How to determine the truth about anything
The purpose of the following information is to support your ability to become more autonomous by developing another resource available to you for making decisions, as compared to relying on your trust alone of another's well intentioned advice.
Of all the information you have been dealing with, there has always been at least one challenge ever present in you quest to be healthy. Regardless of whom you have received information from, or what you may have thought, it may always have been suspect in your personal experience that it may not be the truth.
How do you know what you are being told or what you are reading is true?
The following information will guide you to be able to make that distinction for yourself under all circumstances, at any time.... and it begins with your body's innate ability to distinguish the truth from any falsehood.
Astonishing as it seems, in over 20 years of research, it has been proven that any falsehood of any kind, be it by thought, word, deed or even a substance or object, is detectable by the body. Falsehood (the lack of truth) makes the body weaker and truth makes the body stronger. This is primarily detected in the muscles of the body and their response to what we refer to as negative or positive stimulus. The muscles of the body respond by becoming stronger in the presence of truth and the same muscles become weaker in the absence of truth. And it doesn't matter what the subject or object is. Truth has a natural and perfect energetic quality. It forms the background of reality. The Universe runs on it, so to speak. Anything that is a substitute for it is a weaker form of energy. The truth will always prevail and always has, while falsehood will eventually, always fail.
Presently, in almost any circumstance of human endeavor what we define or think of as the truth really is the surrogate of truth by agreement, not the actual truth by existence. Most of the time people agree analytically what is true or not and rarely is it based on their actual experience of what is true or not.... and the body knows the difference.
The following is excerpted with permission from Hay House, Inc., Carlsbad, California, the publisher of Power vs. Force by Dr. David R. Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D.
kinesiology: ---n. The study of muscles and their movements, esp. as applied to physical conditioning. [Greek Kinesis, movement (kinein, to move) plus -logy.]
The study of kinesiology first received scientific attention in the second half of the last century thought the work of Dr. George Goodheart, who pioneered the specialty he called applied kinesiology after finding that benign physical stimuli -- for instance, beneficial nutritional supplements -- would increase the strength of certain indicator muscles, whereas hostile stimuli would cause those muscles to suddenly weaken. The implication was that at a level far below conceptual consciousness, the body "knew" and through muscle testing was able to signal, what was good and bad for it. The classic example, cited later in this work, is a universally observed weakening of indicator muscles in the presence of a chemical sweetener; the same muscles strengthen in the presence of a healthy and natural supplement.
In the late '70s, Dr. John Diamond refined this speciality into a new discipline he called behavioral kinesiology. Dr. Diamond's startling discovery was that indicator muscles would strengthen or weaken in the presence of positive or negative emotional and intellectual stimuli, as well as physical stimuli.(2) A smile will make you test strong, while the statement, "I hate you" will make you test weak.
Before we go any further, let us explain in detail exactly how one "tests", especially as readers will certainly wish to try this themselves. Here is Dr. Diamond's outline, from his 1979 book, Your Body Doesn't Lie,(3) of the procedure adapted by him from the classic description in H. O. Kendall's Muscles: Testing and Function (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 2nd ed., 1971)
It takes two people to perform a kinesiological test. Choose a friend or a family member for testing. We'll call him or her your subject.
Assuming there is no physical problem with the muscle and the subject is in a normal, relaxed state of mind, receiving no extraneous stimuli (for this reason it's important that the tester not smile or otherwise interact with the subject), the muscle will "test strong" -- the arm will remain locked. If the test is repeated in the presence of a negative stimulus (for instance, artificial sweetener), "although you are push8ing down no harder than before, the muscle will not be able to resist the pressure and the subject's arm will fall to his side. "(4)
A striking aspect of Diamond's research was the uniformity of response among his subjects. Diamond's results were predictable, repeatable, and universal. This was so even where no rational link existed between stimulus and response. For totally undetermined reasons, certain abstract symbols caused all subjects to test weak; others the opposite.
Some results were perplexing: Certain pictures, with no overtly positive or negative content would cause all subjects to test weak, whole other "neutral" pictures caused all subjects to test strong. And some results were food for considerable surmise: Whereas virtually all classical music and most pop music (including "classic" rock and roll) caused a universally strong response, the "hard" or "metal" rock that first gained acceptance in the late '70s produces a universally weak response.
There was one other phenomenon that Diamond noted in passing, although he devoted no deeper analysis to its extraordinary implications. Subjects listening to tapes of known deceits -- even though the speakers seemed to be telling the truth and sounded convincing -- tested weak. While listening to recordings of demonstrable, true statements, they universally tested strong.(5) This was the starting point of the work of the author of this volume, the well known psychiatrist and physician, David R. Hawkins. In 1975, Dr. Hawkins began research on the kinesiological response to truth and falsehood.
It had been established that test subjects didn't need any conscious acquaintance with the substance (or issue) being tested. In double-blind studies -- and in mass demonstrations involving entire lecture audiences -- subjects universally tested weak in response to unmarked envelopes containing artificial sweetener, and strong to identical placebo envelopes. The same naive response appeared in testing intellectual values.
What seemed to be at work is a form of communal consciousness, spiritus mundi, or as Hawkins calls it, following Jung, a "database of consciousness." The phenomenon seen so commonly in other social animals -- whereby a fish swimming at one edge of a school will turn instantaneously when its fellows a quarter mile away flee a predator -- also pertains in some subconscious way to our species. There are simply too many documented instances of individuals having intimate acquaintance with information experienced firsthand by remote strangers for us to deny that there are forms of shared knowledge other than those achieved by rational consciousness. Or perhaps, more simply, the same spark of inner subrational wisdom that can discriminate healthy from unhealthy can discriminate true from false.
One highly suggestive element of this phenomenon is the binary nature of the response. Hawkins found that questions must be phrased so that the answer is very clearly yes or no, like a nerve synapse that's on or off; like the most basic cellular forms of "knowledge"; like so much of what our cutting-edge physicists tell us in the essential nature of universal energy. It the human brain, at some primal level, a wondrous computer linked with a universal energy field that knows far more than it knows it knows?
Be that as it may. As Dr. Hawkin's research continued, his most fertile discovery was a means of calibrating a scale of relative truth by which intellectual positions, statements, or ideologies could be rated on a range of 1 to 1,000. One can ask, "This item (book, philosophy, teacher) calibrates at 200 (yes/no?): at 250 (yes/no?)," and so on, until the point of common weak response determines the calibration. The enormous implication of these calibrations was that for the first time in human history, ideological validity could be appraised as an innate quality in any subject.
Through 20 years of similar calibrations, Hawkins was able to analyze the full spectrum of the levels of human consciousness, developing a fascinating map of the geography of man's experience. This "anatomy of consciousness" produces a profile of the entire human condition, allowing a comprehensive analysis of the emotional and spiritual development of individuals, societies, and the race in general. So profound and far-reaching a view provides not only a new understanding of man's journey in the universe, but also a guide to all of us as to where we and our neighbors are on the ladder of spiritual enlightenment, and on our own personal journeys to become who we could be.
In this volume, Dr. Hawkins brings these fruits of decades of research and insight into the penetrating illumination of revolutionary discoveries in advanced particle physics and nonlinear dynamics. For the first time in our Western intellectual record, he shows that the cold light of science is confirming what mystics and saints have always said about the self, God, and the very nature of reality. This vision of being, essence, and divinity presents a picture of man's relation to the universe that is unique in its capacity to satisfy both soul and reason. There is a rich intellectual and spiritual harvest here.... much that you can take, and much more than you can give yourself.
Turn the page. The future starts now.
E. Whalen, Editor, Bard Press, Arizona, 1995.