Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

In his book Power vs Force, David Hawkins outlines several levels of consciousness:

20 Shame
30 Guilt
50 Apathy
75 Grief
100 Fear
125 Desire
150 Anger
175 Pride
200 Courage
250 Neutrality
310 Willingness
350 Acceptance
400 Reason
500 Love
540 Joy
600 Peace
700-1000 Enlightenment

The main idea is that each level affords the person more power, as opposed to only having access to force. The scale is logarithmic, not linear.

I'm hoping that some of you have read the book. What do you think these levels represent? Are they mapping a certain line of development? Or is it a mixture of levels and states?

Something is telling me that it could be a mixture of several lines of development. One factor would then certainly be “having done your shadow work” since the lower levels are about uncomfortable feelings that can often be stuck in pockets of shadow energy.

Intuitively I feel that David Hawkins' work is tremendously important, but I don't know how to talk about it or how to fit it into some sort of framework.

Help me out will you….? :)
Any thoughts or musings will be much appreciated.


peace
pelle

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

I don't know about Hawkins–I mean, I've never read any of his books–but I think it's a helpful list, thanks pelle. It puts things in perspective. I might like it better upside down, though. We could call it the hierarchy of emotions, or something like that.

700-1000 Enlightenment
600 Peace
540 Joy
500 Love
400 Reason
350 Acceptance
310 Willingness
250 Neutrality
200 Courage
175 Pride
150 Anger
125 Desire
100 Fear
75 Grief
50 Apathy
30 Guilt
20 Shame

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

If you take out the Enlightenment stage, this seems a lot like the Buddhist Six Realms of Existence of the Wheel of Karma. Maybe it can be integrated in that way?

I think one major flaw is that the Hawkins model implies that we can “climb up” to enlightenment. It differs from the integral model in that Wilber-5 doesn't view enlightenment as a stage that can be reached. It also suggests that enlightened people don't experience fear, grief, anger, etc.

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

It's quite possible that David Hawkins has a different definition of enlightenment than Ken's horizontal and vertical versions. In fact, I would say it's probable.
I don't quite see the comparison to the Buddhist Six Realms, but that could be because I don't know Buddhism well enough. Hawkins' levels also seem to be a lot less loaded with metaphysical baggage.

I believe that while all persons can experience any of the listed emotions, we do tend to have a centre of gravity that can move upwards over time.
Do we primarily live in fear? Are we scared of not having enough money?
Or are we courageously facing our challenges, displaying willingness to take on the set of conditions that life has handled us?

There is a deep truth in Hawkins' levels, I just don't know how to translate its truth into a framework, not to mention AQAL.
Not that everything has to fall under AQAL. but exploring these levels theoretically could be very interesting.


peace
pelle

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

Hmmmm…

I wouldnt mind checking the book out but my local bookshop doesnt have it in stock. I’d like to know how he distinguishes power and force?

Looking at the rungs on his ladder…the “mood” driving each level seems to allow a greater consciousness and care for others as you go up…eg a mood of shame vs a mood of courage - if you your topnote is courage I would argue that entails a greater ability to attune to others than shame…

another way to look at it: .the mood seems to change from “ego generated emotions” to open heart generated emotions…as you go up

so in these senses it follows the same pattern as the aqal structures…greater love, inclusion, freedom

I suppose one could even try and say that “courage” is the new power and driving mood of orange and love, joy etc of Tier 2, but only if you define these words in very specific ways.

OK now I feel im stretching it.

darn these strategists and their systems of grand unification….

Gitanjali

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

Hawkins' model is pretty clearly a variation of the Great Chain/Nest of Being – some variation of matter, body, mind, soul, spirit. The Buddhist Six Realms are also a variation, and Maslow's hierarchy could also be viewed in those terms. The AQAL model already includes the Great Chain in all 4 quadrants including the UL. Maybe I'm missing something, but why wouldn't you include it there? What would you say are the differences between AQAL enlightenment and Hawkins' enlightenment?

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

I'm not saying that Hawkins levels can't fit into AQAL. But if they represent a certain line of development, what line is that? And the second question then becomes: what lines of development must be at the leading edge to achieve so-called vertical enlightenment??
Surely not all lines, that seems like an impossibility.

