Mirror Mirror on the Wall.

The reviews on Amazon seem to be full of very emotional reactions, either positive or negative, on this book. Clearly these are people deeply involved with Hawkins work. Being only a fan of some of his work (some of his spiritual teachings) and never having found his calibrations or testing method convincing, I felt a little reluctant to write a review, since this book seems addressed more toward people who are part of his work.

But I figure there are probably many people like me who might read this book. People who found Hawkins to have insights into spirituality based on his personal experience while the rest of his work they can leave. What does the book actually say? In the simplest terms: -Hawkins has had profound experiences of deep states of realization which he has sincerely tried to communicate to others. -Hawkins, like everyone, interprets experiences based on his personal viewpoint [culture, time of birth, worldview, personality.]. -Hawkinss attempt to support his views scientifically using kinesiology and his calibrations do not hold up to even the slightest critical and scientific inspection. He also occasionally misleads people and lied to promote his work. -His map of a linear development can be both useful and misleading. Useful because it shows development is real, both conventional and spiritual development. Misleading because it doesnt take into account other complex factors like: people dont develop evenly across all domains (i.e. morals, cognitive, emotional), there are many things that effect human behavior [environment, past experience, karma..) not just their energy field and the map tends to conflate particular emotions with development levels. Other reason are explored in the book but I think these three give a general flavor of the critique.

-Because of his own traditional worldview [which tends to be absolutistic: right vs. wrong, us vs. them, good vs. bad, truth vs. falsehood} Hawkinss groups have fundamentalist leanings and strong in-group out-group dynamics. These dynamics can have negative effects on individuals psychological health and spiritual growth.

-Hawkins seems to have dissociated from aspects of his personal self into transcendental states. This does not negate the transcendent experiences, but it leaves him at times unable to integrate personal life with such realizations and thus leads to some peculiarly dissociated views on higher spiritual development. Of course the book goes into much more detail on these points and others. The only surprising thing I found out was how Hawkins lied sometimes to promote his teachings. That was a little disappointing. The rest I already thought, but the book fleshed out the insights and gave some insiders information. One of the things I find so interesting about Hawkins is that a conservative minded person could be in a state of enlightenment. Most modern American nondual teachers tend to be liberally oriented. But historically and worldwide there seems to be quite a range of enlightened people coming from all sorts of value systems and worldviews. It is indeed important not to confuse the certainty that might come from realization [or temporary peak experiences] with the absolutist certainty that my views are truth.

I gave the book five stars not because I agree with everything Scott Jeffrey says, but because it was so fun to read, it was well presented, it was well argued and also it was clearly a difficult and courageous book to write given Scott Jeffreys context of being a true believer at one time. There does appear to be some resentment still present within the author, but he does a decent job of not letting that cloud his presentation to much. Couple side notes or some critical thoughts: A lot of Hawkins humor seems lost on the writer, many things are treated as serious which seem just funny to me [much in the vein of Osho's talks]. Often I found Scott Jeffrey using quotes from Dawkins lectures which seemed to me to be referring to the Absolute as in God, Truth, Mystery and not the absolute in the sense of absolutism and his calibrations. Nonetheless I realize these quotes are not always clear, partly because Hawkins didnt differentiate between the two clearly, and thus they are open to different readings. The writer says physics does not support spirituality as Hawkins maintained. I agree, but there is another way to look at it. Physics seems to have become a popular metaphorical language for modern mystics to describe their insights. Much like Christian saints used Theology to describe their experiences, or Tibetan monks used mythical stories, modern physics is used by some as an interpretive language to describe internal experiences. As psychics its no good, but as evocative language it has its moments. Clearly Ken Wilber's ideas were useful to the writer as a critical tool to see what Hawkins might be leaving out of his map. Personally, I enjoyed his use of some of Wilber's ideas.

My recommendation: if youre interested in Hawkins work or find any of the points I mention in this review interesting, read the book and make up your own mind about the ideas in the book [however you do that Hope this review his helpful to other prospective readers.

P.S. Another review referred to Hawkins as a clever trickster, I find that an insightful way of
seeing David Hawkins. I just dont see how that is a critique of this book.