Loc (Level of consciousness) measurement through muscle testing.

[Mulky]

How do you all feel about this?  this originally came from David Hawkins, who strikes me as a trustworthy, honest, and knowledgeable guy, still I am not completely a believer of this.  Basically he could test the loc of anyone using muscle testing(trying to push someones arm down etc, and the degree of strength in the body in reaction to the truth of the statement.)  Supposedly it can be used to test the truth of any statement, even if the physical participants in the experiment don't themselves consciously know the answer.  It most popular use has been to test the level of consciousness of anything from music to ideologies to individual humans.  There are people who have tested various gurus both alive and dead to see who had attained the highest state of consciousness.  Just curious if anyone has any thoughts on this or if they can do this themselves.

[Aakash]

@Mulky it’s abit of a stupid idea and highly inaccurate form of measurement with so many flaws. 

However, it’s possible that when you truth a statement that you don’t find truthful your body becomes heavy. I myself have noticed this and when you are grounded in non-duality. Your body is light. This is because of identification. 

Meaning a true statement which is false to you (relatively remember) makes your body heavy. A false statement which is actually true makes your body heavy. A false statement that is false makes your body light and a true statement that is true makes your body light. 

The body is nothing more than a vehicle for non-physical dimensions of reality. Reality is intertwined the reason this article statement is therefore true is because your beliefs which are misbelieved to be inside of your brain are not actually. Therefore your body is not reacting in chemical reaction based time line sequencing. I.e there is no delay. The responses are immediate. Meaning all it takes ever to measure LOC as a scientist is very accurate technology and psychological ego modelling theory, with mysticism. 

In other words to conclude:  from a subjective ego POV - it sounds stupid

from an objective non ego POV - it’s plausible and probably true. Any science to do with mysticism is ultimately true, because mysticism creates it itself. It’s not material based science. It’s possibility based science 

Edited August 1, 2019 by Aakash

[Leo Gura]

I would be very suspicious of it.

The potential for self-deception with that technique is enormous. Stick to direct consciousness and healthy doses of admitting: I don't know.

[tedens]

Hopkins denied the existence of God.

[Bodigger]

It can be accurate.  However, personal feelings, beliefs, and emotion throw off results.  Very interesting thing to study.  A friend and I would do this as he would put something in my hand as my eyes were closed.  This is so I would not have an opinion about the subject.  Then he would ask if this was good for me.  We found it to be surprisingly accurate.  Coincidental maybe....fun and interesting, yes.