even ignoring the use of this invalid technique, many of Hawkins' examples are absurd and show very shallow research on his part. In one example he states that more simple cultures rank in the low 200s vs. the more advanced cultures in the 300s where the main form of entertainment is watching TV! Many studies have shown that people who are living in a more simple traditional culture are happier, healthier and less stressed but that when they begin to adopt "modern" ways their health deteriorates, alcoholism, drug abuse and crime all skyrocket. Surely joining us folks who calibrate higher should only bring good things to those unfortunate traditional cultures! Just ask a Native American!!
Another clunker is Hawkins' example of Wal-Mart as a high calibrating business. Excuse me, is this the same behemoth that has spread like a cancer across the country putting small family owned stores out of business by selling mass-produced crap? That has had numerous complaints of union-busting and employee mistreatment and which was being sued by the US Department of Labor for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for not paying overtime to employees? This is a high-calibrating win/win company?
Another dud is Hawkins' incorrect examples concerning treatment of alcoholism. While extolling AA to high heaven, he ignores the studies which have shown that alcoholics have the same success rate trying to quit by themselves, using psychotherapy, rational treatments, or AA (around 5%). AA is the only therapy which insists that a person must "better themselves" or promotes a transcendent spiritual/religious "cure", yet it has no better sucess rate than the alcoholic who just quits or enrolls in a program that stresses a rational approach. Why should AA calibrate so high when it is no better than any other approach? Probably because it fits in with the author's paradigm.
The rest of his conclusions could have been reached with plain common sense: forgiving is better than resenting, joy is better than I really needed this book to tell me that?

[b:f014d0512d]Spiritual Tolitarianism[/b:f014d0512d], June 3, 2004 Reviewer: A reader
This book has many good philosophical/spiritual concepts mixed in with much that is questionable. I question the fact that according to the author this book calibrates at a higher level than most of the world's greatest literature and spiritual writings. Perhaps a subjective bias crept in when Mr. Hawkins started calibrating his own book. I also think that this type of material creates a methodology for the judgement of others. After all no one objects when Mr. Hawkins states that Hitler has a low level of calibration, but they might object if Mr. Hawkins calibrates their own political or spiritual leader as low on the scale. Perhaps anyone Mr. Hawkins does not agree with could find themselves low on the calibration scale (as calibrated by him). Calibration creates a form of spiritual elitism. Of course in all humility, a man like Mr. Hawkins would not say come out and say he himself calibrates higher than anyone else, but the implication is there. This questionable "scientific" method could also be used as a way to justify judging or even punishing others. It kind of reminds me of the tests they used to determine if someone was a witch or not. It also smacks of the "God is on our side" mentality. In the past we knew he was on our side because our religious leaders said so, now we know Why? because we calibrated it. I also think some of the so called stats Hawkins uses (e.g. for every one "Avatar" at a high level (1000) a gazillion negative people are counterbalanced) comes straight out of a subjective fantasy land. Mr. Hawkins recently lead a seminar for a bookstore in the Chicgo area. There was a V.I.P. meal with a high admission fee for this event. It seems strange that Jesus (calibration level 1000) never had V.I.P. dinners with expensive admission fees. He hung out with people (publicans, prostitutes, tax collectors, etc) with very low calibration levels. He told us not to judge (or in other words "calibrate") others. He just told us to love them. If he was so highly evolved (a 1000 on Mr. Hawkin's scale) and so in touch with the truth, how come he said "judge not that you be not judged". I am not a christian, but I believe Jesus basic teachings and he never mentioned calibrating people. Another issue I have with this whole testing thing is didn't Jesus say we needed faith. Why would anyone need faith if AK testing could determine the absolute truth of everything. We could just test whether or not there is a God and belief could be a thing of the past. It would greatly simplify all the great mysteries of life. We could also then establish a state religion based on AK testing. No one could disagree because after all we tested it and we KNOW what is the truth. I know there are Hawkins fanatics so I am going to keep this review anonymous because I do not want to get into a mud slinging contest. However, I am sure someone will say I calibrate low, because I am not jumping on the Hawkins bandwagon. In conclusion, I believe Mr. Hawkins is on the right track with some of his spiritual ideas, but I think he is using the tool of Applied kinesology to forward his own views and agendas and establish a following. I think that there really are no simple answers to all of life's questions and this book could lead to some possibly dangerous fascistic and simplistic viewpoints.

[b:f014d0512d]Satisfy your curiousity by checking it out at your local library[/b:f014d0512d], August 12, 2005 By islacaladesi (virginia)
I rushed out to buy this book based on an endorsement by Wayne Dyer. What a disappointment! Dr. Hawkins promises to keep things simple but they were anything but. I had so much difficulty following the author's train of thought that I quit before reaching the end of the book. It was boring with a capital "B". In addition, Hawkins consistently uses research from 20 or 30 years ago to back his theories making his book seem instantly outdated. In short, it's not the caliber "enlightenment/self help" book I had hoped for. As much as I admire Wayne Dyer's beliefs and his writing style, his promo of this book must be kept in context. Dyer's newest book, Power of Intention, was published by Hay House, the same publisher of Power vs. Force.

