Is kinesiology a valid tool for finding Truth?

[Ariel]

In Truth vs. Falsehood, there are a number of calibrations on page 359 that catch my attention.

Channeling itself calibrates at 195, so is it a non-integrous tool?

He mentions elsewhere to make sure you calibrate the entity on the other side. Perhaps that's more important than the fact that it's being channeled in the first place?

He also calibrates that UFO's are not real and that extra-terrestrials are unreal. In Conversations with God, it is stated otherwise.

I'm also starting to find videos like these and I'm wondering what's really going on.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=497_1203360797

Speaking of channeling, I think we'd calibrated Abraham (of Abraham-Hicks) at like 50,000 or something back in the day, but I have no idea if that number is valid anymore.

Perhaps my favorite channeled being is Bashar. I know this may sound kinda out there, but he's basically an alien who is channeling through a previous incarnation of himself. Oddities aside, the material he presents is fantastic, very similar to what Abraham says. Then again, the mind can't know Truth and so I really don't know for sure what's up, y'know? I'm just looking for Truth here... Is he legit or what? Hawkins' calibrations would suggest otherwise, but I'm not so sure.

If we really are alone in the Universe, whoa... That just seems really strange to think that we'd be the only ones who exist in the Universe. Plus, Conversations with God would then be totally off.

If aliens really do exist, then Hawkins' calibrations are wrong and if this is the case, what else are his calibrations off about?

----------

The other day I watched one of the Hawkins 2002 lecture videos (thanks Mike!) and he'd calibrated Om and Aum.

It's about 7 minutes into March 2002, Part 3.

Om:

From the video: Calibrates below 540.

Om the mantra, as calibrated in the video: Calibrates over 750.

Om, as calibrated in TvF page 397: calibrates at 740.

Aum:

From the video: Over 300, below 310.

From page 397 of TvF: Calibrates at 210.

---------

The calibrated LoC of Hawkins' books vary when quoted from book to book. Have you guys noticed that?

I think I recall someone somewhere mentioning that calibrations of a movie can change over time, so perhaps books are the same way?

For example, someone's said Hitler's LoC has gone up since his death because people have prayed for him, but does the same thing apply to mantras, movies, and even Hawkins' books?

---------

Other than the fact that "Hawkins says so," I haven't been able to find ANY evidence to say that calibration is an effective and reliable tool in any way whatsoever, and I've experimented with it a lot, even meeting with people who do kinesiology for a living to see if they could correct anything I was doing wrong.

I haven't found anyone who's been able to calibrate successfully and I haven't been able to do it myself. It seems to be more common for people to use the tool for health purposes rather than for truth-finding purposes. I do feel that there is something behind the technique itself and maybe I'm just doing something wrong, but try as I might, I can't get valid results myself.

Any ideas on all these discrepancies?

[Sanders]

I've been surrendering scepticism recently, hopefully it'll be all gone soon. There's healthy "scepticisim" which is trying it out for yourself before coming to an uneducated unexperienced conclusion, then there's being a critic before you've read the book/seen the movie sort of scepticism (which is prideful know-it-all ignorant narcissism really). Once scepticism is gone, I'm sure I'll find muscle-testing easier as I won't have it in the back of my mind. If you hold even a little bit of scepticism in mind then you'll go weak so it'll mess up the results, this is because scepticism is narcissism which is below integrity.

I don't know about the variance in some of the calibrations, it's probably due to a change in context. E.g. Om by a spiritual teacher with a high LOC is more likely to have a higher calibration than one of a few people at a much lower LOC. It doesn't really matter that much in the long run, maybe to the mind it does as the mind likes to be picky , but as your LOC rises (Love states intensify more and more) you start to see what people/things/places/techniques etc are like purely from the intuition that starts pouring in. So you know what to move away/towards. Before you have the discernment, all you have to do is study Hawkins materials until you get a good enough overview, then the general jist of what is above and below integrity becomes increasingly obvious.

[Ariel]

I don't know about the variance in some of the calibrations, it's probably due to a change in context. E.g. Om by a spiritual teacher with a high LOC is more likely to have a higher calibration than one of a few people at a much lower LOC.

Perhaps, but a jump from below 540 to over 700 is a pretty massive jump. A few points I guess I could understand as a part of some fudge factor, but that much? I would have guessed Hawkins himself did the calibrations in his books and that he wouldn't publish results that are way off. If his LoC is the highest out of anyone in his group, it would be only natural that he do the calibrations. If so, it would be him saying 'Om' when doing the muscle testing for the book's tables.

I find it strange that you can bias the results, when it's supposed to be a very objective test that goes beyond beliefs. For example, it doesn't matter if you believe Jesus was a good or a bad person, he calibrates at 1000.

Given that kinesiology is being presented as a sort of bastion of truth and given that the mind is not a valid source for truth, we do become dependent upon this tool for answers. It is a little more clear-cut than intuition.

It's so easy to write everything off as, "Oh, if you don't agree, you're being skeptical and narcissistic and that's below 200 so you're automatically wrong."