Ken separating horizontal and vertical enlightenment is a great distinction, but what is truly included in each? And can we be sure that there is no transversal line? A two-dimensional model usually becomes more precise when adding a third dimension….

peace
pelle

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

MrTeacup:
Hawkins' model is pretty clearly a variation of the Great Chain/Nest of Being – some variation of matter, body, mind, soul, spirit.

I disagree. All the levels listed by Hawkins are emotions except for the last one (enlightenment).

It's possible that the stages could fit on the horizontal axis of development. That would make them state plateaus at best, and then they are not truly levels….
But I still believe that advancing up the spectrum in Hawkins' model would entail structural changes as well, so there is a possibility that this could be a third axis in AQAL. Using Occam's razor though it's probably more prudent to consider it a horizontal phenomenon for now.

peace
pelle

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

All the levels listed by Hawkins are emotions except for the last one

Yes, that's what I mean. Its the emotional line of development in the UL, so it follows the overall contours of the Great Chain.

If this did represent a third AQAL axis, then there would be 4 more quadrants. Would we split the existing ones, or are we just missing 4? Also, there would be interior and exterior views of each of those new quadrants as well, so 8 more zones.

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

This is what Bjorn wrote in a comment:

There was a big part of me that said fine, I don't need history, to live my own inherent freedom. But since then I have come to appreciate history and all that has come before. I even made much effort to shift through the mass of doctrine to unearth and understand why and how some men stood out from the crowd, like Jesus and the Buddha. What was it with them that made the impact on the world so huge? It's too easy and too simplistic to group them in with other spiritual lights. We need to be able to distinguish between teachers. Often the fruit, the effect, reveals something extraordinary.


I echo Björn's question: why did Jesus and Buddha have such huge impact? Surely it was not only because they were horizontally and vertically enlightened? Many more than two persons must have achieved such enlightenment in the past few thousand years and still these two stand out.

I believe that combining Ken's horizontal+vertical enlightenment with Hawkins' scale above will bring us closer to what has made a handful of individuals exceptional in this regard.
Or it could be that Hawkins' scale falls under vertical enlightenment, but in that case you probably need to reach the leading edge in more than one or two lines (ie cognitive+values that is often the focus of Ken), in order to have the impact of Jesus and Buddha.


peace
pelle

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

Pelle said: I echo Björn's question: why did Jesus and Buddha have such huge impact? Surely it was not only because they were horizontally and vertically enlightened? Many more than two persons must have achieved such enlightenment in the past few thousand years and still these two stand out.

My take: They were both so effective because they were able to handle the delicate balance between loving people simply as they are and using a wide variety of “fingers pointing to the moon (or the Father)” that were tailored to the types of ego they each were confronted with. Neither focused on people that were not ready to hear. And neither abused their followers.

Perhaps that is an oversimplification, but is it useful?

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

“another way to look at it: .the mood seems to change from “ego generated emotions” to open heart generated emotions…as you go up”

I think this is good. It goes up the chakras.

But does he mean equanimity rather than neutrality?

The list is helpful to me because sometimes those lower emotions can feel so powerful and compelling that you end up ranking them higher. Do you know what I mean? This anger or whatnot  is so powerful and compelling–it's the most important thing! It's spiritual!

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

Hi Pelle,
Some time back I began to realize that Ultimate Realization is very much connected to ones intention, how far one actually is willing to go, or how much resposibility one is ready to shoulder.
Look at it this way, Jesus sacrificed his life for us, for each one of us. He (according to the doctrine) died for us, in our place, and took the burden of sin away from us. He paid the penalty that should have been paid by us. He offered to take the penalty for the crime we've commited, even though he himself was innocent. Therefore he took resposibility for the harm done. He did it so we could be free. This is as profound as it gets. And if we manage to understand this greatest of mysteries we will be able to appreciate his life so much more.
Also consider this, the Buddha sat down under the Bodhi tree deciding he would not move till he gained final realization, or die in the process. Great intent. The Mahayana doctrine picked up on this as they introduced in the monks vows the pledge of a Bodhisatva, -the Bodhicitta, the will to free all other living beings before entering oneself into Nirvana. In short, putting the whole of humanity before ones own awakening.
At the time I wrote this;
The Buddha is revealed only to free living beings. This is the motivation. This is the Bodhi-citta. That is its purpose. The Messiah appears only to save humanity. That is its function. That is his mission. That is our saviour.

