Further comments on the hawkins dvd i watched. IT started with 6 1/2 minutes of him walking around the room shaking peoples hands and saying hello. I was shocked to see that they taped this, filmed this for all to see. This is bizarre. I have seen many videos of spiritual teachers and i have never seen any of them film the teacher going around giggling and making strange comments and acting childlike and shaking hands before the lecture or satsang begins. I dont know quite what to make of this. My first response is that this is silly an d against what most true spiritual teachers teach, that is stay away from adoration of the teacher, but then again maybe hawkins is doing it for his disciples, so they can touch him. What do you think?

After watching the hawkins dvd, i am even more convinced that it is hard to tell a true teacher from a false one. He is very entertaining, comical, had me laughing a lot, he really is a funny guy. He is very charismatic, a good story telller, and insightful. It is hard not to like the guy. He is a tiny little guy too and old. He just laughs a lot an d has a lot of humor. Its hard to see him as the cult leader he might be. Help, i am losing my perspective again and getting sucked into him. Help remind me the truth about him PP.

Quote
shimon
I like how at the begginning there was more activiity and more people sharing and posting. I wonder why no one is posting abotu Hawkins anymore. You have any clue?

I think it is because they weren't addressing the actual information and had no leg to stand on. Hawkins and followers offer [i:448f264b02]ad hominem[/i:448f264b02] attacks but not much intelligent (or loving, forgiving, and nonjudgmental) dialogue in response to questions and facts.

Quote
shimon
I mean thousdands read this and no one is talking about hawkins. There must be some disenchanted ex-hawkins followers out there. Or is there? Maybe everyone who follows hawkins never leaves him. They love him and love his system of authority. What do you think? Have you met any ex-hawkins followers, and why did they leave, if you know any?

I think a lot of people have given up on Hawkins, for example, as written at Amazon.

Quote
shimon
PP, you said that Hawkins said Kirlian Photography was true in Power vs Force and then said it was false in another book. Could you please tell me more about this, and why he changed it? How could kirlian photography be false. It is a scientifically accepted thing, right? What the heck is Hawkins doing?

No, it is not scientific. He probably thought it was, and then changed his mind, and so the calibration changed. It is all based in his mind. See [skepdic.com] .

Quote
shimon
PP,

Hawkins work is clearly pseduoscience, you have established this. He has many cult like tendencies and his followers are very fundamentalist and cult like. Does anybody benefit from reading hawkins or should we all not read him?

I think there are many better teachers. I am sure people get benefit out of reading Hawkins or they wouldn't read him at all. If a person is interested in enlightenment, as opposed to pseudoscience, blind faith, and lies, I would suggest looking elsewhere, such as in your own Heart.

Quote
shimon
Do you still read his latest books to see what he talks about, or have you stopped reading him, and what was the last book you read of his.

I stopped. No point in reading his work. He is quite repetative, as you have pointed out before. I thumbed through [i:448f264b02]Truth vs. Falsehood[/i:448f264b02] and had a good laugh. I'm grateful I never spent money on that one.

Quote
shimon
Do you still see him at the free satsangs or have you chosen to stay away from him?

I have chosen to stay away.

Quote
shimon
Afterreading some of the previous posts by you and others, it seems so me get somethign out of him. Some ignore the kinesilogy and benefit from his teachings which are the same as JEsus, Buddha, and Krishna.

Is this really true? Think about it.

If they are the same, why not simply follow one of the others?

Quote
shimon
I am still waitng for more disillusioned, ex Hawkins followers to speak up. It is hard for me to believe that they arent out there. I want to hear from them and why they left, what harm he did to them. For you can find ex followers of every teacher who is harmful in some way. Where are those who hawkins has hurt. Do you know?

I don't think they are organized in any way. I have referenced many of them. Maybe you could start an online group. One cult expert suggested I start a website for former followers, but I do not have the time. I imagine most people don't have too much time to spend on this. They realize the truth and get on with their lives. I chose to spend a little more time on this because I knew there were lies out there that I wanted to correct with factual information.

Quote
shimon
PP,

You said that Hawkins calibrated sceptic Robert TOdd Carroll at 160. THat is very low and non-integrous. I imagine you know about this person and have had some dealings with him. Is he really this low? OR is Hawkins way off on this calibration. Is it just because Robert questions him. Is he a sincere thinker, and open minded, or is he really closed and narrow and sceptical and below 200 like hawkins suggests. Trying to know the real scoop on this.

