Quote

The Biggest Douche and Biggest Douche Bag in the Universe

Excuse my French, but I'm trying to avoid being sued for referring to David R. Hawkins. He's the retired psychiatrist who thinks applied kinesiology (AK) is a perfect lie detector in the hands of someone like himself who calibrates his own level of consciousness as just below god or some such thing. Anyway, for some time there was an article about him in Wikipedia but his lawyers apparently have had it removed. Some authors of the article think Hawkins is a god; others think he is a nut case in need of therapy for his megalomania and other delusions. I was brought into the fray because I have a critical article on AK on my website and I also wrote about the good doctor in a newsletter. Some Wikipedia authors refer to my writings when criticizing Hawkins. Hawkins got into the fray by getting involved in the discussion section of the articles on himself and AK, complaining that I should not be used as a source because my consciousness calibrates as just below that of a tree frog. Andrew Patterson of EnergyGrid.com has written an article about the mysterious disappearing act of the Wikipedia article on Hawkins. When he checked the article earlier this month, the article was nearly blank. I checked today (Sept. 10) and the article has vanished completely. Some people just don't like criticism. They're so sensitive that they hire lawyers to try to scare people into saying nothing negative about them by threatening to sue them. These censorship lawsuits have a chilling effect, but in this day and age it's nearly impossible to freeze out all criticism. These New Age gurus really don't need to bother. They'll have a huge following no matter what the skeptics have to say.

In case you don't follow South Park, John Edward was named biggest douche in the universe in episode 615. You can guess who the bag award goes to. Here's a hint: it has to be big enough for his oversized ego.

-Robert Todd Carroll, September 12, 2007
[www.skepdic.com]

Hello everybody. This is my first message on these boards. I would like to thank everyone who has posted and expressed an opinion on this, the thread about David R. Hawkins. Most importantly, I would like to thank PhoenixPotter, whose posts I have found to be uniformly educated, articulate, and conductive to a productive discussion.

I am saying this in the hope that those who have posted on this thread will continue to do so. I find that I currently have need of information on this topic, and while I will do my best to search the web and avoid asking already-discussed questions, I believe live discussions will still be extremely helpful.

I have read 4 pages of this thread. Until I read all of them, I'd like to pose this first question:

[b:57e7077005]Why is it bad?[/b:57e7077005]

Let me explain the context. Let's say one were to convince critics that every scientific claim David Hawkins made was bogus, that AK does not work, that his qualifications and recommendations are not up to par, and even that he might be profiting off the sale of his books and lectures. While not denying the negative impact this would have on Hawkin's image, his supporters would still have one thing to fall back on: what he preaches is good.

David Hawkins advises people to do what is right, and to lead a good life. He is not, overtly at least, promoting any action that would harm human beings. One can always say that bad things done by people who follow Hawkin's teachings are due to the perpetrators themselves, and not to the content of the teachings - because the texts say to do good things.

Moreover, I do not believe one can use the argument "he could manipulate people into doing bad things", because he has not done so yet, and a good (in this respect) track record coupled with positive writings result in a not-insignificant amount of public confidence.

Therefore, the question stands: [b:57e7077005]Why should we disconsider the works of David Hawkins, given the above context?[/b:57e7077005] I have struggled with this question myself, and with the more general one of why we should be skeptical of something that teaches good.

Any opinions on this matter, or links to other pages where this issue might have already been discussed, would be highly appreciated.

Welcome, Algol. Thank you for your kind words.

I think your questions may be answered if you read the rest of the thread. If not, please let me know.

Right. I did a bit of research. First, I'd like to make a small contribution by posting some of the things Dr. Hawkins claimed in an interview. The link to this interview was posted on a previous page, and it can be found at http://www.miraclescenter.us/audio/Hawkins051110.mp3 :

- Dr. Hawkins claims that human activity only influences climate to a minor degree, and points towards variations in the Sun's magnetic field as more relevant to the climate on earth

- he claims that people with a higher level of consciousness are more likely to be intelligent

- he claims that people who have split personalities are more attracted to crime and espionage, owing to the duplicity inherent in these practices

- in answering a question about causality (whose existence he denies in Power Vs. Force), he makes a case for the evolution of the universe from one state to another, this evolution taking place because of changing "differences in potentiality".