Establishment of the bodhi-citta. Establishment of the will to the supreme. This is the norm. This is the standard. This is the function. This is the criteria. This is its purpose. This is ones motivation, ones intention, ones will. Ones will to the truth. This is taking upon oneself the full responsibility for being a human being. It is everything. Having sole responsibility for the welfare of every living being and having sole responsibility for the planet as a whole.

You can save history by taking responsibility for our heritage. By taking full responsibility for everything that ever happened you redeem the wrongs and the pains of the past. You in fact redeem the world, and save the dead as well as the living.

I don't know why certain individuals demonstrate this, but in my mind it is no freak accident. It all seems to belong to wonderful unfolding of Truth being slowly infused into this world as we evolve our capacity to be able to comprehend it and filter it into society.

Sorry if I totally strayed from the topic matter.

Bjorn

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

Gitanjali:
I wouldnt mind checking the book out but my local bookshop doesnt have it in stock.

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

  “Look at it this way, Jesus sacrificed his life for us, for each one of us. He (according to the doctrine) died for us, in our place, and took the burden of sin away from us. He paid the penalty that should have been paid by us. He offered to take the penalty for the crime we've commited, even though he himself was innocent. Therefore he took resposibility for the harm done. He did it so we could be free. This is as profound as it gets. And if we manage to understand this greatest of mysteries we will be able to appreciate his life so much more.”

I'm a big fan of Jesus and his life, and I think there's great stuff in the Bible and the Gospel of Thomas, but I never got this part. “He died for us … and took the burden of sin away from us”? So we don't have the burden of “sin”; we don't have to pay the penalty for our “sins”? But I thought, according to the doctrine, we were born in “sin”? Not that I think the word sin is really that helpful in a developmental, evolutionary context–I think it puts a person down at the bottom of Hawkin's list, with guilt and shame–but do you see the problem I have with it? I think his life is an amazing demonstration of devotion–if in fact he chose his crucification. But it's an example of a lack of skillful means if he didn't choose it. How do we know that he didn't simply push people too far and have to pay the price for it? Do you see what I mean? I just think we could be elevating the crucification part of the whole thing too much.

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

Hey, whoa, whoa, whoa!  going back a bit …regarding a “transversal axis”

This was the subject brought up by Martin Beck-Matustik on ISC call

Part 1 here
Part 2 here

We also discussed this here and and there is a bit more here

Ken agreed with Martin and equated transversal “existential spheres” with his ideas  of a “self sense” -many of these levels, ideas etc. of Hawkins are contained in this.  Althought I do think he's kinda going either vertical and transversal at one and the same time -where they are not quite the same thing- or going all three directions at once. Hence, perhaps this is both the intuition and the confusion.

But I also wanted to say, on our call Pelle, in the conversation between Martin (a different Martin) and Ken, he brought it up again -perhaps it went by to quick to notice. I personally think the idea is very important. Vertical and horizontal just don't wuite cover all the territory that's there. (What a complex Kosmos we live in!)

Also, just so that it is said, if there seems to be something missing from AQAL, go ahead and research it, figure it out and go for it. This is Integral, and super-integral, the fun never stops! Currently I am working on my own addition of an area missed everywhere -it's not part of integral yet becasue it's not part of much of anything yet. Most importantly, it is a missing talent stream. I started a thread about it here.

Okay, babbled enough now!

(excuse all typos and spelling erros!)

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

Dear Ones,

A couple of thoughts:  I am a bit of a purist when it comes to emotions.  To me, for instance, Pride is not an emotion, nor are apathy, desire, courage, neutrality, reason, love or peace.  Pride, at its best emotionally speaking, is a sense of “looking good,” which, for most people is just relief that we have “got away with it” again.  Apathy is a dearth of emotion.  Desire is a projection that can be attended by joy or reactionary hate (not an emotion but a constellated shadow of fear and powerlessness)  Neutrality, or “balance” is a condition of being and may be accompanied by a look of calm (superficial) or a sense of peace, which is a state and not an emotion.

Willingness and Acceptance are also states of being (Virtues) and, I believe cannot occur until Reason (a capability) is incorporated. 

Love is a state of being which is typically accompanied by emotion(s) but is not an inherently emotional state imo.

