Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Spirituality Issues Applied Kinesiology and David Hawkins' Map of ConsciousnessGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Applied Kinesiology and David Hawkins' Map of Consciousness | Login/Join |
Continued from this thread. After extensive dialogue in the thread cited above with people sympathetic with Dr. Hawkins' work, I will summarize my objections as follows: 1. Applied Kinesiology (AK) is one way to evaluate a person's unconscious attitude toward a topic provided the method is used properly (e.g., framing questions as yes/no, simple questions, no projections or contamination from the one doing the testing). As such, AK can be a useful tool for individuals evaluating options. 2. AK cannot possibly evaluate "objective truth," as the individual's unconscious does not know what that is. To suggest otherwise is to misunderstand the nature of the unconscious. 3. Likewise, AK cannot possibly evaluate or rank the truth-claims of world religions and other spiritualities. It is certain that these will be held in higher regard by individuals from various traditions, and that this will be reflected on an unconscious level. 4. It is silly nonsense to think that truth claims can be evaluated by holding one's hand on a book and using muscle-resistance tests to test the book's claims. I have seen completely contradictory results in the space of five minutes for one such exercise. 5. Hawkins' Map of Consciousness reflects his own conscious and unconscious biases rather than the truth or level of consciousness of religions, religious teachers and spiritualities. 6. Hawksins' view that non-dual states indicate higher states of consciousness is directly related to his monistic view of the universe. 7. Hawkins' has built-in to his system an antidote to critique by devaluing the role of the intellect in the human search for truth. - - - I'll stop there and let's see how it goes. | |||
|
Woo! With the addition of the point seven, his teachings take on a certain cultishness that completely contradicts many of his teachings: 7. Hawkins' has built-in to his system an antidote to critique by devaluing the role of the intellect in the human search for truth. Hawkins common warning about spirituality is: caveat emptor, buyer beware. There are plenty of people to teach you to be loving and spiritual, but not so many spiritual teachers that help you avoid sharks. His honesty about fallen spiritual teachers - teachers whose early success and ensuing fame infects them with spiritual pride and egotism - also is a good indication that he invites critique to his work. I am however a bit piqued that I can't directly email him my questions! I am not so sure either about the monistic aspect of Hawkins' work. But in reading the definition of the idea Mystic Michael linked to, I was reminded of Dante Alighieri's visit to the first sphere of heaven in Paradiso. Dante is at pains to tell us that he does not believe that the first heaven of the moon is actually in the moon itself. The moon is just a symbol. But as he comes closer to the moon, he sees the souls therein like fish in a pond, completely distinct, but, as the first soul he speaks to explains, united by the watery element around them, which is god's love, passing through and around them but they preserve their individuality. The symbol becomes more sophisticated as he rises throuh heaven, as god's love becomes seen as fleur de lys, a giant eagle of fire, and finally, as a rose whose petals are made out of the souls of the saints. The flight upward is filled with imagery, but at no time does Dante say that heaven is like this or that. He merely says that his mind cannot comprehend it fully. The souls of the rose as one but many, he says. I go into this detail because I see in Christianity that everyone ideally is "joined at the heart". The Dantean partition of souls into different heavens, Dante explains, is merely a device to illustrate differing levels of relationship, not an actual segregation. But he does not go so far as to say they are one being, either. I think it is best to say it is a mystery. The ecstatic statements of mystics are interesting but of little value to me for my relationship with my higher power, personally speaking. Instead I see monist and dualist views as part of an experiential continuum, as I hope and believe Dante would, and as I suspect Hawkins does also. On a side note, Hawkins does not say that a higher state is better than a lower, merely that the level of consciousness (LOC) is the one where the soul is learning its present lessons. So this gives us a value-free table of values! LOL. This tends to lend credence to your statement, Phil, in point 5., that "Hawkins' Map of Consciousness reflects his own conscious and unconscious biases rather than the truth or level of consciousness of religions, religious teachers and spiritualities." thanks for your valid and interesting points, Phil. Paul Bard. | ||||
|
It is unfortunate that Hawkins bases his work on such a dubious methodology as applied kinesiology. I wish I could say it aint so, but you have a good point by dismissing it. Hawkins says he has been using it for thirty years. He uses it in lectures with 100 % replicable results, which says more perhaps about the lectures than the method. I don't think it strange that a muscle test can discern truth any more than i find it odd that a lodestone can point towards the poles or that washing can stave off bacteria. The discovery is so profound that if proven true, it is an extraordinarily powerful way to discern truth in anything. So I would argue that it is better to hope that AK works in the face of mixed reports because if it does work it is a wonderful boon. It is beeter to hope this than to assume that it doesn't because there's never been anything like it before yet. Hawkins work is inextricable from AK, and since his work is significant I hope AK is what he claims it is. Doubtless he is sincere, but is he misguided? Evidence with AK is mixed. By no means is it certain yet. | ||||
|