Dr. Carroll is not "low." This is a concept rooted in duality and has no basis in Truth. All of Hawkins' calibrations are "way off." Wherever he thinks a person is he finds the confirmation. It is judgment. Some think (they will make any excuse in favor of their guru) that arm-pressing ("calibrating" -- isn't this a bit like Scientology, Landmark, and Kabbalah referring to their nonsense as "technology"?) is "discernment" rather than judgment. I think it is discernment to recognize that it is in fact judgment.

Yes, Dr. Carroll questions him so Hawkins ranks him low. Carroll is a sincere thinker. He considers himself a "hardened skeptic" due to his experience (he used to be a seeker), but readily admits errors in light of [i:448f264b02]evidence[/i:448f264b02] (see for example [skepdic.com] ). He is also an atheist along with 93% of the members of the National Academy of Science ( [en.wikipedia.org] ). I think it is funny that Hawkins' big criticism of Carroll is that he is an atheist (which is [i:448f264b02]ad hominem[/i:448f264b02]) as supposedly Hawkins' view of the world is so much better; wouldn't a more appropriate reaction be sympathy for the unbeliever? Hawkins also wrote that Carroll criticized the Buddha from an "atheistic perspective," which is meaningless because the Buddha himself was a nontheist. Also, I have read Carroll argue in favor of [i:448f264b02]compassion[/i:448f264b02], which is [i:448f264b02]spiritual[/i:448f264b02] (this is not dissimilar from the Buddha). It is a choice to see the good in someone or not, and Hawkins' pseudoscience would have people identified with the perceived worst in them, rather than the best and so bring about this inherent goodness. “If you don't trust the people, you make them untrustworthy.” ~Lao Tzu ( [www.mindfully.org] )

Quote

[i:448f264b02]The Skeptic’s Dictionary[/i:448f264b02] is aimed at four distinct audiences: the open-minded seeker, who makes no commitment to or disavowal of occult claims; the soft skeptic, who is more prone to doubt than to believe; the hardened skeptic, who has strong disbelief about all things occult; and the believing doubter, who is prone to believe but has some doubts. The one group this book is not aimed at is the “true believer” in the occult. If you have no skepticism in you, this book is not for you...

My beliefs are clearly that of a hardened skeptic. I don’t pretend that I have no experience or knowledge of these matters. For me, the evidence is overwhelming that it is highly probable that any given occult claim is erroneous or fraudulent. Earlier in my life I was a seeker. Looking back, I wish I had had a book like [i:448f264b02]The Skeptic’s Dictionary[/i:448f264b02]--a book that provides the seeker with arguments and references to the best skeptical literature on occult claims. Though clearly it is my hope that the seeker will become skeptical, I also hope the seeker will investigate these matters before coming to a decision.

[i:448f264b02]The Skeptic’s Dictionary[/i:448f264b02] will provide the soft skeptic with evidence and arguments, as well as references to more evidence and arguments, on occult issues. In my view, there is sufficient evidence available to convince most reasonable soft skeptics that most occult claims are more probably false than true. However, the soft skeptic recognizes that it does not follow from that fact (if it is a fact) that one should commit oneself to what seems most probable to the rational mind. The soft skeptic often holds that rationality is a value and that the idea that the rational life is the best one for human beings cannot be proven logically, scientifically, or any other way. By way of argument, all one can do is appeal to the consequences of choosing the rational over the irrational life. Also, it seems to be true that belief in the irrational is as appealing to the true believer as belief in the rational is to the hardened skeptic. According to many soft skeptics, whether one chooses a life devoted to rationality or irrationality is a matter of faith. For a good period of my adult life, I was a soft skeptic who believed that my commitment to rationality was as much an act of faith as my earlier commitment to Catholicism had been. For years I remained open to the possibility of all sorts of occult phenomena. My studies and reflections in recent years have led me to the conclusion that there is a preponderance of evidence against the reasonableness of belief in any occult phenomena. I have also concluded that choosing rationality over irrationality is not an act of faith at all. To even pose the question as one requiring thought to answer demonstrates the futility of claiming everything can be reduced to faith. One must use reason to argue for faith. While I do not deny that the consequences of believing in the occult are often beneficial, I do deny that such consequences have anything to do with establishing the reality of occult phenomena. A soft skeptic would have to agree that there is a monumental difference between a believed entity and a real entity. I would agree with the soft skeptic that it is impossible to know anything empirical with absolute certainty. However, I think it is obvious that probabilities serve us well in this life. We have plenty of ways in many, many cases to distinguish among empirical claims that are of differing degrees of probability.