I know you're not doing this Sanders, but I've seen people do it and it seems kinda silly. Actually, it seems pretty narcissistic on their end to be claiming that they're always right, doesn't it?

In any event, rather than trying to figure it all out, it almost seems wiser at this point to let go of trying to know and to rest in the mystery. Afterall, it is by trying to figure things out that we lose the ability to actually know in the first place.

[Sanders]

I don't know about the variance in some of the calibrations, it's probably due to a change in context. E.g. Om by a spiritual teacher with a high LOC is more likely to have a higher calibration than one of a few people at a much lower LOC.

Perhaps, but a jump from below 540 to over 700 is a pretty massive jump. A few points I guess I could understand as a part of some fudge factor, but that much? I would have guessed Hawkins himself did the calibrations in his books and that he wouldn't publish results that are way off. If his LoC is the highest out of anyone in his group, it would be only natural that he do the calibrations. If so, it would be him saying 'Om' when doing the muscle testing for the book's tables.

I find it strange that you can bias the results, when it's supposed to be a very objective test that goes beyond beliefs. For example, it doesn't matter if you believe Jesus was a good or a bad person, he calibrates at 1000.

Given that kinesiology is being presented as a sort of bastion of truth and given that the mind is not a valid source for truth, we do become dependent upon this tool for answers. It is a little more clear-cut than intuition.

It's so easy to write everything off as, "Oh, if you don't agree, you're being skeptical and narcissistic and that's below 200 so you're automatically wrong."

I know you're not doing this Sanders, but I've seen people do it and it seems kinda silly. Actually, it seems pretty narcissistic on their end to be claiming that they're always right, doesn't it?

In any event, rather than trying to figure it all out, it almost seems wiser at this point to let go of trying to know and to rest in the mystery. Afterall, it is by trying to figure things out that we lose the ability to actually know in the first place.

I've had a look at the video that Mike watched, and it's hard to know what he is referring to when he calibrates the first Om mantra that is below 540 because he mentions it is from a translation of a book by Swami Satchidananda, and when he refers to the second Om mantra. It seems like he is referring to two different mantras.

"It's so easy to write everything off as, "Oh, if you don't agree, you're being skeptical and narcissistic and that's below 200 so you're automatically wrong.""

What if skepticism and narcissism is below 200 though, and since both have no existence in actually reality other than illusion it makes sense that they also would produce strange results for the muscle-test. Like trying to test "no-electricity" on a voltmeter.

"Actually, it seems pretty narcissistic on their end to be claiming that they're always right, doesn't it?" Haha yeah if they claim that they're right, that's a sure indication that they're using their mind to fix the answers. Biased results=biased people (unconscious attachments or aversions to the result of the question held in mind).

"In any event, rather than trying to figure it all out, it almost seems wiser at this point to let go of trying to know and to rest in the mystery. Afterall, it is by trying to figure things out that we lose the ability to actually know in the first place."
Yeah we could spend a lot of time emailing Veritaspub to ask what context Hawkins was referring to when he did the calibrations of the Om mantras, but instead it's better to focus on the overall context instead. If we look at the question carefully it's pretty mind based and is a distraction to progression.

[Odd-Arne]

Though I don`t really use it, I think it`S obvious that it has to be.

The numbers seem to have gotten Hawkins into a lot of trouble with people who understand the numbers in a very different way from what he means. That is true also for the interpretations of the names of concepts he puts at a certain vibration. To me me it comes down to being aware and in tune with the universe and then you simply understand or feel something from a greater perspective or you don`t. I`m not convinced that the man himself is all that balanced on all levels though. There`s too many counter indicators. Though in essense I believe him to be right.

[Sanders]

If you hold even a little bit of scepticism in mind then you'll go weak so it'll mess up the results, this is because scepticism is narcissism which is below integrity.

Are you for real ?

Could you please explain to me how skepticism is narcissistic ? And while you're at it, could you please explain how it is "below integrity" ?

I'd explained it pretty clearly above if you'd read it but here it is again:

"There's healthy "scepticism" which is trying it out for yourself before coming to an uneducated unexperienced conclusion, then there's being a critic before you've read the book/seen the movie sort of scepticism (which is prideful know-it-all ignorant narcissism really)"

It's narcissistic to assume you know something when you have no experience of it, I'd say that's pretty obvious Tuplad...and it's below integrity because it's prideful. Richard Dawkins is a good example of scientific pride, he claims to know that God doesn't exist.

[Smoking Truth]

For me kinesiology is a valid tool only in the moment, and since 85% of the world is below integrity, it's more of a tool to identify what is not Truth...

[Ariel]

There seem to be two polar opposites.

One is extreme skepticism. This has to do with an over-reliance upon the mind and need for logical explanation and proof for everything. This can be great for doing math problems and other mind-based activities, but it sucks when you apply this reasoning to non-linear subjects such as Love or God. "Prove to me that you love me! I don't believe you!" That's a recipe for disaster in any relationship. Love is something to experience, not prove. The same is true with God.