Paul, good posts. My seven points above are meant more to stimulate discussion than to present final conclusions. I am more committed to some of these (e.g. 2, 3, and 4) than others. You note: Hawkins work is inextricable from AK, and since his work is significant I hope AK is what he claims it is. Doubtless he is sincere, but is he misguided? Evidence with AK is mixed. By no means is it certain yet. I posted several links in the other thread to pages where the research is reviewed and it does indeed seem to be "mixed," at best. For research to be confirmed, however, you have to have controls and means for validating the results, and that doesn't mean simply replicating them in different lectures. So how does one control for and validate the truth claims and levels of consciousness of various ideologies, spiritualities, religions, etc.? I don't think there's any way to do it! Paul, what do you think AK is actually attuned to? I have stated that I think it's the attitude of the unconscious, and I understand this in something of a Jungian sense. That's valuable information for an individual to know, but I don't see any relevance beyond that. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I'm highly skeptical of the notion that the evaluations of Hawkins' unconscious ought to somehow provide an evolutionary yardstick for everyone. | ||||
|
Phil, I'm wondering about your understanding of the "nature of the unconscious". Hawkins sees the unconscious as the individual manifestation of the "universal mind" or "collective unconscious". As such, the unconscious (or subconscious?) mind has access to all truth, unlimited by time and space. This information can be made available to the logical, conscious mind via various methods, such as muscle testing - but being only a personal "data bank", the unconscious mind cannot process or evaluate what it "knows" on it's own. AT least, that's my understanding to date. Last weekend a friend and I tested Hawkin's "calibrations" of various books. We used a pendulum rather than muscle testing, the "Map of Consciousness" from Power Vs Force, and made sure to request the permission and assistance of the "Christ Consciousness" before each query. Using inductive reasoning such as "Does this book calibrate higher than 100? Yes/No. Higher than 200? Yes/No" and so on up, we found that amazingly enough, our results were very similar to those of Hawkins. For example, the Jerusalem Bible (Catholic edition) calibrated in the high 400's, Hawkin's "Power vs Force" in the low 600's. These results were confirmed by another friend who used a shamanic "scanning" technique rather than a pendulum, and conducted his investigation over the phone from 2,000 miles away. We also calibrated Jesus and Buddha, and found that just as a few of you have mentioned, Jesus calibrated at about 980-1000, Buddha at 940-960. This makes sense to me as well ... forgive me if I err, but as far as I know the Buddha did not bring the dead back to life or achieve the resurrection of his own physical body. It's interesting to note that of all the books we calibrated, Mother Teresa's "Words to Love By" (a collection of her quotes) calibrated the highest - at 740!  As this is my first post on this forum, I don't know what people commonly find palatable here. Please bear with me if I've mentioned anything you find silly or offensive (such as pendulums, scanning or the "Christ Consciousness"). Thank you for a very interesting discussion of a most thought-provoking book! daylia | ||||
|
Daylia, welcome to the discussion. You're doing great as for as "palatability." I'm presenting a retreat this weekend and so I can only reply briefly to your post. Please feel free to follow-up. It seems that the crux of the issue is beginning to be how one views the unconscious, and what I'm hearing from those of you who know Hawkins is a monistic view of how human nature and God relate. As noted above, I tend toward a Jungian understanding of the unconscious, including its collective aspect, which I believe to be part of the created (not divine) human nature we all share. (see this link for more info on Jung's view of the unconscious). Re. the calibration info . . . interesting, but: 1. there's a lot of research showing great inconsistencies in results using this method; as I noted in the "mother thread," I saw the Bible rated highly, then below a phone book in the space of five minutes. 2. There's no escaping the influence of the conscious mind on the unconscious, therefore the power of suggestion. Do any who know nothing of Hawkins rate his book higher than the Bible? 3. Are you all really saying that Hawkins book is a better guide to the religious truth than the Bible? What's concerned me most from the beginning is the use of AK because it is "quick and easy." Ther is a kind of denigration, here, of the usual methods of discernment, which require reflection, consideration, dialogue, etc. That Hawkins also has a lowly view of the intellect seems to further discourage mental and volitional engagement with issues. That bothers me. (BTW, Daylia, how did you find your way to this thread? Just curious.) | ||||
|
- from Capdu on another thread, which I've closed: ----- How did Dr. David Hawkins actually determine the dividing line values for levels of consciousness. Did he ask the same questions over and over using the law of halves, such as "this is above 500? ...above 750 ...above etc. depending on the positive or negative of the subjects response? - - - capdu | ||||
|