[b:f014d0512d]The best lies are half truths... Scary book :([/b:f014d0512d], February 1, 2005
By D. Johnson (USA)
Just read this book, here is what I did like:

1) The concept that power is superior to force: The author uses historical anecedotes and a handy page listing of power attributes in juxtaposition to force attributes, for example: Confidence vs. Arrogance etc... Considering my poor opinion of this book I found this chart valuable.

2) The concept that love and compassion raise one's level of conciousness: Disclaimer: Since I am a believer in Jesus as the Son of God I can definitely relate to this, as I have grown spiritually I become more aware and thus more conscious of others and how my love of my neighbor or lack thereof affects myself and them. Additionally, I find it difficult to relate to my former less conscious self prior to giving my life over to Christ. The author seems to accurately describe my spiritual growth up to this point even though he and I clearly have a differing world view.

3) The concept that creativity and genius seem to come from an external force: As someone who considers himself musically creative I found this to be true, when I write music it is as if I am tuning into the right radio frequency rather than generating it internally... But honestly, who knows? This book presents only one plausible explanation for creativity i.e. the collective unconscious, it does not by any means prove this point.

Now, what I didn't agree with...

1) Prior to purchasing this book I flipped through the pages and saw the many references to math and physics and became intrigued. As a previous reviewer stated the author, who is a psychiatrist references the hard sciences frequently and does so frequently incorrectly. To do so, so frequently, in a manner that so illogical in reference to his main points, and incorrectly much of the time is inexcusable for a man of his academic background. You would have thought that he would have had an academic peer to check his work many times before the time of publishing. This red flags this book for deception, considering the grandiose claims in this book (i.e. we all have access to absolute truth in the universe!) it would have taken relatively little effort on the authors part to have his mathematics checked. Quite suspicious... The author is using today's science buzzwords in a hodge podge manner to try and lend credibility to his radical claims on truth.

3) Haha, just had to mention this last, somewhere in the business portion of this book the author mentions that walmart is successful and their employees are happy because walmart uses power instead of force! I have had to spend considerable time in walmart as a rep for a company and I must say that that is probably one of the most miserable places to work I have ever been in. I can't stand shopping there or being there, flourescent lights, unhappy workers, and chaos, chaos, chaos. Now I don't hate walmart, they do some very ethical things and some very unethical things but according to the definition that the author uses for force, walmart is most definitely successful because they use force frequently. It's no wonder that this book had a recomendation from Sam Walton.

Bottom line-- This author is exploiting the buyer, my analysis is that he knows his audience very well and he knows exactly what they want to hear. They do want to hear that the United States constitution has a truth value of 700/1000 and that all the worlds religions originally had ultimate truth, blah blah blah

[b:f014d0512d]Spirituality is not a competitive event[/b:f014d0512d], October 26, 2005
By R. Handa
I am mystified as to why so many otherwise intelligent people are so enamored of these books by David Hawkins! Many erudite and wordy tributes have been written, but I am dismayed to find that readers are falling for Hawkins' holier-than-thou approach to spirituality. Perhaps his attachment to the halls of academia is largely responsible for his grandiose method of presenting his arguments.

Dr. Hawkins might want to revisit some basic principles of spirituality and take a closer look at the competitive aspects of his numerical interpretations regarding the levels of human conciousness. Attaining "cosmic truth" or spiritual growth is not an Olympic event. An individual can actively participate through study, but "enlightenment" is granted, not achieved.

This book lacks compassion and so it is also lacks insight. Hawkins' attempt to quantify anything and everything suggests that this book will most likely appeal to people who believe in Multi-Level marketing or the Tooth Fairy. The "Calibrated Levels of Truth" for each chapter are uncomfortably close to the 1000, or avatar level. Hawkins is sincere, but has become overly focused finding ways to market his particular spin on truth and spirituality.

[b:f014d0512d]Skeptical[/b:f014d0512d], August 31, 2003 By Two Cents "twocents" (Boulder, CO United States)
Search the World Wide Net and see if you can locate one good study that has been done on the efficacy applied kinesiology. The problem with this method, although it looks very impressive, is that the consciousness and effect of the administrator is not taken into consideration. Therefore, people will get different results from various practitioners, which I have witnessed. By the way, the body (including muscles) does sometimes lie, although it does remember nearly all events in our past, but muscles testing is not the best way to access them. However, muscle testing can be an effective tool in the hands of someone who is intuitive. Be very careful of erasure techniques (tapping, literally, into the subconscious) as they basically treat symptoms and do little to truly empower an individual.

