What are your thoughts on David R. Hawkins, Ph.D?

[toasty7718]

Recently, I stumbled upon the works of David R. Hawkins after a prolonged period of keeping him in the back of my mind, putting off his books for a later time. A valued teacher of mine (Peter Sage) would frequently cite his books and use his models in explaining human consciousness, and recently I picked up a few of his books (Power vs. Force, The Map of Consciousness Explained, Letting Go: The Pathway to Surrender, etc.).  

At first, I was completely unaware that the methodology he used to study human consciousnesses development was something called applied kinistesiology (AK), which has it's origin in the functional neurology & chiropractic scene of the mid 20th century. Practitioners of applied kinistesiology believe that manual testing the muscles of the body system can be used to evaluate various aspects of health.  

His approach is more so rooted in the belief that the body knows inherent truth, and if a skilled practioner of applied kinistesiology were to put resistance onto an extended arm that was parallel to the floor, whether or not the arm weakens or remains strong is a "yes" or "no" answer to whatever question is asked.

After looking more into applied kinistesiology, I found that it is no less effective than random chance and guessing. Double blind placebo controlled trials have demonstrated that the chances of guessing correctly are more or less 50%.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24607076/

"The research published by the Applied Kinesiology field itself is not to be relied upon, and in the experimental studies that do meet accepted standards of science, Applied Kinesiology has not demonstrated that it is a useful or reliable diagnostic tool upon which health decisions can be based."

Then I did more research into the academic life of Dr. Hawkins on PubMed, and it was quite extensive.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Hawkins+DR&cauthor_id=4129610

125 results on PubMed.

How could someone who understands the philosophy of science so well fall into wishful thinking about a pseudoscience like Applied Kinesiology?

Then I discovered this article that critiqued him, and it made me think twice about all the things I learned:

https://www.spiritualteachers.org/david-hawkins/

"David Hawkins cloaks Power Vs. Force in a veneer of mis-applied scientific jargon and presents highly speculative theories as facts"

The website does not seem to make the distinction between applied kinesiology being used for diagnoses and lie-detection, though.
 
But this research does seem to suggest that it is useful in lie detection, so there are outliers:

https://bmccomplementmedtherapies.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12906-016-1416-2#Abs1

So I want to know your thoughts on this matter.

 

Edited July 19 by toasty7718

[CoolDreamThanks]

Yep, he tricked himself into believing his method. 
 

It’s so absurd when he says - if you try to check if the method works - it wont work. You have to trust it. Lol, so foolish.   
 

you can just look at some of his calibrations and see that they are just silly. They reflect his own understanding, that’s it. 

[toasty7718]

4 hours ago, CoolDreamThanks said:

you can just look at some of his calibrations and see that they are just silly. They reflect his own understanding, that’s it. 

Exactly. I remember Leo once saying that Hawkins put Ben Shapiro on a higher level of consciousness than liberals...so take of that what you will 

[aurum]

Some good non-dual insights. Some very bad political takes.

And yes, his whole scale and AK method is highly questionable at best. Mostly it's just pure bunk. 

I think he's a good example of how someone can seem to be relatively advanced spiritually but still get much wrong in the relative, material world. These two things are NOT the same.

If you want to understand the material world, it's not enough to be woke. You have to specifically study what you want to understand. And even then you will get a ton wrong simply because you are a biased human with limited information, limited education and limited ability to think beyond your conditioning / culture. 

[toasty7718]

13 hours ago, aurum said:

I think he's a good example of how someone can seem to be relatively advanced spiritually but still get much wrong in the relative, material world. These two things are NOT the same.

Exactly. He had mystical experiences yes, but his interpretation of them are what made his approach questionable. 

[Joshe]

When it comes woo woo stuff I can't corroborate myself, I give Hawkins the same leeway I give Leo.

I don't buy Hawkins' calibration technique but I also don't buy Leo's Alien conscious and channeling stuff. Why? Because I can't corroborate those things. But I'm not going to say Hawkins or Leo is full of shit because I can't corroborate that either.