Hi Phil; Thanks for the reply and the welcome here! I found this discussion "googling" for Dr Hawkins, after Power vs Force was recommended to me by an acquaintance. I wanted an intelligent critique of the book before I shelled out my hard-earned $$$ for it ... and lo and behold, who did I find but you!  Thanks for the interesting article about Jung and the collective unconscious. It states The difference I see here is that while Jung restricts the "collective unconscious" to the human psyche, in my understanding this level of consciousness transcends species - it's not "species-specific". It's more like the "universal mind", encompassing all life-forms and experience - within which human consciousness is only one tiny facet. I agree with you that the results of muscle-testing or using a pendulum can be random and conflicting - at least sometimes. The reliability of either method seems to depend on 1. the validity/appropriateness of the question (including the motive for asking in the first place), and 2. the ever-changing psychological state of the "testers" - including their expectations. Dr Hawkins insists that his method of applied kinesiology is fool-proof, scientifically valid and reproducible - and that the results are not influenced by emotions, thoughts or expectations etc. For me, the jury is still out on this claim until I have more experience with his technique. It seems just a tad overly-optimistic at this point. Dr Hawkins draws a sharp distinction between what is "religious" and what is "spiritual". He points out that all spiritual teachings tend to "devolve" over time. Spiritual teachings are subjected to interpretation via the written word, thus spawning "religions" with their inevitable host of worldly (as opposed to spiritual) objectives and concerns. IMO religions are social institutions and as such, unfortunately quite often driven by monetary and political agendas. In contrast, "spirituality" is always highly individual and subjective, does not concern itself with worldly interests but only with Wisdom, Love and Truth etc. Perhaps this is the answer to your question. If I may quote from pgs 273-6 of Power vs Force: I tend to agree with Dr Hawkins on this last point. Since I have Dr Hawkins book right here in my hot little hands, I could answer capdu's question above by quoting at length from Chapter 2 (History and Methodology) if you like. However, since I found this article at http://www.dowsers.info/map.htm, I'm a bit nervous about quoting him at all, for fear of upsetting his lawyers. The story at that URL seems a bit incongruous with his stated purpose for writing the book at all - to bring the high states of consciousness he claims to have personally experienced a little closer to the grasp of the public. If this is his real motive, why penalize or threaten someone who posted his Map of Consciousness on her website in good heart, in order to assist and "enlighten" others - all the while recommending and directing them to his book??? Seems either Hawkins is lacking in integrity, or his lawyers are! I guess it's more expediant to blame the lawyers Thanks for the opportunity to inform myself and share my thoughts here. Blessings to all, daylia | ||||
|
PS - I forgot to mention that according to the pendulum test Mother Teresa's book "Words to Love By" calibrated at 740, while Mother Teresa herself calibrated at approx 900. The same is true for Jesus (at 1000) and the King James Bible (at 640), although the difference is much greater than with Mother Teresa - perhaps because much less time has passed since she walked the planet. It was even true for myself - supposedly I calibrate at around 575, while the only "spiritual" document I've ever written - a workshop handout about Huna (ancient Hawaiian spirituality/energetic healing) calibrated at 510. If these results can be considered reliable, they demonstrate quite clearly how spiritual ideas and teachings "devolve" as soon as they are subjected to the limitations of the written word. IT seems that applying the faculty of "reason" (which is all bound up with ego, of course) to what is "spiritual" limits the amount of truth that can be conveyed through any teaching - regardless of the source of that teaching. daylia | ||||
|
daylia, I'm glad to hear that this web site is helping some reflect on Dr. Hawkins teachings. For that, we have mysticmichael, one of our forum members to thank, as he brought it to our attention. You might check out Jim Arraj's fine book on Jung's psychology and Christian theology. - see http://www.innerexplorations.com/catjc/jc4.htm for the relevant chapter on the unconscious, where Jim notes: And deeper down there is an impersonal or collective or even unknowable unconscious which is the world of the instincts and the archetypes. This is the unconscious that fascinated Jung and led him to his psychoid speculations. But if the unconscious is in some sense soul-like, it is also, according to Jung, body-like. "The deeper 'layers' of the psyche... lose their individual uniqueness as they retreat farther and farther into the darkness. 'Lower down', that is to say as they approach the autonomous functional systems, they become increasingly collective until they are universalized and extinguished in the body's materiality, i.e., in chemical substances." (The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, CW 9, i, p. 173) So, for Jung, at least, the collective unconscious wasn't conterminous with divine mind, but with the operations of biochemical processes in the body and subtle biological processes. You might say that the deeper one goes into the unconscious, the deeper into our evolutionary history one descends. In terms of theology and spirituality, we are still within the realm of creation; there's no inner depth, in Christian understanding, where we cease to be creatures and become divine. Divinity belongs to "an-Other," and isn't an intrinsic part of human nature per se. Obviously, Christians and monists part company when it comes to this point, but I don't think monists can point to anything to substantiate their position. Certainly not Jung! What they are operating out of is as much a matter of faith as anything we find in the realm of religion. I understand the distinction people make between religion and spirituality, but these were never separated in Judaism and Christianity. Spirituality is transmitted in some kind of form, which it draws from its religious assumptions, beliefs, sacred heroes, etc. What I wonder, here, is how one would evaluate an entire century for spirituality or religious consciousness. What would you use for a guage? Suppose we were to take the 21st century of Christianity . . . would you use Jerry Falwell? Thomas Keating? Jimmy Carter? Pope John Paul II? There are so many branches . . . and it's always been that way, with monastic, popular, ecclesial, etc. manifestations! I'm also highly skeptical about the ability of the unconscious to evaluate