The hardened skeptic doesn’t need much more in the way of evidence or argument to be convinced that any given occult claim is probably based on error or fraud. Still, [i:448f264b02]The Skeptic’s Dictionary[/i:448f264b02] has something for the hardened skeptic, too: It will provide ammunition against the incessant arguments of true believers. Most hardened skeptics don’t feel it is worth their time to investigate every bizarre idea that comes their way. They dismiss them out of hand. Under most conditions simply rejecting quackery is intelligent and justified. Often, however, it is better to provide a seeker, soft skeptic, or the doubting believer with arguments, both specific and general. But if one’s antagonists are true believers, it is probably a waste of time to provide evidence and arguments in response.

Finally, [i:448f264b02]The Skeptic’s Dictionary[/i:448f264b02] will provide the doubting believer with information and sources to consult that will provide, if not a balanced picture, at least a multifaceted one, of a concern about the power of crystals or color therapy or levitation, or other phenomena. It will help the doubter resolve his or her doubts. There may be a few skeptics who can go through all this literature and come out doubting everything, including the skeptical claims, but I think the vast majority will emerge as hardened skeptics. They will not think they must suspend judgment on everything, but will realize that some claims are more probable than others.

As already stated, the one group that this book is not designed for is that of the true believers. My studies have convinced me that arguments or data critical of their beliefs are always considered by the true believer to be insignificant, irrelevant, manipulative, deceptive, not authoritative, unscientific, unfair, biased, closed-minded, irrational, and/or diabolical. (It is perhaps worth noting that except for the term “diabolical,” these are the same terms some hardened skeptics use to describe the studies and evidence presented by true believers.) Hence, I believe it is highly probable that the only interest a true believer would have in [i:448f264b02]The Skeptic’s Dictionary[/i:448f264b02] would be to condemn and burn it without having read it.

[skepdic.com]

See also: [skepdic.com]
[en.wikipedia.org]

Dr. Carroll was the first to publicly report on the fact that Hawkins got his PhD from the diploma mill Columbia Pacific University, a fact not noted in any of Hawkins' books or websites. I will let you decide who has more integrity based on this.

See [skepdic.com] (September 2, 2003),
[skepdic.com] (December 1, 2003),
[skepdic.com] (February 5, 2004),
[skepdic.com] (August 23, 2005), and
[skepdic.com] (Last updated 06/26/07).

Under "[b:448f264b02]cult[/b:448f264b02]" Dr. Carroll has included this link [www.cults.co.nz] on Hawkins
[skepdic.com]

I subscribe to Carroll's newsletter, which is free. [skepdic.com] (His newsletters are "transmitted as a gift." lol)

Quote
shimon
PP,

It is interesting to read some of your exchnges with those who are devoted hawkins followers. They just will not see any of your points, and they want you to see their points about hawkins. Have you given up discussing wtih them or do you still discuss hawkins with them privately? Have any of them ever changed, or do they all still worship hawkins and accept everything he says as absolute truth.

The true believers never change. People like you are still open-minded. I am not in contact with any of them.

Quote
shimon
IT is possible he is unconscious of his narrcisstic characteristics.

That's true. Either way, he is still not a good person to follow in my opinion. NPD is what all of the cult leaders have in common apparently. Compare any of the cult leaders such as Hawkins with Ramana for example and I am sure you will see a marked difference.

Quote
shimon
I really feel after reading the posts that you are the more enlightened one than all of the hawkins followers who discussed with you.

I feel the same about you. You are not a true believer, which means you are closer to enlightenment because you are not attached to his opinions. You are seeking the truth regardless of the outcome, which shows you have integrity and are open-minded. You are committed to truth rather than one man's egomaniacal, insane claims he makes while giggling. Maybe people should give $125 to hear a homeless man speak rather than Hawkins. Then you might learn something [i:448f264b02]and[/i:448f264b02] have good karma.

