I have admired David Hawkins and use his scale of consciousness in my psychotherapy practice. I am accomplished at muscle testing and use this technique routinely. The book, Truth vs Falsehood, is filled with False and misleading conclusions! Hawkins has strayed from the purity of Power vs Force and offered contradictory suggestions in this work. These false calibrations are carefully woven into many true and insightful observations. The reader must be VERY discerning.
Accurate muscle testing requires that the focus for the test be very clearly worded and the intent for the question identified as well. For example, it is not meaningful to judge bodywork as a field for there are thousands of bodyworkers, each resonating at different level of consciousness. It is the LOC of the therapist that makes all the difference! The same is true for physicians and other practitioners. A surgeon's knife in the hand of a loving person is a far different situation than the same knife in the hands of a psychopath...
If killing others is never supported at higher levels of consciousness, then capital punishment is contradictory to true social evolution, as Hawkins points out in Power vs Force. Aggression through war is thus never a meaningful solution (using force) for global evolution yet Hawkins supports and jutifies the United States' Iraqi intervention. Hawkins also goes so far as to support George Bush's policies as having high levels of consciousness, even though those policies and actions are founded on falsehood and personal agendas, not the greater good of the American people.
Hawkins has twisted his levels of consciousnes and orientation of the testing to suit a political agenda. Muscle test on that statement.
In his earlier books Hawkins offers clarity and scientific underpinnings into higher states of consciousness.
"Truth vs Falehood", has taken a giant step backwards as it pretends to be objective when it is not. This is most dangerous for the student of the work must now take a very enlightened state of mind in order to evaluate the book's conclusions. No longer can one simply trust the accomplished writer's authority and seek to learn through osmosis. Test the conclusions in this book against your own understandings and recognition of truth.
When I say Hawkin's first 3 books changed my perception of reality, I believe most readers will know what I mean. The primary calibration I had trouble reconciling from the first 3 books (as well his audio tapes) was the idea of "the exact moment of death is set at the moment of birth". Somewhere, somehow, I expected a clarification in all 4 books which never appeared. Does this mean this moment is inviolable? Is it a time frame that can in no circumstances be changed through accidents, suicide, etc.? I have no problem with a predetermined length of time, but I do have a problem with predestination. It doesn't feel right to me.
Also, some of the data seems to contradict itself. For example, kinesiology tests "no" to extraterrestrials, but on virtually the same page, it tests "yes" to life forms on Mars, not to mention the high calibration of the Drake Equation which postulates a minimum of 10,000 et civilizations in our galaxy alone. Wouldn't whatever life is on Mars be extraterrestrial even if nothing more complex than a microbe? In all fairness to Hawkins' calibrations toward all the allegedly "channeled" info from ets, he doesn't dismiss all of them as negative or marginal, but he does say that less than 5% of entities who come through channels calibrate above 455. That's a little lower than I expected but not much lower, and I can live with it. There is little doubt though that Hawkins does take a profoundly dim view of most things "New Age", but he seems sometimes to clump integrous and non-integrous items together which of course would produce a negative response (if he is indeed doing this sometimes). His primary point, which to me is a pertinent one, is that many New Agers operate from an incredible level of naivete, and that there are indeed dark forces which seductively lure many by appealing to the ego's desire for specialness, elitism, etc. The point is well taken. However, the term "New Age" is a very big umbrella which appears capable of covering most things spiritually unconventional - including Hawkins himself. In other words, is he sometimes throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Another example of what I'm saying is the concept of Atlantis which almost everyone not "new age" would label as a "new age" concept. Yet Hawkins himself in one of the charts kinesiologically assigns the historical political system of Atlantis a calibration of 290 which happens to be the highest of all the historical governmental systems listed. Interestingly, not another word in the entire book that I could find mentioned this. I presume an entire book could have been written on this alone. Reading this book, unlike the first 3, requires some reading between the lines, or it seemed to do so for me.
Nonetheless, the book was overwhelmingly good and helpful. I've really enjoyed almost all the thoughtful and intelligent reviews.