Locating Peace above Joy on this linear hierarchy is debatable but I'm ok with it for the moment. 

That Hawkins calls this a logorythmic scale is interesting as a quick scan says that the bare minimum state of enlightenment is 35 orders of magnitude more powerful than the low end of shame.  That is a huge difference in power.

I like the distinction between force and power.  Force has only “outward” expression, while power can be employed in both directions.  I am suspect of the linear hierarchy and drawn to the beginning in the “Shame” state.  Shame, felt inwardly and hugely complicated by a sense that everyone can see (blush of embarrassment) is really visible on the surface.  At each successive “level” the hierarchy moves steadily inward until Peace is reached.  Peace or Joy are heart-centered phenomenon.  Peace is a state, imo, while Joy is an emotion.  A peaceful state of being accompanied by effulgent Joy is the threshold to enlightenment. 

I can buy that part for sure.

yer pal,
Michael

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

David,

You asked, How do we know that he didn't simply push people too far and have to pay the price for it? Do you see what I mean? I just think we could be elevating the crucification part of the whole thing too much.
My experience tells me that we can know if we endeavor to find out. By heartfelt inquiry we can come to see what the Cross means. Once it is revealed to us its metaphor will become clear, and then we will be able to say with certainty that it is a profound mystery. Not merely something we have conjured up in our imagination in order to satisfy out mythical and magical psychological needs. There is no need to believe in any of the things in the Bible unless you yourself firsthand comes to experience it.
Believe me, any imagined, or thought up mystery, will never ever even come close to the real thing. Because these mysteries can't be fathomed by the minds intellect or its imagination. They are fully beyond our wildest dreams.

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

Thank you, Bjorn. That's interesting. So it's like a koan?
 
I've always found the whole thing very compelling. It's a metaphor for the death of the ego to authentic self, yes? And that's no small thing–there's something quite different about that jump than all the others in the spiral, isn't there? And it's an ongoing crucifiction, no end until the ego is 100% gone, the vehicle under 100% control of the authentic self, which is a great mystery, isn't it?

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

Sorry if I repeat some things already said, but I've come to this duscussion a bit late, it seems.

I have read Power Vs. Force and listened to Hawkings speak at a seminar (via a recording of it – I wasn't there).  Firstly let me just say that this scheme is not a line in the AQAL psychograph sense, nor a variation of the great chain of being.  To add it to AQAL, I think you need to add another horizontal line: let's call it the power scale.

I'll explain that in a miinute, but first let me say something about Hawkins.  He is not integral; he's green as hell.  He also believes in reincarnation, karma, astral planes and whatnot.  I'm not saying those things are right or wrong, just pointing out that his scheme draws heavily on them.

Anyway… the numbers come from muscle kinesiology testing.  I won't go into the process here, but it does mean the heirarchy is objective (or tries to be), not just a subjective value scheme.  He interpretes it through a green lense, but the numbers themselves are supposedly not based on a personal, subjective evaluation of what's good and what's bad.

The power scale itself means more or less how good you are.  It sounds so green, I know, but the method seems objective.  (If anyone has an alternative explanation, I'd love to hear it.)  So if you are a loving, generous, forgiving person, you rate highly and are judged as highly conscious; if you are a hate-filled, sadistic miserable wretch of a huan bneing, you score poorly and are judged as having a poorly developed consciousness.  Ones' score can apparently fluctuate greatly in one lifetime, but generally speaking, more “highly evolved” souls will score higher, presumably because they behave/think better on average.

As an example of how his green values come into play, he says that, for instance, forgiveness rates higher than hate.  That's fair enough I suppose, but it obviously means that green/worldcentric people will, on average, rate higher than red/ethnocentric people.  But he doesn't recognise this difference – in the semminar I heard he kept on promoting green-style tolerance, and he said that everyone needs to adopt this attitude.  I don't need to explain to people here how that attitude is problematic!

But despite that level confusion, its a horizontal scheme.  Anyone, including animals, can rate high or low on the power scale.  I suspect that vertical development will make a higher rating more likely, and psychopathology encourage a low rating.  In that sense, it can work with AQAL quite well.