[b:f014d0512d]I must be a fool[/b:f014d0512d], December 4, 2003 Reviewer: A reader
This book could have scored high had it not been for the lies to start. I waited two months for this book and I have been pouring my energy into understanding it hoping that my life will dramatically change. I have to thank Hawkins for the change.Let me expalin; this book is a read pertaining to spritual,religious,personal, scientific,and political views of the author. I was o.k with that (I kept an open mind), I knew I would be reading his opinions only. I just want the facts. Dr. Hawkins does not talk about the data that he has to supposedly back these kineseological test. I let that slide, (thats twice so far). However, I am no fool, I can count averages. In his book he says that power vs. force calibrated at 810. He has a section where he has the numbers each chapter calibrates at, I added and totaled the chapters then divided them by the total of chapters which is 24 I calibrated (calculated) at 802.083333. Obviously that is less then the book claims. On top of that I bought his other two books in advance (my emotions got the better of me), and on the back cover of those books they claim that power vs. force calibrates at 850. Now why does the books say different? In his second book "the eye of the eye", the claims are that the book calibrates at 950. However, to its' credit I calculated it at 953.95, which would be higher. On the other side of the coin his third book,"I" reality and subjectivity, it claim calibrates at 999.8. These is not the numbers I have come up with(996.54). Why the discrepencies? I suppose they just pull numbers out of a hat. Anyway, back to power vs. force. I also wonder why in power vs. force why aren't any illustations of this muscle testing so beginners can learn since he is a premiere leading expert of this psuedoscience. If you don't believe me do your research on the subject, applied kineseology; Or check for books on muscle testing.You won't find this validated in the field, but, that would have been fine as long as it would work. Here lies the problem how is something going to work if you don't have precise instructions on how to use it?...Obviously, I don't reccommend this book (Do not like to be insulted)...In conclusion, I don't believe you can claim a book to be one thing and it doesn't live up to its' promises. I think this guy is telling lies to sell his books.

[b:f014d0512d]Hawkins is VERY dualistic[/b:f014d0512d], August 14, 2003 Reviewer: A reader
I am writing a review on "Power vs Force". I have also read "The Eye of the I" and "I Reality and Subjectivity". I wanted to give Hawkins a fair chance so I also ordered some of his seminar tapes. He goes on and on about "nonduality" yet his teachings are very much about "spiritual work", "do this work and you will eventually become enlightened. It is about "getting somewhere in the future"....He cannot get away from "good vs evil".

[b:f014d0512d]Ok- Not really what I expected[/b:f014d0512d], July 20, 2005 By Loni Sue Sullivan
The book was a little to faith based for me...

[b:f014d0512d]Hmmm, maybe so, maybe not[/b:f014d0512d], March 7, 2005 By southpaw68 "southpaw68" (florida)
...The energy levels go from 0 to 1000 from shame, guilt, apathy, grief, fear, desire, anger, pride, courage, neutrality, willingness, acceptance, love, reason, love, joy, peace, and enlightenment. Below 200, the energy levels are negative and weakening, above 200, they are strengthening and positive. Courage is at 200...85% of the world is below 200 in consciousness...Hawkins is asking you to become a true believer in his methods...One of my doubts is that sounds a little too simple and easy to figure out the truth. I think life and the world is too ambivalent, complex, and confusing to figure the truth out with a simple test...Hawkins is not the first on the scene promising grand results, but I'm afraid he may leave his followers empty handed. It's better to stay a cynic, that way you're never fooled. I read about applied kinesiology on and came to conclusion that this book probably should be considered interesting entertainment and nothing more than that. It's easy to get fooled by someone referring to Doctor So and So and what his results were. Many academics and seemingly intelligent people peddle pseudo-intellectual ideas.

[b:f014d0512d]Could've been great![/b:f014d0512d], July 22, 2003 By Christopher Berninger (Royal Oak, MI, USA)
This book COULD have been great. For a moment at least, let's take the major premise of kinesiology testing at the author's word. If true, this would be a MAJOR breakthrough in man's ability to discern truth from fiction in the world. The author himself mentioned that he's undertaken millions of kinesiological tests over the past number of years. So, you would expect to find out all kinds of interesting "eye-opening" facts in the book, wouldn't you? Don't hold your breath. The author divulges a sum total of 30-40 test results throughout the entire book (mostly how historical persons such as Jesus and Hitler calibrated). If he's so confident in his system, why not publish a book of the 1000's of interesting facts that could be ascertained using this method (e.g. "Did O.J. do it?"). It would be the most interesting book ever written (again assuming the testing system is what the author claims it is). Instead, the author goes through chapter after chapter of telling you how the method COULD be used by the reader (e.g. to choose politicians, make company decisions, etc.).
One other MAJOR note...the mathematical assumptions in this book are absolutely atrocious, and frankly embarrassing for someone of Dr. Hawkins' reported credentials! For instance, the author claims that simply by reading this book, the average reader increased their calibration by 35 points. If you know the math behind the logarithmic scale the author uses, this means that the average reader increased his consciousness calibration by 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times!!! You mean to tell me that by reading one 300-page book, I've increased my consciousness trillions and trillions of times over? C'mon Dr. Hawkins! Another example is how Dr. Hawkins laments how the average human "only" gains 5 calibration points over a lifetime. Only? 5 points is 10 to the 5th power, or 100,000. Wow I only wish I could increase my consciousness by a magnitude of 100,000X in my lifetime! A mere surface review of the book from a mathematical angle shows these HUGE flaws in the "scale"...which makes me highly skeptical of how accurate the author's entire methodology is!...I remain HIGHLY skeptical about the entire premise of the author's mathematics and the "scale" derived from that faulty math...

