Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
240 of 270 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Fascinating but raises questions about kinesiology for me., September 3, 2005
I'm beginning to wonder if kinesiology isn't as absolute as Dr. Hawkins claims. Don't get me wrong. I find his writings on the subject of spirituality as fascinating and as accurate as I can imagine. His spiritual teachings strongly resonate within me. I also greatly appreciate the sections with calibrations of religion, spiritual teachings, and spiritual teachers.
However, as a moderately liberal person, I find his use of kinesiology as a means to certify his political position more than a little crass. Despite the fact that he carefully assures that the calibrations don't represent his political views, he proceeds to "explain" the results of his research and in doing so reveals that, yes, they are most *definitely* his views! This is part of what I find rather disingenuous - even though I find I agree with 95% of his dissertations on the problems of society and its lack of responsibility and victim/perpetrator scenarios. The difference being that he seems to be blaming it almost entirely on liberal views.
Realistically, it seems highly unlikely to me that any specific political position can be 100% right or wrong. Yet Dr. Hawkins' research appears to be saying exactly the opposite. Apparently, conversatives are right - 100% right, absolutely correct, not a chance of error there at all! Uh-huh!
In fact, every single political and social calibration seems to validate the positions of conservatives on...well...everything! Liberal views are just flat out inferior in every way, socially, fiscally, domestically, foreign policy-wise. Just name a way, and they are inferior.
Sorry, but that just seems a little extreme to me.
I know I was capable of influencing the results of kinesiology whenever, at least, the results were deeply personal. My brother and I tried to produce my own calibration level. It resulted in the most random and unpredictable results of the entire session - while everything else we did could be and was independently verified as completely accurate! Perhaps Dr. Hawkins' own personal presence is so strong that his own personal opinion (as a life-long octogenarian conservative) influences the results of his own students. However, that might be considered "sophistry" in his argument.
After all, his results seem to contradict the teachings and views of many other enlightened teachers (many of whom are verified as enlightened by his own calibrations), including my own guru - Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev.
Not only that, his own calibrations of the chapters on politics and society calibrate much lower than most other chapters on spirituality, albeit still within the level of enlightenment (600+).
My conclusion is simply this: when one is talking about the spirit and of God, it is easier to calibrate a universal truth. The deeper one delves into the realms of duality, the more and more subjective the results become. In any case, regardless of what political view is the subject, they calibrate with integrity unless of an extreme nature. In addition, his results equally condemn fascism and right-wing fundamentalism. This at least partially reassures me that he is on a "middle path" as the Buddha suggests.
Therefore, I've decided to take his political chapters with a grain of salt and generally skim past the political aspects of his book, having read them once, and concentrate on his spiritual teachings, as well as the teachings of my own teacher. After all, I didn't get into a spiritual life to follow politics, but instead to transcend the dualistic game-playing of the majority of society.
If his book is helpful to some people because of its political views, then I'm glad, but generally speaking, it was probably a mistake to delve into the territory at all, as I suspect it will divide and turn more people away than it will unify or invite.
|
|
|
160 of 184 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
An Unexpected Gift to Hawkins' Readers, October 14, 2005
"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. Part of this was based on an inability to get the same responses he was getting. The information presented in "The Eye of the I" and "I" was absolutely astounding, and skepticism was temporarily set aside. Apparently, his intent was pure and sincere enough to allow him to experience absolute truth on spiritual inquiry. Much of this can be attributed to his description of a life-changing experience. He was atheist (or possibly agnostic... don't remember which), hit a major crisis in his life, and finally called out in total humility to be shown the truth of God. I feel his pure intent allowed him to access the truth he did.
However, 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. Asking about the nature of life, death, and other unknown spiritual matters is not the same as asking about one's perceived reality, which one already has strong opinions and emotions about and attachments to. Both testers and testees would have to be completely unfamiliar with the line of inquiry to have any guarantee of neutrality.
Within 30 seconds of opening "Truth vs Falsehood", it was clear something wasn't right. Hawkins' 3 previous books have helped us to discern truth from falsehood more clearly. Many of us have reached a place where now we `just know' the truth. It is often a clear gut feeling, and at that point the kinesiological response seems unnecessary. In a way, it turns out the technique was only a tool to guide us to our own inner knowing.
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.
The gift in this 4th book is that Hawkins has shown us what the kinesiological technique can and cannot be used for. It can be used by the sincere truthseeker for his/herself. However, it is not to be used to show one a reality they are not ready to see. There is no technique to make one see the truth. One's clear and sincere intention is all that can do that. And even then, one may not be ready to handle the fullness of reality. The process of how one "wakes up" is yet to be known.
Who better than Hawkins to show us that experience is no substitute for impartiality? So, the readers of his 4th book get the opportunity to discern what is truth and what is his belief. The first 3 books prepared us, and the 4th is the test. 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. Even when one crosses the 600 line, one is still assailed by falsity and ignorance and must be constantly vigilant and unattached to one's beliefs.
And realistically, it couldn't have happened any other way. Given Hawkins' first 3 books and his audience, if he gave us the absolute truth about all the deceptions that make up the current perceived reality, it could have seriously messed some people up. It could result in serious mental breakdown if it was said that there aren't actually arab terrorists creating terror in America. So, the book had to be presented this way. 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
|
|
|
26 of 27 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A masterpiece - ahead of its time, February 28, 2007
I'm very grateful to live synchronously in a world with a man the likes of David R. Hawkins. Through his teachings, I've become more introspective and have learned to look within as the source of my own frustrations as well as my happiness. Truth v. Falsehood is just another example of how he helps guide those of us willing to be guided to the truth.
I've read with amusement, some of the more scathing criticisms by readers of T v F, where great offense was taken by the results Hawkins obtained - especially regarding politics. Contrary to these readers' beliefs, this book was not written by him as a vehicle of propaganda to voice his own opinions. Had they simply read the "Caveat: A Note to the Reader" on page xi, this would have been clear. There he states: "Emotional reactions are personally determined by one's inner positionalities and belief systems... As [readers] ... have discovered, an initial response dissolves, upon reflection, into a broader understanding and compassion for oneself and others... For those who are aligned with truth, the path lights up; for those who refuse it, the path is darkened. All of us are free to choose."
This caveat indicates to me Hawkins realized far in advance the risk he was taking in alienating people by presenting the truth. He could have taken the easy (and safe) road and simply stayed silent about his findings. Instead, for the betterment of all, he chose to courageously share the results, in spite of the outcome to him. That anyone would take offense to the truth is bewildering - why condemn so noble a messenger?
The findings he presents certainly toppled many of the beliefs I had been attached to for a long time. But that's why I read the book to begin with! I wanted to know which, if any, of the "illusions" my ego clung to should be surrendered.
For those willing to open their hearts and open their minds, Truth vs Falsehood, as with all of Hawkins' works, is truly liberating.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by David R. Hawkins
by David R. Hawkins
by David R. Hawkins
by David R. Hawkins
by David R. Hawkins