However, I see a problem with the overal visions.  This happens with reincarnation and AQAL.  Once you introduce reincarnation, this world becomes a tool for learnng, not the manifestation of divinity, unless you do some philosophical fancy dancing.  I've brought this up before but no one else seems to realise the implications.  In reincarnation, I may be in a green culture one life and an amber one the next.  In this case, from Hawkin's perspective, my soul can still grow, but from an AQAL perspective, I've regressed from green to amber.  That is, for Hawkins, souls evolve, perhaps to fulfill some grand plan, as measured by his power scale.  For AQAL, the cosmos evolves, as measured by holons and psychographs, etc., and the bardo realms seem to be a sort of holding cell until we are ready to get back to the world, where the real action takes place.

I'm not sure if these two visions can be reconciled, but I don't think Ken has to worry because he is the more sophisticated thinker by far.  Hawkins could do with a heavy dose of integral post-metaphysics.  Then his theory might hold more weight.  I dread to think what Power vs. Force would look like if someone like Foucalt analysed it.  And yet, I can't help but wonder if Hawkins has an important piece of the puzzle, even if his overal scheme has some serious problems.

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

David,

That is the PATH.
Once you have “died” on the cross, once you have seen and intimated your true self you'll have to walk in “rightousness”, align to your highest understanding, but you will not “know” it from the start as it is just barely awakened or “born again” and it will take some time to realize that you have been growing in spirit developing your new found soul. Then when you become self aware of this new life (that was revealed back at the initial awakening) that is taking form you will understand that the “path” is all there is. Growing, maturing, evolving in this painstaking drama that will propel us into higher and higher levels of autonomy, resposibility and care.

But having said this, there still is a inherent mystery in Jesus' sacrifice, that will not be revealed to you unless you endeavor to find out the meaning of HIS death. It would be letting us off the hook if we simply accomodate and equalize his death on the cross to our own event. There is something to be found out by wanting to realize someone elses enlightenment. Like, for say, if we want to understand Andrews realization or the Buddhas realization we need to dive into their minds and hearts and see it with their eyes.

It's like if I want to learn from another I need to adopt and adapt to their stance. And who are higher role models than the Buddha and Jesus? The Buddha said, do what I do and you'll realize what I realize.

That's why in old Japan, true masters of martial art would hide their tecniques from outsiders as they knew that simply by looking their style could be “stolen” and then the secret would been lost. But Jesus wanted us to copy him; “be perfect as my father in heaven is perfect”. That's why his “demonstration” is a role model for us to follow. Not blindly but as a tool in order for us to experience a life lived in love.

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

Great rundown on Hawkins infimitas, highly informative. Thanks!

In reincarnation, I may be in a green culture one life and an amber one the next.  In this case, from Hawkin's perspective, my soul can still grow, but from an AQAL perspective, I've regressed from green to amber.  That is, for Hawkins, souls evolve, perhaps to fulfill some grand plan, as measured by his power scale.  For AQAL, the cosmos evolves, as measured by holons and psychographs, etc., and the bardo realms seem to be a sort of holding cell until we are ready to get back to the world, where the real action takes place.

Actually, Ken kind of addressed this in Integral Psychology, starting on page 125. There, he proposes that we might identify three different lines of the self: the ego (frontal self), soul (or deeper psychic) and Self (or Witness), and that these lines develop relatively independently. So the soul doesn't need to regress just because the frontal self does.

What most researchers have been studying is the line of frontal self development.

Ken chooses not to make reincarnation an essential part of AQAL, because he thinks it will put too many people off. He does leave plenty of room, however, for anyone to include it if they desire.

Hawkins is probably right on some points, so the question is if these points are already part of AQAL theory or not…

Peter

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

Thanks for that, Peter.  Personally I love ideas about reincarnation and astral planes, etc.  I have no idea whether they really exist, but the phenomena seems to be true.  Sometimes skeptics don't like the explanatins parapsychologists offer for phenomena though, so they dismiss the phenomena rather than offering an alternative, rational explanation.  E.g. visions of abductions might have a lot to do with conscious sleep paralysis, vision which are later interpreted for meaning according to ones' levels and cultural beliefs, ect.  Or abductions may be real, who knows?  (Though the smart money is on probably not.)  Unfortunately, Hawkins' theory requires belief in precisely those sort of things, so I'm cautious about putting too much energy into it.  Wilber is different in that he constructs his arguments in such a way as to give you something to sink your teeth into, as it were.  One can agree or disagree with Ken by following his logic.  Hawkins' scheme requires more faith.