[b:f014d0512d]A funny thing[/b:f014d0512d], May 5, 2005 By brel (sydney, australia)
Now here is a funny thing: I find myself in agreement with all of those reviewers who say that this book contains hogwash. I do not believe in the author's imputed 'calibration' of various of the world's great religions (that reads more like politics than kinesiology to me). I do not see any necessary correlation between a 'primitive' society (itself a most dubious descriptor) and 'low' calibrations, and, no, my arm does not go down depending upon the degree of pesticide implicated in my innocent-looking but market-bought (non-organic) apple. Further, while I appreciate and respect the author's own experience of enlightenment, he does not read like a Master to me.

I am not telling you all what you don't already know but as an attorney my daily experience is that the more one actually listens to people and their views of things, 'truth' frequently does not provide a 'yes' or 'no' answer, so the claim that it can be captured or contained by this method overshoots the mark. Truth to me is more like a fractal pattern: it actually becomes more complex the deeper you look into it... (whatever my doubtless measly calibration might suggest!).

[b:f014d0512d]My advice? Read it and laugh at it[/b:f014d0512d]... August 6, 2006 By Julie Parenteau (Canada)
Spiritual persons often hear of "raising our level of consciousness". But what does that mean, really? This book which explains how to transcend levels of consciousness is part of a series of books by the author but is complete in itself...

As you read, you will find many questionable statements. The author explains his calibration levels as "not being the result of Reason of Logic nor as being judgmental". However, as soon as you put something in levels, on a scale, and you begin to try to explain it, you are doing just that: rating, using duality (truth-falsehood claims), certainly using Reason and yes, being judgmental. Many people who follow closely David Hawkins as a teacher are quick to reject a person whom they find to calibrate below 200 and they constantly try to rate themselves and others. The author also rates his books highly (higher than many old spiritual scriptures even) using his own method, call it scientific and rejects criticism by rating it below 200 (level of falsehood).

It would be too long to go over all the sometimes troubling statements the book contains but I suggest you do a search on the internet to see what it's all about...but know that you may find yourself questioning the value of many statements and even the method it is based on.

[b:f014d0512d]An Unexpected Gift to Hawkins' Readers[/b:f014d0512d], October 14, 2005 By Michael B (Santa Fe, New Mexico)
"Truth vs Falsehood" is Hawkins' 4th book. In my mind, it is his greatest gift yet, but not in the sense that one might think. This will be explained in the closing. I will also preface by saying that I am in no way political. Truth is all that I am interested in. In Hawkins' previous 3 books, the kinesiological response was portrayed as infallible. His language was very absolute in its tone, giving the technique more credibility than it has ever received. Being so absolute with one's tone was the first obvious clue. When one becomes absolute in their tone, they often put an inordinate amount of faith in something outside themselves and overlook the inherent limitations. This is true for everything from religious absolutism to the mythical cure-all in medicine. The person who uses the absolute tone acts as if your salvation lies with this one particular thing. I am a traditional naturopath. I was using kinesiology before Hawkins' books, and I am closely connected to practitioners of kinesiology who've used it in excess of 20 years. An observant and curious practitioner quickly realizes that the intent of both the testee and tester influences response. In some cases, a strong-willed practitioner who thinks he knows the cause of imbalance or dis-ease is affecting testee response and in essence using kinesiology to validate his own opinions and beliefs, albeit unknowingly. He will get the positive response he desires, whereas the practitioner with no vested interest in anything except the truth will get a different response on the same testee. It has been difficult for me to bridge the gap between Hawkins' theory/ doctoral thesis on his use of kinesiology and the understanding that most experienced practitioners of kinesiology have. Nearly all experienced practitioners simply don't find the technique to be infallible. Certain criteria must be met for accurate response. Those criteria are training, impartiality, and the sincere and humble desire to put absolute truth above all things. Truth is absolute, but the technique is not. Remaining neutral is an ongoing challenge for the practitioner. I am not familiar with the testing methods used for Hawkins' doctoral thesis "Quantitative and Qualitative Calibration of the Levels of Consciousness". However, for it to withstand any scientific scrutiny, both the tester and testee would have to be without any knowledge on the subject matter. There would also have to be at least 20 different testers for the 3000+ test subjects, with each tester coming up with their own test responses to a given list of questions. Responses would not be compared until all testers have compiled their findings. For his thesis, something along these lines was most likely used. Throughout "Power vs. Force", a healthy skepticism was maintained towards Hawkins putting so much faith in this technique... once Hawkins gained confidence in the technique, he apparently fell into the trap of thinking he could divorce himself from influencing response. The methods used for gleaning the information found in "Truth vs Falsehood" would surely not withstand any scientific scrutiny. The simple fact that the subject matter was familiar to the tester(s) and testee(s) disqualifies it...Within 30 seconds of opening "Truth vs Falsehood", it was clear something wasn't right... Hawkins acknowledges the existence of ignorance and untruth, but does not address the issue of deliberate deception. It is ironic that after years of devotion to the truth, Hawkins still does not fully grasp the nature of deception. The world citizenry is currently experiencing one of the most elaborate mass brainwashes in history. In fact, Hawkins even engages in deception when he explains the Iraq situation. He indicates that the primary reason to be there is to protect the world's (and specifically America's) economic and oil interests. Yet the primary reason given to the public for going to war was weapons of mass destruction. Whether or not it was a fact that there were actually WMDs misses the point. It was given as the main reason, and it was not. That is deception. For Hawkins to agree with the idea of justifiable deceptions is a clear indicator that he is not neutral here. More importantly, for Hawkins to act as if outright deception is not occurring speaks to one's ability to deal with reality. For a person with 80 years of conditioned perception of reality to have reality turned on its head, a person could have a serious breakdown...So, the readers of his 4th book get the opportunity to discern what is truth and what is his belief...Although he didn't intend it to work this way, it is the greatest gift of all. And just as importantly, it shows us that one can be quite enlightened in one area, while not having it all together in another...And those of us who know the real truth know it through our own inner knowing already and don't need Hawkins to tell us. In `The Art of War', Sun Tzu said, "All warfare is based on deception." Well, currently we have warfare in nearly every form. Even `necessary' and `justified' wars have deception as their roots. Michael Santa Fe, New Mexico