writings intended to appeal to the conscious part of our nature. The unconscious simply cannot grasp things on that level, but it is profoundly effected by these teachings in a different way -- which Jung tried to account for with the archetypes. The language of the unconscious is more symbolic, such as we find in dreams; it does not speak the way the Bible or Koran speaks, and so the notion that the unconscious can provide a "quick and easy" evaluation of a spiritual work by holding one's hand on a book and doing a muscle resistance test seems a dubious prospect to me. I just don't buy it! I think you are overlooking a lot of research which, despite Hawkins' claims, shows AK to be unpredictable and unreliable. I'll hold off on that point now until I can provide some of the research for you. What do you think of my comments re. the unconscious? As for the lawyer thing . . . I do side with Hawkins here, though I wouldn't have had a lawyer send a letter. Intellectual property requires the same respect we give to physical property. His approach seems heavy-handed, but he really ought to have the right to say who uses his work, and how. | ||||
|
Phil, I've quickly perused a couple scientific articles on-line which, as you say, show AK to be unpredictable and unreliable. They are compelling. On the other hand, scientific method itself is certainly not infallible - and both times I've been given a "muscle test", the results were accurate. However, in both instances the information sought was in a healing context and of a highly personal, psychological nature - not about a book, another person, some time period in history etc. I've never formally studied theology, so thank you for explaining the difference between the monistic and Christian perspectives of Divinity. The Christian perspective, then, sees Divinity as Something "out there" rather than Something "in here" - so it's easy to see the rationale behind your view below: Would it be correct to assume that from the monistic point of view, where "spirituality" is understood as an inner experience, a "raising" of one's energy and consciousness to the point of Divine Essence or Awareness - there is no more need for "religious assumptions, beliefs, sacred heroes etc"? I keep thinking of Jesus' words as I write this ... "I and the Father are One". WOuld this be a Christian or a monistic point of view? I suppose if one sees Jesus as human and therefore intrinsically Divine, it's monistic. And if one sees Jesus as human and exclusively Divine (ie of a Divine nature not found in the rest of humanity), it's Christian. I wanted to get back to you about your interesting review of Jung and the unconscious, but I'm off to work. For now, I'll just say quickly that I make a distinction between the SUB-conscious (ie physical body-consciousness, instincts, drives, emotions and memories) and the "unconscious" (which I'd prefer to call the "super-conscious") ... and also I need more time to digest your words! Thanking you again, daylia | ||||
|
I'm re-posting, here, a key exchange with Michael from the original thread on this topic: Michael: According to Hawkins the kinesiological method only works for people who calibrate over 200, which automatically rules out 80% of the population. Phil: I'm really not following this point. If AK is measuring their unconscious response, then what would that have to do with their level of calibration? Everyone has an unconscious, and presumably, their unconscious has an attitude about all sorts of things. Also, how could one evaluate if one is at a 200 or not if AK is not valid below? Doesn't that presume the validity of another way of evaluating beliefs prior to using AK? Why not continue to use that "other way" since it seems that even AK depends on it for verification, to a large extent? I think that's an important consideration, here. Now for a few links critiquing Applied Kinesiology http://www.quackwatch.org/01Qu...Topics/Tests/ak.html http://skepdic.com/akinesiology.html http://www.ncahf.org/articles/a-b/ak.html http://www.users.on.net/~skeptic/ideo.htm This link http://www.healthwatcher.net/Q...applied-kinesiology/ (quite a few links) http://www.quackwatch.org/01Qu...ests/icakletter.html http://www.canoe.ca/HealthAlte...eColumns/001116.html --------- Criticism of David Hawkins: http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter30.html#hawkins For several months now I have intended to do some serious investigation of a Dr. David R. Hawkins, who refers to himself on his web site as "a nationally renowned psychiatrist, physician, researcher and lecturer." He publishes his own books from an outfit he calls Veritas Publishing. His degree is from Columbia Pacific University, an unaccredited diploma mill that was shut down by a judge. . . http://skepdic.com/refuge/harm.html (exposes a connection between Hawkins' work and a supposed AIDS Remission treatment. Go to amazon.com and do a search for David Hawkins. Click on a link to one of his books . . . say, "Power vs. Force," and read the reviews. There are glowing ones, but some substantive critical ones as well. | ||||
|
daylia, it seems we cross-posted, so I'll reply briefly to some of your points above. The Christian perspective, then, sees Divinity as Something "out there" I didn't mean to say that the divine was external to us, only that it is an-Other Being. You might think of the divine as an Ocean of Being in whom we all live and move and have our being. The ocean is one thing, a fish another; metaphysically, the Divine would be like the ocean, which permeates the fish without being the same as the fish. Without the ocean, the fish perishes, yet the ocean goes on. So we do believe in Christianity that God is both within and beyond (as water is in and beyond a fish), but not that the God within is some inner dimension of a human nature. As for Jesus and the Father being one, you have to remember that Jesus is considered the incarnation of God-the-Son, who shares in the divine nature. The incarnate Christ is both one with God and humanity by possessing both a human and divine nature. There is no monistic situation, here, in that Christianity does not claim that Jesus' humanity is an extension of his divinity. | ||||