Now the above statements are things he has actually said in the interview. My opinions thus far (having only listened to half of the interview) are:

- uses a lot of big words but does not explain things clearly
- does make some claims that appear to be true, but which are intermixed with many that I disagree with
- he does not seem to have very good rhetoric skills
- I could not understand how he can deny causality and accept the process of evolution

I will listen to the rest of the interview, and then I will listen to all of it again, and I will post some more on it.

With regard to my previous post, I have found the following reasons to distrust Dr. Hawkins's work:

- provides truths mixed with lies
- the lies contained in his work may be dangerous
- Dr. Hawkins could easily distribute his work freely if he wanted to. The argument that he only needs enough money to pay for the expenses of producing his materials does not stand - he could probably make enough money from lectures alone
- upon more consideration it seems that his work does not have universally good effects, and I do not believe that practising his teachings will turn one into a better person.

I'd be grateful to anyone who could point out things I've missed. Now, given that I no longer think the work of Dr. Hawkins to be innocuous, I'd like to ask this:

How do you know how deeply someone is involved in this?

How do you make the difference between a person who likes Dr. Hawkins' work but still has an open mind and can by way of rational argument be persuaded that he is in error, and another person who is deeply involved in his belief, and who might require "deprogramming"?

Oh dear lord! I believe I made a serious mistake.

I'm tbonegeek18 a while later.

I have lately been researching and I have one thing to say: it's no wonder I followed Dr. Hawkins! I was lead into his teaching by Wayne Dyer and set up to never ever question him. It's much more subtle than that, however; my so called spiritual experience was probably just from optimism!

Thank you so much everyone here - sorry for my foolishness! You all really are great people and I find it absolutely humorous that I would state: "Please do not answer my posts with scientific arguments"

After reading "The God Delusion" all makes sense.


If there is a God and someone who knows him - lets at least understand that Dr. Hawkins is not him or does not now him.

Or at least that's what I believe now.

And now may I say - my life has never been better! However - I did suffer clinical depression for months previous this which I attribute to poor-eating habits.


Point is - I couldn't accept that dr. hawkins was false at the time because he was holding me together. I never realized I could live a peaceful-loving life WITHOUT him.


By the way - does an archangel calibrate at 50,000 or 500,000... lol...


AMEN for this!


Everyone - research both sides of the argument - for and against God. It seems even scientists can be foolish. That I didn't know.

Thanks for your wonderful site!

Hi Everyone, Tbonegeek18 again:
Over the past year, I have significantly grown in knowledge. I am currently reading such books as "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer, "Why Darwin Matters" by Michael Shermer, have listened to an audiotape of "The God Delusion", and have a much different thought process than before.

This seems to be common: those who find a solid ground in reason most often are the ones that had faulty reasoning before... Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine is guilty of this, apparently Todd Carrol of the Skeptic's Dictionary is guilty of this, and I have been guilty of this.

I could spend time dissecting my posts and explaining why Dr. Hawkins isn't infallible, how I was wrong, and maybe I will... just not in this post.

I just have to say to you that follow Dr. Hawkins: Richard Dawkins is not satanic, Skeptics aren't close-minded, and many times it turns out that the ones who claim these people to be close-minded are really close-minded themselves! Such as I was...

I cannot say the joy that I get as a 19 year old in college reading these skeptics' work. I have never had such a good time learning! These people are good people - looking out for the people.

I currently listen to Zig Ziglar - he is intensely Christian! (Maybe Catholic, can't remember). I AM NOT CATHOLIC - I AM A NON-THEIST - but that doesn't prevent me from reading self-developmental books!


Oh, and by the way - don't claim that you follow dr. hawkins and ignore his kinesiology. That is strongly flawed - whether you like it or not, if kinesiology is not 100 percent accurate under his guidelines for the method, it is flawed!


I am actually thinking of going into further detail - I may just post further information about the errors of David Hawkins.


Thank you again everyone who attempted to help me out in the past - apparently I needed to make the decision to free myself of the irrational thinking I was emotionally bonded to.