When I heard Hawkins say a fox news piece calibrated at level 350, I was like, c'mon David, don't do this! 😂

That said, he was talking about some of Leo's highest teachings way before Leo was.

For example, instead of "Structure vs Content", Hawkins called it "Essence vs. appearance/content".

Instead of "paradigm lock", Hawkins spoke of "paradigm blindness".

Hawkins harped on the "narcissistic core of the human ego" and how its main goal was survival and its nature was wickedly deceptive.

Sound familiar? 

I noticed a lot of overlap in their works—so much so that at one point I wondered if Leo was just lifting shit from Hawkins. 

Over the years, I found quite a few people Leo seemed to have been inspired by and it seems a common sentiment that they just be poo-pood for not being absolutely perfect.

Hawkins' deserves more respect than he's getting here. Not only was he highly spiritually developed beyond what most of us ever will be, but he actually took to the time to share the knowledge and was one of the most accessible and eloquent teachers I've found.

I don't think it's a stretch to say Hawkins had a profound impact on Leo, which follows, this entire community. So yeah, he's got some strangeness to him and it might even be bullshit, but he's one of the giants whose shoulders we're standing on. 

The thing I like most about Hawkins and John Diamond (the guy who taught Hawkins about Kinesiology), is they actually reached a level of spirituality that made them truly love their fellow humans.

Something in me thinks that you have to reach that level of being before you can go very high. Hawkins and Diamond very clearly reached those levels, and Hawkins went way beyond... anyway. Show some goddamn respect! 😂

Edited August 10 by Joshe

[BlessedLion]

On 7/19/2024 at 1:02 PM, toasty7718 said:

Recently, I stumbled upon the works of David R. Hawkins after a prolonged period of keeping him in the back of my mind, putting off his books for a later time. A valued teacher of mine (Peter Sage) would frequently cite his books and use his models in explaining human consciousness, and recently I picked up a few of his books (Power vs. Force, The Map of Consciousness Explained, Letting Go: The Pathway to Surrender, etc.).  

At first, I was completely unaware that the methodology he used to study human consciousnesses development was something called applied kinistesiology (AK), which has it's origin in the functional neurology & chiropractic scene of the mid 20th century. Practitioners of applied kinistesiology believe that manual testing the muscles of the body system can be used to evaluate various aspects of health.  

His approach is more so rooted in the belief that the body knows inherent truth, and if a skilled practioner of applied kinistesiology were to put resistance onto an extended arm that was parallel to the floor, whether or not the arm weakens or remains strong is a "yes" or "no" answer to whatever question is asked.

After looking more into applied kinistesiology, I found that it is no less effective than random chance and guessing. Double blind placebo controlled trials have demonstrated that the chances of guessing correctly are more or less 50%.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24607076/

"The research published by the Applied Kinesiology field itself is not to be relied upon, and in the experimental studies that do meet accepted standards of science, Applied Kinesiology has not demonstrated that it is a useful or reliable diagnostic tool upon which health decisions can be based."

Then I did more research into the academic life of Dr. Hawkins on PubMed, and it was quite extensive.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Hawkins+DR&cauthor_id=4129610

125 results on PubMed.

How could someone who understands the philosophy of science so well fall into wishful thinking about a pseudoscience like Applied Kinesiology?

Then I discovered this article that critiqued him, and it made me think twice about all the things I learned:

https://www.spiritualteachers.org/david-hawkins/

"David Hawkins cloaks Power Vs. Force in a veneer of mis-applied scientific jargon and presents highly speculative theories as facts"

The website does not seem to make the distinction between applied kinesiology being used for diagnoses and lie-detection, though.
 
But this research does seem to suggest that it is useful in lie detection, so there are outliers:

https://bmccomplementmedtherapies.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12906-016-1416-2#Abs1

So I want to know your thoughts on this matter.