|
1. Applied Kinesiology (AK) is one way to evaluate a person's unconscious attitude toward a topic provided the method is used properly (e.g., framing questions as yes/no, simple questions, no projections or contamination from the one doing the testing). As such, AK can be a useful tool for individuals evaluating options. Double-blind studies have shown that well intented people can use kinesiology to test the truth of ANYTHING, regardless of personal opinion. Hawkins work demonstrates this. 2. AK cannot possibly evaluate "objective truth," as the individual's unconscious does not know what that is. To suggest otherwise is to misunderstand the nature of the unconscious. There is no such thing as objective truth. The mind of man is not separate from that which it observes. Heisenberg showed this in the early 1900's when he demonstrated that the closer you get to identifying a particles velocity, the farther off you are from identifying its location, and vice-versa. The very observation plays an inseparable role in the behavior. A hundred years since this discovery and we're still operating in the old paradigm, wow... 3. Likewise, AK cannot possibly evaluate or rank the truth-claims of world religions and other spiritualities. It is certain that these will be held in higher regard by individuals from various traditions, and that this will be reflected on an unconscious level. Personal opinion has nothing to do with the calibrations. Expose yourself to the work and you will understand this. I am not smart or concise enough to sum up how this works on a message board. 4. It is silly nonsense to think that truth claims can be evaluated by holding one's hand on a book and using muscle-resistance tests to test the book's claims. I have seen completely contradictory results in the space of five minutes for one such exercise. The intent of the person doing the test plays a role in the effectiveness of the test. If you are trying to win the lottery or do parlor games, the test will not work. If you are doing the test in the name of the highest good, and you yourself have integrity, it will. 5. Hawkins' Map of Consciousness reflects his own conscious and unconscious biases rather than the truth or level of consciousness of religions, religious teachers and spiritualities. I think is pretty much the same objection as point number three. 6. Hawksins' view that non-dual states indicate higher states of consciousness is directly related to his monistic view of the universe. There is no such thing as non-dual STATES. There is One non-dual STATE. STATES indicates duality. Hawkins work does not make this error. 7. Hawkins' has built-in to his system an antidote to critique by devaluing the role of the intellect in the human search for truth. Hawkins work is INCLUSIVE of the intellect. Non-dual, remember? It's pretty plain to see, however, that the intellect is not an effective teller of the truth. (See: O.J., the world being flat, DNA evidence proving thousands of juries have wrongly convicted, the sun moving around the earth, or just read the 'truth' on the news today and see how the 'truth' on the news tomorrow is quite a bit different.) The intellect has yet to hit the mark in the truth department; it never will. I am sure that if someone told you the Bible is wrong, without ever having read a single page, you would politely tell them they're talking out of their bum, and please come back once you have read the Book. I respectfully ask that until you expose yourself to the complete works of Dr. Hawkins, you refrain from posting your completely uninformed opinions. You've got nothing to lose by reading the Power vs. Force, and if you still do not appreciate the work, at least you will be able to claim that you have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about. Right now it's obvious to those of us, who have read it, that you do not. | ||||
|
Well, I've barely tapped into the wealth of understanding in Dr Hawkins' Map of Consciousness, and I've found it already to be an excellent resource. In fact, all of the concepts and ideas presented in "Power vs Force" are inspiring and helpful. And I have no doubt this will remain so, whether the claims about the infallibility of AK as a testing method are proven, over time, to be 100% correct or not. I'm very glad I bought the book. Phil, I like your analogy of the fish and the ocean! But with all due respect, I don't think this understanding necessarily precludes human beings from having a "divine nature". After all, Jesus taught that everything He did, we can do also ... and even greater things as well. He expected ... oops, that should be EXPECTS ... no less of his disciples, or of any of us! And gave His very life to get that point (among others) across. IMHO, of course. daylia | ||||
|
daylia, you can, of course, believe human beings have a divine nature, but that's not what Christianity teaches, which is the point I was making. You're a human being, not a divine being manifesting as a human. There are considerable implications, here, for spiritual practice. Nevertheless, it's good that you're finding something helpful in Dr. Hawkins' book and I wish you well in your journey. I hope to hear more from you. - - - TBiscuit, I see you didn't really learn much from our previous exchanges. Nevertheless, welcome back. | ||||
|
Phil, there's a big difference between believing something and knowing it to be true through first-hand experience. I do not "believe" I am a spiritual being - I know it. Once this awareness is realized, and begins to manifest itself through the most tangible, beneficial ways in a person's everyday life, well ... even debating about it becomes irrelevant and quite the waste of energy. Yes, there are considerable implications for spiritual practice here. It's most fortunate that Jesus' spiritual teachings have always stood very well on their own, at face value - without philosophical or theological or religious interpretation. No offence to anyone or anything intended, but please remember that Jesus Himself is NOT a "Christian", or a theologian, or a philosopher. Nor was He ever. He is a Healer and a Teacher, and He is here to demonstrate to the great unwashed masses just Who we all really are. Blessings to all, daylia | ||||