The other extreme is blind faith which is naive. It's used by religious leaders telling you not to think for yourself because they need you to accept their teachings for their own personal gain. They don't want you coming to your own conclusions because you may conclude something other than what they're teaching. With fewer followers they believe they hold less power and have less control. Their ego-centric sense of power is proportional to how many people they can lead/convert/control/dominate.

As usual, the healthy option lies somewhere in the middle. We call this being your own guru or seeking your own truth. At the start, you proclaim neither than you know, nor that you don't know. Say you were to take up painting. If you've never tried, you don't know if you suck at it or if you have an undiscovered talent in it. You simply don't know if you know or don't know, but you're open to any option, completely open.

Conclusions are made based upon your own experience, but it's understood that your experience is situational, dependent upon context, and does not necessarily apply to everyone else at every point in time. It's a subjective conclusion.

The downfall in either extreme, be it intense skepticism or blind faith is the buying into a mental belief system. A belief system is a replacement for direct experience, a false sense of "I know." You know you exist. You need no belief system to know this. (What exactly it is that exists, who you are, that is up for discovery, but it's pretty clear that there is some sort of existence that exists within your presence.)

The thing about coming to a conclusion that you know, based upon a belief system, is that the belief stems from pride. "Pride goeth before a fall." Why? Because your beliefs are subject to external conditions and thus are inherently vulnerable because they are supported upon a foundation beyond your control.

For example, you blindly put your faith in a leader who later turns out to be corrupt, a pedophile, and whatever else. This hurts and your pride (ego) is damaged. Wars are based on pride. Rather than letting reality change your beliefs, which is the more sensible thing to do, people try to get reality to conform to their belief systems which is how suffering originates. This leads to zealotry, fanaticism, religious and political wars, and so forth, all forms of suffering which stem from a sense of narcissistic pride, a feeling of "I'm right and you're wrong."

Recognizing the danger in this blind faith, people may swing to the other extreme and become too resistant to accepting anything as potentially valid and so they don't accept any of it. They get an intuitive flash, but they refuse to act on it. "But, but but..." They get advice, but they refuse to actually find out whether or not it's applicable in real life. Even if they do see if theory works out in real life, there's then the skepticism of whether or not it'll be applicable next time or with another person. There's so much doubt in the system that it's hard to relax and enjoy life, to go with the flow. This is a defensive measure based out of fear and non-acceptance, a way to hold yourself apart from life, as if you'd somehow be safer if you don't accept life the way it is. Life constantly needs to be filtered through the mind, as if the mind can buffer you from danger. This is insanity.

Coming back to the middle, you can say that what you know now is the best you have been able to determine thus far based upon your own experience. You understand that tomorrow your understandings may deepen and your whole collection of understandings may shatter. That's okay. You're open to this because you're more interested in what's True than in who's right. This is true humility. This gives you a tremendous sense of freedom because you're no longer attached to any belief system or model of the world. You can accept a model as a model, but not get caught up in defending it or protecting against it. You allow life to come and go, to flow through you. Life has no problems entering your life (skepticism), nor does it have any problem changing and leaving your life (blind faith). Life comes and goes, and your experience grows and grows.

Rather than seeing your intellect as the source of truth and knowingness, you allow Life to be your source of truth and knowingness. Want to know what's true? Look at what is.

[Ariel]

Yeah, I was thinking about this a bit more earlier today and a critical point popped into my head.

In theory, skepticism is about not blindly accepting things straight off the bat. You hear there's monsters under your bed, but you want to know for sure whether or not you're safe. Sounds good in theory, right?

What I've noticed tends to happen in practice, however, is that people enjoy this feeling of not being gullible and they wind up going too far by immediately assuming that anyone who has a differing belief system is wrong. Guilty until proven innocent. They want to question EVERYTHING.

So they come in with this really leery attitude, almost judgmental in fact, and their unspoken assumption is this subtle implication that others are stupid for believing what they do. They walk in basically saying "YOU'RE WRONG! PROVE IT!"

They come off pretty standoffish which is a real turn off to others. Who likes to be around people like that? In fact, the person often comes off looking like an asshole.

This energy is rooted in fear, fear of being deceived, threatened, and ultimately killed by false beliefs. Fear of death.

Thus when a person walks in with this air of "I don't believe what you're saying. I know better than to believe you straight up," it comes off really narcissistic and arrogant.

THAT is what we're talking about with respect to skepticism.

[PsychoticCompanion]

I seldom do kinesiology any more. As far as it finding the "Truth"... well... depends on what type of truth you're looking for. There are two types of truth, imo. There is the one and only Truth that never changes, always is, always has been and always will be. The second type of truth is the truth of the moment. This truth can change from moment to moment. It's not the "real Truth", but it is what it is at that moment. Example, carrots may calibrate at a low level for me. Then 2 weeks later they may calibrate at a high level for me. This is the type of truth that changes. These days I just go with what "feels" right and release judgement of it if it's not right.

So, again for me, I find that using kinseiology is great for the moment. Using it to find out life's mysteries... well.. life is infinite and so are it's mysteries. I'd rather enjoy what's around me than sitting down pulling on my finger to see if an alien is going to beam me up and take me away. Granted I'm looking forward to meeting the Inter Galactic Council.

Mark