Quote
shimon
Why is Hawkins called Sir David Hawkins on his website? Isnt this a little narricissistic? Or is it an equivalent to a Eastern SPiritual TEacher given the title Sri or Swami or Ji added to their name out of respect? ALthough I do find it a little odd that David added the Sir in front of his name, it is a little awkward and disconcerting. Dont any of his followers find it odd and egotistical?

He has a knighthood in a self-styled order (similar to his PhD from a diploma mill). Hawkins’ followers don't care about facts, but truthiness and delusion purported to be enlightenment.

Quote
shimon
I am halfway through reading all of your posts, and a question about k testing has popped in my mind. I agree that all of the calibrations are nonsense and it is all pseduosceince. However i am a little concerned we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Isnt k testing somewhat reliable in differentiating bad substances from good, cant it be used for that, forget hawkins system and map of consciousness but cant it be used to prove that fluorescent lights, pesticides, and artificial sweeteners for instance make everybody go weak? Isnt this proven true? DIdnt hawkins do this many times at his lectures and everyone saw for themselves the truth of this?

AK in every form is a pseudoscience per studies, but even AK proponents are critical of Hawkins' work.

Quote
shimon
Is there any database of hawkins calibrations out there that are inconsistent, not accurate, mixed up, changed, etc. I would like to see it and see how silly his calibrations really are. I know there are some databases of his calibrations people believe, but what about a database where it shows the inconsistencies. That should be interesting, huh?

Yes. Someone could start one, it would just be time-consuming.

Quote
shimon
ONe thing that came to me just now. You were once a Hawkins fan, a Hawkins follower yourself, involved in the Hawkins cult. You were no different than any of the other Hawkins followers. You went to his lectures, bought his books, dvds, audios. You listened to all of his Beyond the Ordinary radio interviews. You even believed in ktesting at one time too. You obviously got out, but dont be too hard on those who are still stuck in it. It takes time to get out and it is okay to be sucked into cults for awhile as long as you eventually get out. So i really appreciate your information but i also sense at times that you are a little hard on us who might take longer to extricate ourselves from a cult. Any comments?

I never believed in ktesting, but suspended disbelief. I kept an open mind. I was unaware of the scientific studies at that time, and believed Hawkins had a real PhD. People need all of the information in order to make proper decisions. I am not trying to be hard on anyone; I think you might be thinking of interactions with true believers. No matter what truth there is, nothing changes their minds. That is different from a person who might be questioning and wanting answers. There is still room left in their mind for dialogue.

Quote
shimon
One of hawkins followers lent me a dvd of his. It is the first time i am watching one of his dvds. It starts off with the throngs of followers wanting to be touched by him.

That's weird.

Quote
shimon
He goes around laughing constantly and talking, muttering to himself, while the audience does everything it can to touch Hawkins (as if he was Jesus Christ).

That's scary. lol

Quote
shimon
Wow it is amazing to see. Does he not promote this? Most highly advanced teachers will not let others worship them or touch them. What do youy think? Is this a sign of a cult leader or not?

Definitely!

Quote
shimon
Further comments on the hawkins dvd i watched. IT started with 6 1/2 minutes of him walking around the room shaking peoples hands and saying hello. I was shocked to see that they taped this, filmed this for all to see. This is bizarre. I have seen many videos of spiritual teachers and i have never seen any of them film the teacher going around giggling and making strange comments and acting childlike and shaking hands before the lecture or satsang begins. I dont know quite what to make of this. My first response is that this is silly an d against what most true spiritual teachers teach, that is stay away from adoration of the teacher, but then again maybe hawkins is doing it for his disciples, so they can touch him. What do you think?

I think it is strange, but I didn't see the DVD you are referring to so I can't really comment.

Quote
shimon
After watching the hawkins dvd, i am even more convinced that it is hard to tell a true teacher from a false one. He is very entertaining, comical, had me laughing a lot, he really is a funny guy. He is very charismatic, a good story telller, and insightful. It is hard not to like the guy. He is a tiny little guy too and old. He just laughs a lot an d has a lot of humor. Its hard to see him as the cult leader he might be. Help, i am losing my perspective again and getting sucked into him. Help remind me the truth about him PP.