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

Hey guys, this idea (or so many of the ideas contained in infimitas' last post) goes back to the reincarnation thread on the multiplex last summer- being subject to the myth of the given. I was trying to say something about it in the beginning but didn't have the right words, until I finished Integral Spirituality. The myth of the given goes “all the way up” or, we are still subject to the myth of the given in the subtle state (and even causal? but no form)-thus a Christian is met by Jesus or Mary, a Buddhist Avlotiskavara (sp?), a Theosophist by members of the White Lodge, etc. However, this does not mean that there is no ontological reality, it just means that what we see is in part co-created by the experiencer and still subject to cultural construction/conditionaing. Just about every individual or group throughout history that has written about these things has been clearly subject to the myth of the given; this is why I complained about Theosophy because there is a tremendous amount of myth of the given in their esoteric writings, perhaps all subject to the myth of the given. But it is the same for the Tibetan Book of the Dead, etc. But again, this does not mean there is no ontological reality, it's just that understanding how experience (and form) is co-created by the experiencer, well, sheds a lot of light.

I was actully going to submit a question to Wilber about this for this week's concall but I don't think I will be able to participate.

Good grief I hope I have not pulled this thread off topic. But since we had talked about this before I just wanted to throw that out.

Peace, Tim

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

Hi Tim,

In my oppinion, the early Theosophists were cutting edge, not because they were orange exactly, but because unlike most people in Western culture, they tried to construct an orange spirituality in an environment were they didn't normally mix.

But like the Tibetan Buddhists, they fell for the myth of the given.  All pre-green people do.  Getting to green doesn't mean you necessarily overcome it (hence Hawkins falls for it), but being pre-green means you don't even have the possibility.  This also means that most scientific materialists fall for it, as they tend to veer towards orange.  Sceptical attitudes are usually one form of the myth of the given in my experience; sceptics usually assume that “rationality” is automatically the correct view.  ironically, I believe that a good integral science that uses a version of post-metaphysics will dispell many of the old-style spiritual ideas, like astral bodies or gremlins, but not in a dry way like orange sceptics, who don't transcend spiritual dogma, they just reverse it.

I mean, most parapsychologists seem to be dualists (i.e. property dualists).  They think that in OBEs the consciousness literaly leaves the body.  In AQAL, that makes no sense – you can't have a purely mental object without a body; that is, you can't have an UL without an UR.  If astral projection occurs (and that's still an open question, imo) then it must occur by way of some sort of extra-physical body, not a purely interior mind with no exterior form.  This point is made in one of the AQAL journal articles.  It's a fascinating time for me, so many interesting new ideas are comming out, and so many old ones must be dropped.

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

Infimitas said:
I mean, most parapsychologists seem to be dualists (i.e. property dualists).  They think that in OBEs the consciousness literaly leaves the body.  In AQAL, that makes no sense – you can't have a purely mental object without a body; that is, you can't have an UL without an UR.

Well, again, AQAL does include that: consciousness can be supported by a subtle body and exist without the gross body.

But even if you except that, OBE's are not valid prove for reincarnation, strictly speaking.

Peter

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

Indeed, an article in vol. 1 of the AQAL journal says how it could work, something like a subtle body-mind leaves the vicinity of the gross body-mind (they used different terminology, I think, but it was something along those lines).  Unfortunately it doesn't discuss research or theory in much detail, it's just an introductory article.  I look foward to more in later volumes.

Also, OBEs or astral projection, if taken literally (i.e. not just dreams or altered states), are ripe with philisophical difficulties, such as: if I astral project, am I now two minds, one in my gross body and one having astral adventures?  These sorts of issues need to be addressed.  Personally I think they are tricky, but not insumountable.

To get back on topic, Hawkins believes in 3 astral planes, in adition to the physical plane.  Theosophists have more.  The whole thing is such a mess and will take a lot of work to untangle.  Then there's the psi experiments that support different things for different people, depending on how you interpret the evidence.  I don't really know how I-I can approach this without delving deeply into metaphysics, which Ken has so far avoided doing.  Not that I have a problem with it, but some won't like it.

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

Indeed, an article in vol. 1 of the AQAL journal says how it could work, something like a subtle body-mind leaves the vicinity of the gross body-mind (they used different terminology, I think, but it was something along those lines).  Unfortunately it doesn't discuss research or theory in much detail, it's just an introductory article.  I look foward to more in later volumes.