[b:f014d0512d]To thine own self be true.[/b:f014d0512d] , August 24, 2005 By C. Canizales (Tempe, AZ USA)
I have read Hawkins' other books. I have listened to him on tape and on online radio shows. And I have seen him in person in Sedona. So, it was with great anticipation that I awaited the arrival of my copy of Truth vs. Falsehood. My excitement was met with disappointment after my initial cursory read of the book. Not wanting to have "contempt prior to investigation", I continued reading. This wasn't the first time that he has raised my ire...I struggled with acceptance of the whole Walmart thing. So, I guess I shouldn't have been so blindsided by this new book, but I was. I admit to resistance with many of his calibrations and the book, in general. Conservatism. The War in Iraq. Fox News. "Bill O'Reilly is a belweather for truth..."(or something like that.) Nevermind. It was more of a political and social commentary (represented as Truth) than I had anticipated...With the publication of this book I was once again reminded not to look outside of myself for someone else to define my spiritual experience for me--to make note of the signposts left by others and trust my own truth within. Hawkins has spoken often of Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj and the path of advaita, the path to the heart via the mind. I guess I was hoping for more heart, and less mind. Regardless of whether or not I agreed with his calibrations, the whole thing was just too mental for my liking. Too much content. I'll stick to reading Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj. So, maybe I don't calibrate as highly as my ego would like...I feel good about not blindly either ascribing to or resisting someone else's version of the truth. Like the Buddha said, "don't take my word for it, go out and find it out for yourself."