|
I hear you, daylia, and I agree that we are spiritual beings. But why do you think that implies a divine nature? I think what is missing, here, is the understanding that spiritual beings are created as well--except for the Supernatural Spiritual Being we call God. Also, Jesus' teachings have required philosophical, theological and religious interpretation from the first. What do you think Paul's letters are all about? And the movements we came to call heresies. This is not to reduce Christianity to a mere philosophy, only to indicate that there is a philosophical and theological dimension to it (as well as moral, spiritual, mystical, communal, etc.). Of course, Jesus was not a Christian; actually, he was a Jew. And, quite right, he is Healer and Teacher; also Prophet, Mystic, and (for Christians) Redeemer, Messiah, Lord, Second Person of the Trinity. I disagree with the sense of your statement that he comes to show us who we really are, especially in light of Hawkins' monism. There is a sense in Christianity in which this is true. daylia, it's one thing to enjoy Hawkins' book and benefit from his teaching, but quite another to require the Christian message to conform to this. Believe whatever pleases you--that's fine with me, really. But don't expect me or other Christians to go along with Hawkins' revisionist and opportunistic interpretations. | ||||
|
Phil, I don't think the Christian message "has to" conform to Hawkins or anyone else ... that's entirely up to the individual Christian! As one who was born and raised a Roman Catholic, I certainly agree with everything you said about Jesus - yes He is Prophet, Mystic, Redeemer (He redeemed me, anyway! , Lord, Second Person of the Trinity (ie God the Son), Healer and Teacher.The difference is that I know we are ALL Sons and Daughters of God! What made Jesus so special is that He knew Who he was, and dedicated His life to teaching and demonstrating that Truth, where most of us haven't woken up to it (yet). I prefer the concept of "Creator" rather than "God", though, simply to avoid patriarchal (and often misogynist) misunderstandings. Although I'm sure Thomas Aquinas .. and maybe even my local parish priest ... would excommunicate me for saying that! I think the problems Christianity faces today, and all the horrendous horrible things done in the name of Christ in the past are due (most unfortunately) to the learned "interpretations", "philosophizing" and "theologizing" Jesus' teachings have been subjected to over the last 2,000 years.  This is where Hawkins' chart comes in handy. "Reason" and logic do carry high, constructive and life-giving energies (at 400 on the Map of Consciousness). But Reason DOES fall below Love (at 500) and Joy (at 540) and Peace (at 600) and Enlightenment (at 700). That's how the Christian clergy could "Reason" their way into using Jesus' teachings to condemn and burn people at the stake, for example - a most unLoving and unEnlightened act, at least in my opinion. And Jesus Himself? Well, He is all about Love! I'm not sure Hawkins is an opportunist. He's a VERY old man, a Nobel Prize winner, and has already enjoyed a most successful and respected scientific / medical career all his life. So I don't think it's too likely that $$$$ is the first thing on his mind ... although his lawyers may be a different kettle of fish altogether. Thanks for listening and for your comments Phil - I'll go back to pondering them a bit more thoroughly now. Blessings to all, daylia | ||||
|
daylia, re. Hawkins's opportunism, I was referring to the contention by some (including himself) that his book calibrates higher than the Bible. That's really quite a plus when it comes to marketing, don't you think? Also, his Nobel Prize was in orthomolecular biology, not theology and spirituality. I've found that discussions begin to seriously degrade when "the horrible things done in the name of Christ" begin to be mentioned by those taking a "position" with respect to Christianity. I think we were talking about whether or not Christianity is a monistic religion. It's not, and that has nothing to do with past abuses by the Church. re. "Sons and Daughters of God," that's true, but in the order of grace, not nature. I know these kinds of distinctions are annoying, but, as I've mentioned, there are implications for spiritual practice. Scripture and Tradition state unequivocally that we are made, not begotten . . . that our "sonships and daughtership" is in and through our union with Christ. Hence, as Paul notes, we are "adopted" sons and daughters--not begotten, as Christ is. Then there is the matter of the Arian heresy, which maintained that there's no difference between Jesus and the rest of us--he just got it right with God better than anyone else. We keep going around the block with all of this through history; I'm just trying to help people avoid making the same mistakes again and again. daylia, why do you buy into these calibrations? Love rated below peace and enlightenment? What does that mean? Romantic love? 1 Jn. 4 states that God IS Love, and those who live in God live in Love and God in them. Why should anything rate higher than love? And why this sense of hierarchical evaluation of very essential human capacities like reason? Try loving without using your reason? (Say "codependency," someone!) I'll fully grant the limitations of reason, but wouldn't want to live in a world where its contribution to discerning and understanding truth was devalued. Glad to hear you're pondering all this, daylia. That's better than "true believers" like TBiscuit have done. For all the problems we have in the Church, I'll maintain that we really do know and understand Jesus and his way better than those outside the Church. After all, he promised to be with us until the end of time. (BTW, what's patriarchical about "God"? I've never heard that one.) | ||||
|