To those who follow Dr. Hawkins, please stop making the same mistake I did for two years of my life. You have an open mind you say? Prove it and immerse yourself in skeptical material of that which you believe in.


Eric

Dear Shimon,

I just wanted to take a moment and share my opinion re your post of last year. There are some comments that I don't agree with and that are not commonly held Buddhist beliefs:

First of all, I am simply saying it so that people understand that these are not, in general, accurate.

Your quote, in its entirety of 6/6/2007:

"Back to the Dalai Lama. After my discussions with the buddhists, it was clear to me that all sects and lineages of Mahayana and Vajrayana BUddhism all accept the Dalai Lama as their leader and as an enlightened being. Yes, there is no way to prove it, that he is, but they all accept it and believe it. Their system is based on the belief that he reincarnates, comes back over and over by free will, that he is free of all karma and is a living Buddha. Buddhists seem to be some of the purest, most evolved spiritual people on the planet, and yet hawkins calibrates him still below 600 and enlightenment, and he calibrates another cult leader by the name of Swami Muktananda as over 600. I just dont get his calibration."

Okay first of all, I am a Vajrayana Buddhist. I say this because I want you to know I have practiced this religion, and I have been a Buddhist for 25 years.


1. "...it was clear to me that all sects and lineages of Mahayana and Vajrayana BUddhism all accept the Dalai Lama as their leader and as an enlightened being."

If the "buddhists" you queried said this, then they are wrong. It is not true. For the most part, Tibetan Buddhists do, and practitioners of Vajrayana.

Millions of Mahayana practitioners do not accept the Dalai Lama as their teacher because they are Mahayana practitioners, not Vajrayana Buddhists. Are there some Mahayana Buddhists that see him as their leader? I am sure there are, but 99% do not: they have their own "teachers", or enlightened masters.

An example are the 10+ million Japanese people and members worldwide of the Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Shoshu Buddhist organizations, which consider themselves Mahayana Buddhists. In addition, there are millions of other Mahayana practitioners in Japan, China, Korea, etc, everywhere, who have their own teachers.

Buddhism has changed so much and there are so many schools of Buddhism that is probably only one major belief that still binds Buddhists together, and that is the "belief" that the Buddha was enlightened. Even the fact that I, as a Buddhist, believe he was enlightened, does not mean he was! Just as the fact that my sister believes in God does not mean he is real.

2) You also say" "...they all accept it and believe it."

So let me clarify something. I do not accept it, and I do not believe it. I neither believe nor deny that the Dalai Lama is an enlightened master. So there, I have just disproved your comment.

In reality, I simply have no clue as to whether or not the Dalai Lama is enlightened.

More importantly, it was the Buddha who told us that unless we ourselves are enlightened, we cannot "know" something!

You can believe all you want, but that does not make it true! For the most part, saying you believe, or don't believe, is just the ego, having its fun, and putting its foot down! The ego cannot know! But it feels good, identifying with this thought or that thought. But that is just exactly the opposite of what the Buddha taught!

3) You say: "Buddhists seem to be some of the purest, most evolved spiritual people on the planet"

Okay, I don't want to bad mouth Buddhists, but I do want to say that this statement is your personal belief, and I am happy that you have met such people, but this is also just an illusion. The Buddhist man who killed himself a few weeks ago, what about him? What about the Buddhist who beats his wife, or his children? If you have not met these people, then let me tell you, they are out there. I know what you mean, you have met kind Buddhists. I have too. But to project an image that anyone or any group is either purer or less pure than another group is just another illusion the Buddha told us to watch out for.

To who it may concern:

This thread is being closed because it has become a discussion of theology and belief, rather than behavior that is considered abusive, which is the focus for discussion on this message board.

Muktananda, for example, was allegedly abusive.

If you have a specific sect and its abuses that you wish to discuss, start a thread about that specific sect, e.g. SGI or Sydha etc.

But this broad discussion about Buddhism has been closed.

FYI--I have yet to receive my first complaint about Buddhists that follow the Dalai Lama of Tibet.

BTW--I have received significant complaints about SGI, NKT and Sydha.