[b:f014d0512d]Disheartening[/b:f014d0512d], October 12, 2005 By MS
Both my husband and I found this book very disheartening. I can only recommend it for anyone who read and believed Power vs Force so they can decide for themselves how much truth is in his form of kenisiology. Also, each needs to be warned that if they are seeking a purely spiritual book, be prepared this is book is also full of a lot of politics. I had imagined that this book would be merely lists of Dr. Hawkins' Level of Calibrations (LOC's) of people, places and things. Had it been so, perhaps I may not have questioned its content. Ironically, coming from a man who says the fastest way to reach God is to give up every positionality to God, this book is full of.........positionalities. And for someone who has supposedly let go of his ego, this book is full of it. I personally would have called this book the "Hawkins Pontifications" but perhaps "Truth vs Falsehood" IS the most revealing title. As pointed out in other reviews, his political biases are extremely conservative. He exposes his flawed kenisiology method within his sources he uses to defend his LOC's (ie. opinions), especially glaring in the political arena. For example, page 206 he uses Bill O"Reilly(2005) as his source that "[spreading memes and their disguised hatred] is now being played by Far Left financiers of organized extremist attacks that plant spurious stories with a network of `bloggers'". Apparently Hawkins (I doubt Bill O'Reilly) is completely unaware how many far right blogs exist on the internet. Its this lack of balance, found throughout this book, which screams at the "falsehood" of many of his arguments. Normally I would not point out errors found in manuscripts, however Hawkins has heralded his kenisiology to catch all errors and "falsehoods" by "testing" every sentence in a book before it goes to publication. Therefore, it is glaringly obtuse that he would list (pg 32) snakes, alligators, dinosaurs, song birds and doves as PREDATORY MAMMALS and cats, family cats and dogs as GRAZERS. (He says that grazers have higher LOC's than predators but cats and dogs rated pretty high, even though cats are obligate carnivores and canines are also in the order carnivore.- Mine eat a mostly raw meaty bones diet). It seems that if you cannot resolve a carnivore having a high LOC, you resolve it by listing them as a grazer!! I bring up this LOC specifically because it is objectively and scientifically wrong, and therefore should have been easily caught, and can easily be pointed out. All other LOC's in the book are subjective and opinionated, and are so numerous the ideas/sources/biases could be debated ad nauseum. It becomes obvious to me that all he is testing is his emotional response to any subject. Perhaps this explains how he rates great Saints and Sages in the 700's yet his own writings in the high 900s (with the highest and Christ being 1000). It would explain how he vacillates in his opinions, er,... I mean LOC's, of many ideas- from his ratings on astrology changing from a radio program to this book, and those on Gandhi's ideas of changing politics without war in previous writings certainly changing with this book, which dismisses non violence and argues for war. Other opinions also contradict within the book itself...although Hawkins recommends in Power vs Force to use his methods for business, I warn that this can be self delusional and may lead to bad business decisions. Kenisiology in its original physical-body-test application is not innately flawed, in my opinion. Hawkins' mind-thought application of it does not work/tap into the highest universal mind. (God considers Fox news to be more integritous (380) than Dan Rather(205)?And the BBC to be only 15 pts above al-Jazeera?) (Pg 113) If Hawkins does achieve consistency within his close circle of testers, I agree with another reviewer that it is very possible he is subconsciously energetically influencing those around him. Or perhaps, like some political pundits, only surrounds himself with those who agree with him. I disagree with reviewers who choose to accept his religious calibrations and not his political ones. Hawkins has presented this as the "Truth", take it or leave it. In this framework, if you question some parts, you must do the same to all calibrations...

[b:f014d0512d]Crazy Talk[/b:f014d0512d], August 22, 2005 By Marc Knickerbocker
Truth Vs Falsehood, How to Tell the Difference. Knowing what's true is a very important issue for us in life, and this book claims that there is a reliable technique for discerning truth from falsehood. As in his previous books, Dr. Hawkins, makes the extraordinary claim that a simple muscle testing technique can be used to determine and calibrate truth. Furthermore, this technique is "applicable, without limits, to anything and everything, anywhere in time and space." Wow. In this book, Dr. Hawkins expands upon his previous books with many tables of calibrated levels of truth on a variety of spiritual, political and social topics. His commentary explains the reasons for why this or that thing calibrates lower or higher. Much of this is fascinating, but some of his claims are troubling. In the Author's Statement Dr. Hawkins anticipates that some of his readers will have trouble and forewarns "some of the material may be disturbing and confrontational to some cherished illusions." I am one of those readers who find this book disturbing and confrontational. The major problem I have is that I am unable to replicate Dr. Hawkins results. I tried to verify that muscle testing works using a shuffled deck of playing cards with a friend who had been trained in a muscle testing technique. We were unable to predict whether the next card to be turned over would be black or red. Our results were not any better than simple chance...his technique and his absolute claims about it seem to lead to an authority based approach to truth (it's true because Hawkins said so) and away from an experientially based approach (it's true because I found out for myself.) For example, Hawkins rates Republicans at 405 and Democrats at 325. Should I vote Republican more often because Hawkins says they calibrate higher overall? I think not. There are a number of examples of his claims that just seem false to me. Many of these are current political events and pretty controversial, so I'll stay away from these. As a less controversial example, here is a claim by Hawkins that appears to contradict what is documented about a historical event. Hawkins gives President Truman a high calibration of 475 for his "agonizing decisions ...regarding the necessity of a triage benefit of dropping the atomic bomb" on Japan in World War II. Hawkins goes on to say that Truman had to "weigh the morality of killing 180,000 civilians in order to prevent the estimated death of six or seven million people, had conventional warfare continued..." The trouble is that it is unlikely that this was the dilemma facing Truman. The historical record shows that the U.S. (and Truman) knew that Japan was ready to surrender anyway. Japan wanted to keep their emperor, but otherwise they were ready and willing to surrender. Many, if not most Americans (including Hawkins), still believe the line that "we dropped the bomb to end the war". I don't claim to know what was going on in Truman's head, but historians now know what U.S. intelligence and Truman must have known. It's unlikely that Truman's decision was what Hawkins describes. Maybe Truman should still get a 475, but using a nuclear weapon on people when you didn't have to? A high mark of 475 seems inflated to me. So what are we supposed to do with all of the calibrations presented to us in this book? If we can't find out for ourselves, we must depend on what Hawkins claims to be true. It seems that many of the problems in our world today are based in people blindly accepting what some religious authority claims. Hawkins calibrations are yet another presentation of "The Truth" as dictated by the Authority. If muscle testing actually works, Hawkins could demonstrate it easily using a deck of playing cards. If he can accurately demonstrate the power to declare simple things that are either true or false, I would love to see that. Until he or someone else demonstrates this, I'm sticking to my own common sense. Thanks for listening.