Phil, thanks for explaining what you meant by Hawkins as an opportunist. I have a couple questions - first, are Nobel prizes ever awarded for spirituality or theology? I thought the categories for the Nobel Prize are Literature, Chemistry, Physics, Economics, Physiology and Medicine, and Peace. And second ... what if Hawkins is just stating the truth? Please don�t misunderstand � I'm NOT claiming he is, because I don't know enough about his work yet � but I do know the Bible has been translated, edited, added to, deleted from and re-written umpteen times by various religious institutions throughout the course of recorded history - for political and economic, NOT spiritual reasons. Knowing this casts all editions of the modern Bible into a questionable light, as far as I'm concerned. Scripture and Tradition state unequivocally that we are made, not begotten ... BTW, what's patriarchical about "God"? I've never heard that one. I�ve combined these two statements because in my understanding, they are closely related. Why does the Old Testament state that God MADE, rather than "begot" the Universe and all life? Because the first Hebrew patriarchs wanted the ancient matriarchal �Goddess� traditions � and particularly the concept of Life as a product of the union of God and Goddess - completely destroyed in the minds and hearts of the people. In so doing, sexuality � and indeed all fleshly or "carnal" life - was demoted from its traditional position as the most sacred and revered of all things to an (ongoing) state of profanity and �sinfulness�. And most importantly, males could then usurp the positions of social and spiritual authority � positions which had always been the domain of women in ancient times. But the patriarchs faced a big problem in trying to rewrite the ancient Creation myths; without the Goddess, the poor ole God couldn't beget a thing! And so He was stuck "making" life, "commanding" it into existence. Almost worked, too ... but history has shown that no matter how you try, you just can't kill the Goddess. Now, at this point in my life I realize that That which we commonly call "God" transcends gender. �Creator� is both �God� and �Goddess� ... and more. This is why I prefer the term "Creator" when I speak of the Source of all Life. It honors both God (the Divine Masculine) and Goddess (the Divine Feminine) - while transcending both. And so IMO it is much more accurate. I've found that discussions begin to seriously degrade when "the horrible things done in the name of Christ" begin to be mentioned by those taking a "position" with respect to Christianity. This may be so, but that depends on who is doing the discussing, and why! IMO it is most unwise to ignore the lessons of history. Love rated below peace and enlightenment? What does that mean? Romantic love? 1 Jn. 4 states that God IS Love, and those who live in God live in Love and God in them. Why should anything rate higher than love? And why this sense of hierarchical evaluation of very essential human capacities like reason? Phil, you haven't read "Power vs Force" yet, have you? If I may quote from pgs 89-91: He goes on to say that as Love becomes more and more unconditional, it begins to be experienced as Joy - which is then transcended to become Peace and finally, Enlightenment. Hope this helps, Phil, and thanks again for toaking the time to share your knowledge and opinions with me. Many blessings to all, daylia | ||||
|
daylia, a lot of the ideas and sentiments you're expressing are held by many, I know, so I think it's good that we're having this discussion here. Thank you for hanging with it. I'll reply to some of your points below: . . are Nobel prizes ever awarded for spirituality or theology? Not that I know of. And second ... what if Hawkins is just stating the truth? He is, if by that we mean that he's getting these different calibrations, especially with himself. But what does that mean? That "Universal Mind" is asserting its preferences through Hawkins' calibrations, or that Hawkins own unconscious attitudes are being measured -- attitudes that certainly do not exist in isolation from his more conscious ones. I'm suggesting that the latter is that case, and that, at any rate, the human unconscious is not the Divine. . . . but I do know the Bible has been translated, edited, added to, deleted from and re-written umpteen times by various religious institutions throughout the course of recorded history - for political and economic, NOT spiritual reasons. Knowing this casts [i] all editions of the modern Bible into a questionable light, as far as I'm concerned.[/i] I don't know where you got all that, but most of it is false. Yes, the Bible has been re-translated, but not edited and revised for political and economic reasons. If you have evidence of this, please share it with us, for that would be news indeed. You might check out the significance of the Dead Sea scrolls, while you're at it, as some of them included ancient texts that are virtually identical to those used today. There were lots of built-in correctives to anyone messing with the texts, the main one being that they were known by the community and people would know if they were changed. Why does the Old Testament state that God MADE, rather than "begot" the Universe and all life? Because the first Hebrew patriarchs wanted the ancient matriarchal �Goddess� traditions � and particularly the concept of Life as a product of the union of God and Goddess - completely destroyed in the minds and hearts of the people. Well, right, they really did frown on sacred prostitution, child sacrifice, and other detestable practices from the surrounding religions. I don't think that proves that they just made up their theology, however. In so doing, sexuality � and indeed all fleshly or "carnal" life - was demoted from its traditional position as the most sacred and revered of all things to an (ongoing) state of profanity and �sinfulness�. And most importantly, males could then usurp the positions of social and spiritual authority � positions which had always been the domain of women in ancient times. Jews had/have a very healthy, positive view of sex and sexuality. Where was this Middle Eastern society where women held the positions of social and spiritual authority? Egypt? Mesopotamia? Canaan? Philistia? Greece? Rome? None of the above. But the patriarchs faced a big problem