 

I think if you read his books, it's pretty evident that he is channeling higher consciousness. The details about things vibrating at a certain level (book, people, music) is a bit annoying, along with the kinesiogoly and his dogmatic approach to any ridicule of it. 

I've even met people who were like a David Hawkins cult and they said "Oh, John said not to tell anyone, but he calibrated himself at 505!"

Like what an obnoxious manifestation of the ego.

At the same time, David Hawkins was fundamental in my spiritual growth and he is doing much more positive than negative and still transmitts a lot of truth

[Joshe]

To anyone who doesn't like Hawkins because their first impression came from Power vs Force or Truth vs Falsehood, you wrote him off too early.

Here's a sample audio preview of a random excerpt from Reality, Spirituality, and Modern Man:

https://recorder.google.com/e49138f0-90f0-42a7-be46-61c7c309e4c6

To sit upright with an actual paperback book requires too much energy and needless friction. Audible. 

 

I'm repulsed by his two most popular books but often cycle through these:

• Reality, Spirituality, and Modern Man
• Transcending the Levels of Consciousness 
• Discovery of the Presence of God
• I - Reality and Subjectivity
• The Eye of the I

[AION]

His applied kinistesiology theory is weird as fuck. If you ignore that part of his work he is pretty good. 

[Ishanga]

I found him very helpful, for sure he had a high level of Consciousness and Awareness of Reality, I ignored the calibration stuff, didn't read his books, but watched allot of his lectures, downloaded them infact, he makes allot of practical sense, but he looked like shit lol, very old look but otherwise I would recommend him to anyone interested in spirituality..

[numbersinarow]

On 7/20/2024 at 1:52 AM, toasty7718 said:

Exactly. I remember Leo once saying that Hawkins put Ben Shapiro on a higher level of consciousness than liberals...so take of that what you will 

This is a re-telling of a re-telling. If he just meant that some leftists are lower consciousness than Ben Shapiro then he is right.

[Joshe]

"Pretty good" my ass. He should easily make it into your top 10.

Rupert Spira ain't got shit on Hawkins. Like he's "somewhat useful", as if he's among the ranks of Eckhart Tolle or fuckin' Deepak Chopra.  

I get the sense most people either haven't explored his work or they were first introduced to him in Power Vs. Force and/or Truth Vs. Falsehood. These two books are shit and should be avoided, or, if you do consume them, you have keep an open mind until you explore the rest of his works, but you ain't missing anything if you skip his 2 most popular books. 

Don't go on the internet and look up what everyone else thinks about him if you easily succumb to groupthink. 

I've shared Leo's work with several people in the past and not a single one of them saw the value in it. The same reason those people didn't see the value in Leo's work is the same reason people don't see the value in Hawkins. 

Edited August 10 by Joshe

[Leo Gura]

He shares many great insights but mixed with New Age and conservative BS.

[BlessedLion]

1 hour ago, Joshe said:

"Pretty good" my ass. He should easily make it into your top 10.

Rupert Spira ain't got shit on Hawkins. Like he's "somewhat useful", as if he's among the ranks of Eckhart Tolle or fuckin' Deepak Chopra.  

I get the sense most people either haven't explored his work or they were first introduced to him in Power Vs. Force and/or Truth Vs. Falsehood. These two books are shit and should be avoided, or, if you do consume them, you have keep an open mind until you explore the rest of his works, but you ain't missing anything if you skip his 2 most popular books. 

Don't go on the internet and look up what everyone else thinks about him if you easily succumb to groupthink. 

I've shared Leo's work with several people in the past and not a single one of them saw the value in it. The same reason those people didn't see the value in Leo's work is the same reason people don't see the value in Hawkins. 

I would agree with you fully. He is one of the few authors who directly and clearly explains reality and God in a powerful and concise manner. Everyone else is playing this game of being coy or just the "be eqauniomous" game. 

Hawkins is top 5 imo