[b:f014d0512d]Disappointed to say the least![/b:f014d0512d] , September 20, 2005 By N. Grignon "ocean gal" (Pacific Grove, CA)
I have been an avid reader of David Hawkins over the years but Truth Vs. Falsehood is a great disappointment on many counts. His personal viewpoints have been mixed into the Truth and it has me selling my copy and telling my friends to not buy it. Can you read around the obvious prejudices? Sure, but it has tainted my view of him and his Truth.

[b:f014d0512d]A perspective from A Course in Miracles[/b:f014d0512d], February 27, 2006 By Sarita Premley, inner peace coach (London, England)
Reading all the other reviews, I want to add a point to view from the perspective of A Course in Miracles (which Hawkins cites in his books and comments on) and The Disappearance of the Universe, a related title. Hawkins agrees with ACIM that that we live in a universe of effects, not one of causes. We are seemingly located as separate individuals in a universe; but in truth we are the Love and Oneness that lies beyond form. So in terms of Who and What We Really Are the universe is essentially illusory, and the 'answer' to the 'problem' that we seemingly find ourselves in - being born into a separate body in this world - is never going to be found by focusing on the illusory universe as something to be judged and calibrated, and so made real. One very helpful way home (as given in ACIM) is to train the mind to recognize the meaningful as being internal and the meaningless as being external. This book encourages one to make the meaningless very real and significant, and indeed spiritually powerful. And so to me, this book - and Hawkins' system of calibration into hierarchies - presents a great temptation for the ego. The indentification with conscious and unconscious thoughts of separation and specialness which we call the ego, needs above all else to be right and 'know the truth'. This is its main way of protecting itself from being wrong and vulnerable: by confidently projecting onto *outside* forms that *they* are mistaken, wrong or 'guilty'. All this bolsters its specialness and separation. To have a divination system which can tell you infallibly what is true and what is false; what is right and what is wrong; and produce hierarchies of what is better than what and what is worse than what.... What heaven for the ego! And indeed what heaven for the sincere seeker who just wants to know the best way and find the best teacher... I have read reviews where people wrote something along the lines of: "Well my beliefs have been thoroughly challenged which is great, and I'm now adjusting them in the light to this book, which is causing some emotional challenges but lots of growth and it's all good really." To radically adjust your beliefs in the light of what you read in this book would only make sense to me if you had a good way of knowing that the book was right or wiser, and your previous beliefs were wrong or unhelpful. And yet plenty of highly experienced kinesiology practitioners have written reviews on this site. They all explicitly discredit kinesiology as a replicable system for discerning truth. I was very excited by Hawkins until the penny dropped about why my ego loved him! I think the real wake-up call from this - certainly for me - is to acknowledge that the yearning for a Source of guidance is huge; and to remember once more at this can only be fulfilled by contacting It internally. Whether that be through your heart, your meditation practice, your intuition, by learning to hear a Voice of guidance through ACIM..... it doesn't matter. But ultimately, Guidance is never something outside of yourself. It is never some external divination system or person which can obligingly be relied upon to be infallibly accurate. I think I'm also learning that it generally doesn't work for me, and maybe other ACIM students, to keep on shopping in the spiritual supermarket. I know this is often said of students from every path. I would also agree with reviewers who say that there are things of use to people in Hawkins' work...But judging things as true or false, better or worse, (and so, *real*)and putting them in hierarchies is pretty much antithetical to the ACIM/ Disappearance path. I think this is worth pointing out as Hawkins sells a DVD of a workshop where he lectures at length to ACIM students. It's important to realize that he isn't a greater authority on ACIM than the Voice of the text itself. And for his readers to appreciate that his 'take' on ACIM is not necessarily true. But that certainly doesn't make the one path better than the other, or the one path true and the other path false. There are different teachings, different paths up the illusory mountain, different systems which all work in some way in the end. You end up on the path which feels right to you. I don't think there is likely to be a teacher on the planet who speaks pure infallible truth. If there were, queues would form of seekers wanting to give their power away to him or her. And just to be clear, I think that the dedicated student of Hawkins' spiritual teachings and methods will in the end steer clear of the temptations of the ego and awaken to Truth, just as any seeker will one day. Good luck to us all!