in trying to rewrite the ancient Creation myths; without the Goddess, the poor ole God couldn't beget a thing! And so He was stuck "making" life, "commanding" it into existence. Almost worked, too ... but history has shown that no matter how you try, you just can't kill the Goddess. Unless they weren't "rewriting the ancient Creation myths," but were sharing the fruits of revelation. This may be so, but that depends on who is doing the discussing, and why! IMO it is most unwise to ignore the lessons of history. When you're talking about history, that's true, but that's not what we're talking about . . . or I wasn't. re. Hawkins view of reason . . . he has a very narrow understanding of it, imo, viewing it as little more than some kind of crude conceptual calculator. This is at odds with Christian and many philosophical views of reason/intellect, with encompass the realm of intuition and which view concepts as revelatory of truths that transcend the concepts but can nonetheless be grasped to some extent "through" the concepts, and even directly in the higher levels of the intellect. So when, for example, Hawkins writes that "reason deals only with particulars," he is just making things up as he goes, insisting on his own idiosyncratic understanding. I know he has no use for philosophy and theology, but he would nontheless be hard-pressed to demonstrate how they deal only with "particulars." See this link for more information. - - - daylia, where are you coming from in your critique of patriarchy, etc.? Is this from a course in a university or something? | ||||
|
Phil, in light of your comments above I see no point in continuing to discuss this with you. I am already very well acquainted with your Christian viewpoints and the rationale behind them. I left them behind to explore other paths and spiritual traditions long ago, for many excellent reasons. If your current perspective satisfies all of your intellectual and spiritual requirements, then that is indeed a blessing and I am very happy for you! But if you, or anyone else here, is looking to expand your awareness and understanding - or even if you're just curious about where I am coming from - I suggest you begin researching ancient history, matriarchy, patriarchy, sexuality and the Bible with the works of Joseph Campbell, and proceed from there. This interview with Mr Campbell is a good starting place for anyone who'd like a better understanding of my viewpoints above. http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC12/Campbell.htm Nuff said. Please understand - I'm not posting this here to argue or in a vain attempt to convince you of anything, Phil. You asked where I'm coming from, and Campbell's words are a good starting point in answering your question - although I do have a sneaking suspicion he is already NOT your favorite mythologist! Blessings to all, daylia | ||||
|
Yes, daylia, I'm very aware of Joseph Campbell's research and writings, and I consider him an excellent mythologist. His "take" on the Bible leaves much to be desired, however, as one must consider the whole story to comprehend its message and revelation. That's what narrative theology is all about, and we see an evolution of moral and spiritual thinking as the Hebrew people grow in their understanding/relationship with God. Exerpting passages from the early stages and presenting them as somehow characteristic is disingenious, at best, revealing more about Campbell's prejudices than the Bible. I wonder why he ignored later Jewish teachings, or, obviously, the teachings of Jesus? Tom: Doesn't it tell you how to be a good person? Joseph: No. Well, there you go! The Ten Commandments, Sermon on the Mount, Beatitudes, etc. -- insignificant! - - - daylia, be careful and discerning, OK. 99% of the time what people are rejecting in Christianity is an inaccurate understanding of the Christian message. There are theologians and movements in the Church addressing the issues of patriarchy and oppression that concern you -- and rightly so. These are not intrinsic to Christ's message, and their presence in the Church has been an unfortunate development. Nevertheless, to reject Christ and his revelation is a very serious matter for one, like yourself, who claims to be well-acquainted with Christianity. I'll leave it at that, wishing you well. You are always welcomed here. | ||||
|
Thanks Phil *whew*! So glad we can disagree and still remain loving and accepting with one another! This is quite a rare turn of events in discussions like these, in my experience anyway! You are absolutely right - these vitally important socio-economic-political (ie "religious") issues are NOT intrinsic to Jesus' message. Instead, they are diametrically opposed to it. Coming from a Catholic family, and having even raised a son who entered the seminary a couple years ago, I am well aware that the issues of patriarchy, violence, oppression etc are being addressed by various factions within the Church today. However, I do suspect that any changes will be a VERY long time coming. Sometimes I half-joke around and say that we'll know for SURE that these issues have been resolved the day we see a black, female lesbian Pope in Rome! ;-) So believe me, I am NOT holding my breath. In any case, believe it or not my own personal loving relationship with Jesus, and my understanding of His message and His purpose have only grown stronger, deeper and clearer since I started exploring other spiritual paths. Were it not for these other paths, I would have completely rejected the whole so-called "Christian" kit and kaboodle long ago, for all the reasons I mentioned above, and more! And Jesus has been with me throughout all my questionings and wanderings - as He will continue to be forever. When I need His help, His Love, His healing, guidance and protection, well .... all I have to do is ask! And it took several years of being away the Church to finally discover this Truth for myself, once and for all. May the Lord of Love, Life, Wisdom, Peace and Joy bless and guide you always ... daylia | ||||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Spirituality Issues Applied Kinesiology and David Hawkins' Map of Consciousness