About about this, from Excerpt G:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reincarnation

      We come now to the most controversial topic related to subtle energies, namely, reincarnation or transmigration. I am reluctant to even comment on it, because once you take sides in this issue, you alienate the other half of the audience.

      My own belief is that reincarnation does occur; however, for the moment, I am more concerned with suggesting a proposed mechanism for such an occurrence, rather than arguing that it does or does not happen. Let us simply assume that it does, and then ask, how can that occurrence be squared with hypothesis #3, namely, that subtle energies are associated with complexifications of gross form? Upon death, clearly the gross form dissolves; what happens to the subtle energies if they are tied to those gross forms?

      At this point, one simply chooses to decide whether reincarnation exists or not. If you believe that reincarnation does not exist, then the integral theory of subtle energies that I have presented thus far needs no further adjustments (not in relation to reincarnation, that is). If, on the other hand, you believe in reincarnation, then an integral theory needs to be able to incorporate that occurrence. It can do so if it adds one hypothesis, as follows:

      #4. Complexity of gross form is necessary for the expression or manifestation of both higher consciousness and subtler energy.

      Hypothesis #4 introduces the possibility that the higher forms of consciousness and energy (i.e., higher than the gross-family realm) are not tied to complexifications of gross form ontologically but rather as vehicles of the expression of subtler forms and energies in that gross realm itself. In other words, it is not that higher consciousness and energies are bound to the complexities of gross form out of ontological necessity, but that they need a correspondingly complex form of gross matter in order to express or manifest themselves in and through the material realm.

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

Bjorn said:  “There is something to be found out by wanting to realize someone elses enlightenment. Like, for say, if we want to understand Andrews realization or the Buddhas realization we need to dive into their minds and hearts and see it with their eyes.”

That's interesting, Bjorn, and helpful the way you phrase it. A long while ago I bought Son of Man by Andrew Harvey, but I haven't read it yet. Are you familiar with it? Is it a good book? I went to hear him speak on it when it came out, and it was great.

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

I haven't David.
It is interesting this wanting to understand another mans/woman's perspective. Someone who has actually realized more than ourselves will be able to impart his experience if we seek to understand. We strive to deeply understand their experience and by doing so we open a window for a direct experience to enter. When the insight falls on you, it becomes your experience and now you share a higher understanding of a deeper mystery. Over time you make it your own, knowledge and experience becomes embodied and you'll speak and act with integrity about things unheard of. Whilst always knowing that there is nothing, not a single thing, that you can call your own.

By wanting to know we open a window to the unseen infinite treasure storehouse that is always beyond our reach. Ask and it will be given…

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

I was scanning the posts looking for an important part of hawkins work and didn't see it mentioned….I apoligize if I missed it if someone mentioned it. The scale of consciousness was created by muscle testing and he then uses it to muscle test everything to identify its level of consciousness.

This creates some pretty interesting things to consider….how objective is muscle testing and how accurate is it in identifying numerical considerations on a scale from 0-1000?

I assume that muscle testing can also be used in seeing where you are in the level of altitude you are at in the work that you are studying. Has anyone ever done that?

I have a friend who uses the muscle testing to test everything in regards to his business…and most other things…its fascinating to watch….and quite humbling to be at the end of the measurement tool. You may think you are at least at 600 and you may not come above 400 by someone elses reckoning.

Re: Levels of Consciousness - David Hawkins

Hi Sweep,

To me it provides an interesting challange to Kant and epistemology.  If we really can use these methods to get at the truth, then it suggests that there really is a final truth that is not situated.  But some of the ratings are for what I would consider subjective opinions, such as what types of music score higher than others.  I love Nirvana.  I was a teenager when they were all the rage so that music holds a place in my heart.  By contrast a lot of classical music bores the pants off me, and opera drives me into a near-suicidal despair.  For others the opposite may be the case, so by what right does anyone have to speak of the truth?  Ah, but we are all God, so maybe Hawkin's methods relate the “opinions” of the true self, that thing that is the same for all of us.  I'm not sure what to make of that idea though.  Right now my response is the good old stand by: shrug my shoulders and admit total ignorance. 

I wonder what God thinks I should have for dinner tonight?