[b:f014d0512d]Don't Buy These Lies and Intentional Falsehoods! [/b:f014d0512d], January 8, 2006 By The Indweller (Grayslake, IL USA)
We have been shockingly betrayed by David Hawkins! In a book called Truth vs. False, how fitting that the so-called leader in the Science of Truth movement presents many intentional lies here to support his political and religious beliefs. To those wondering about Hawkins' overt Right-wing political statements and how Conservatives "calibrated" at 415 and Liberals at 255 on page 115, the answer is that they don't...Hawkins deceptively claims the Truth vs. Falsehood book calibrates at 935. There are many more intentionally politically-oriented and religious-oriented deceptions...The biggest question is why Hawkins would now choose to lie and present these falsities as truths...This Conservative-influenced bias is supported by Hawkins claiming that "the Far Left hates America" (p.118), his love for Bill O'Reilly (p. 114) that George W Bush's position calibrates at 460...Has Hawkins sold out in the greedy hopes of Purpose-Driven Life riches (p.119) by trying to reach a broad conservative market with this book? This new lying has had a profound effect on Hawkins as the calibration of his personal consciousness is plummeting...

[b:f014d0512d]Truth according to David[/b:f014d0512d], August 23, 2005 By Blaise Gallagher (Tempe, AZ, US)
If you have never read Hawkins don't start here! If you HAVE read his other books this one may disapoint you with its bias which he calls truth, unless you believe in the gospel of Bill O'Reilly. The truth according to Hawkins is heavily influenced by his opinions and his experience as a WW2 veteran republicant who grew up in another era. His pro Bush pro war feelings color much of this work and he says that if you disagree with his findings you just aren't as evolved as he is. I could not replicate his results and am surprised that he would put something out that focuses so much on divisive generalizations...this one though might get him on Geraldo which he rates higher than NPR news.

[b:f014d0512d]unsurpassable arrogance[/b:f014d0512d], September 25, 2005 By Gunnar Kossatz "Samvado" (Hamburg)
or is it plain ignorance or even stupidity? I have been reading most of Hawkins books and was initially fascinated by his views and theories. But more and more doubts crept in as I investigated his primary - if not sole - tool, the muscle test. I interviewed among others students of the long standing authority on the subject, German m.d. Dietrich Klinghardt, himself author of kinesiology reference-textbooks. He says results are far from reliable and this concurs with other medical and psychological professionals I have spoken to...But if you read Hawkins you are lead to belief his method is fool-proof. Some of his "findings" are laughable, e.g: page 51: "... at time of birth the EXACT time of bodily death is already preset ... this has repeatedly calibrated true ..."; well, then lets all start smoking again and why not commit suicide? with no free will in the matter it hardly makes a difference. It probably doesnt occur to him that he dis-owns free will at this point because he otherwise is a big fan of it. I feel I have wasted a lot of money purchasing his books.

[b:f014d0512d]Is David Hawkins credible?[/b:f014d0512d], November 9, 2006 By Lee Barneburg (Laredo, Texas)
I have read almost all of David Hawkins books and now wonder about his credability. In this book his calibrations of politics, political leaders and current topics are all aligned with the conservative fundamentalists. Up to this point I had believed Hawkins to be an objective and brilliant researcher and scientist but now I have my doubts? One example of his bias is George Bush (Any student of public speaking can readily identify speakers who lie or deceive). Applied Kinesiology would indeed be a wonderful tool if you could also calibrate the user of it! LHB

[b:f014d0512d]Proof that no one, but no one, is immune to seduction by the ego[/b:f014d0512d], December 23, 2005 By Gary S. Leigh "Gary Leigh" (London)
This is a fine lesson in how anyone can succumb to the seduction of the ego, even someone held in the highest spiritual regard after one of the finest, most truthful books written about consciousness and enlightenment ever written, The Eye of the I...In his latest effort, however, Hawkins emerges as an advocate for war and is evidently blind to what is really going on behind the veil of illuion he purports to know so much about. A major disappointment, but at the same time a major lesson learned.

[b:f014d0512d]Save your money and your time[/b:f014d0512d], December 12, 2005 By rocklvr (Broomfield, CO United States)
I've read Dr. Hawkins previous books and, for the most part, enjoyed what he had to offer. Anyone with an ounce of social conscience (or anyone who enjoys NPR) best stay away. Ann Coulter finally has someone to support her nonsense.

[b:f014d0512d]Pure Quackery[/b:f014d0512d], January 29, 2006 By Thomas John (San Jose, CA, USA)
Hawkins states that peo

Options: ReplyQuote
David R. Hawkins
Posted by: shimon ()
Date: June 21, 2007 03:37AM

Is anybody else out there reading these threads on hawkins? Dont you have anything to contribute or ask about or discuss about hawkins.

There is over 24,000 views of this thread, and yet very little discussion about hawkins. THere has to be some ex followers of hawkins or those who are questioning him on this forum.

I want to read other peoples views on hawkins. Anybody willing to share?

Options: ReplyQuote
Current Page: 13 of 19

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