I think it is very easy to tell a "true teacher from a false one."

Jerry Seinfeld makes me laugh; does that mean he is enlightened also? Since when is comedy a sure-fire way of determining enlightenment? George Lucas is "a good story teller," is he enlightened? It is hard not to like George W. Bush; does that mean he is correct? (Have you seen Alexandra Pelosi's documentary [i:448f264b02]Journeys with George[/i:448f264b02]? [www.journeyswithgeorge.com] It is very funny.) I might like to go fishing with Bush; I just don't want him running my country. (I recently finished Frank Rich's [i:448f264b02]The Greatest Story Ever Sold[/i:448f264b02], Oprah suggested it after all, and am currently reading Gore's [i:448f264b02]The Assault on Reason[/i:448f264b02]. Hawkins unfortunately sets up the rational and the spiritual as a false dichotomy to the detriment of his followers, though it serves him well, in my opinion.)

I don't want to remind you of the truth about him; I would like you to think for yourself as you do. You already know about true teachers out there; why not study them? If you have any questions about a teacher, check out the Rick Ross site and forum. God and Enlightenment are supposed to be what seekers are committed to, not Hawkins. I know that Meadow Haven suggests people stay away from any contact with cults as they are transitioning out of them, so I would suggest this to you also. If you have already seen that it is a cult, just stay away from it. Take a breather. Check it out again a year down the line and see what you think.

Quote
shimon
After watching the hawkins dvd, i am even more convinced that it is hard to tell a true teacher from a false one. He is very entertaining, comical, had me laughing a lot, he really is a funny guy.

Check out Swami Beyondanada [www.wakeuplaughing.com]

Cosmic Connie [www.cosmicconnie.blogspot.com] (She posts here too [board.culteducation.com] )

For more see Sarlo's humor page [www.globalserve.net]

Quote

[i:c6d8fd205e]There's a lot to be said for shallowness, and the unexamined life can indeed be worth living if you just have the right pair of shoes. [/i:c6d8fd205e]~Cosmic Connie
[home.swbell.net]

At least CosCon tells you who she is upfront :lol:

Quote

[u:52b6783148]About Me[/u:52b6783148]
Insufferable narcissist...but enough about me. What about you? For example, what do you think about me?
[www.blogger.com]

Who has the bigger ego, the person who laughs at themselves like this or the person who believes they have transcended it all and believes they are God and a genius?

I thought it over and i am going to go and read Ramana Maharshi now instead of Hawkins. I cant go wrong with him or be misled by him or have to worry about any cult like tendencies with him, for there are none. He is dead and his teachings shine through pristinely. There are no calibrations or levels in his teachings. There is just Reality. Gotta love good old Ramana. It is best that i just return to his sound, safe, sane teachings. There i thought for myself and it feels soooo good. God bless you PP.

Please don't use this board to promote your personal religious beliefs.

Quote
shimon
I thought it over and i am going to go and read Ramana Maharshi now instead of Hawkins. I cant go wrong with him or be misled by him or have to worry about any cult like tendencies with him, for there are none. He is dead and his teachings shine through pristinely. There are no calibrations or levels in his teachings. There is just Reality. Gotta love good old Ramana. It is best that i just return to his sound, safe, sane teachings. There i thought for myself and it feels soooo good. God bless you PP.

Glad to hear it. At least Ramana is not a cult leader (but it is okay to question him too, of course). The most important thing is your own health, sanity, and enlightenment over any teacher. God bless you, too, Shimon.

Quote
rrmoderator
Please don't use this board to promote your personal religious beliefs.

For purposes of clarity, if this is in reference to the comedians I referred to such as Swami Beyondanda and CosCon, that was just for purposes of humor. I don't think they are real teachers nor have religious beliefs that I know of. If in reference to Shimon stating that he wants to stick with Ramana over Hawkins, I have to applaud that decision because I have not come across any information stating that Ramana is a cult leader, though of course I am open to the possibility. Thanks, Rick Ross.

Praising and/or promoting Ramana or any other philosophy or religious writer, thinker is not the purpose of this board.

This is a violation of the rules regarding promoting beliefs and essentially preaching.

I was responding to Shimon's most recent post on this thread.