As for his "enlightenment," how should I know? He does differentiate between certain levels of enlightenment by an oddly precise method he calls "muscle testing." Chiropractors use it as such: a clear statement is said to the patient while the patient's arm is extended. After the statement (say, "Hitler was good") the doctor or tester pushes on the arm. If the arm gives easily, it means the statement is false; if the reverse, it is true. I do believe this takes practice by the tester, but I have had it done to me by a qualified chiropractor, so apparently it is an established tool. As to its use for enlightenment, people can be tested to certain "levels." I believe "enlightenment" - where one becomes aware of non-duality and sees duality as a false or extremely limited reality - begins at level "600" according to the system. For those of this world, it goes up to 1000, where Christ and Buddha were ("are" , for in their reality there is no past, present and future). Hawkins, then, would then most probably be below the Christ level (although he never stated his exact level). Still, I understand what Roeker is saying - we who were around in the 70's have seen enough of the phony-baloney gurus who ended up with a lot of women, cars, and bling. But as Hawkins said, enlightenment is never sold; it was given freely to the enlightened one and so it must be given freely to others. He reiterates this in many ways, so I think at least in this he is sincere. As for enlightenment in general, I am absolutely convinced that this also happens to people who are not founders of great religions. We have many saints in the Christian tradition who would raise to this level. Other regions and religions have there own. Some are most certainly genuine.
Quickly now (as the pages are getting long), Hawkins also explains the loss of paradise in the Garden of Eden. While the exact tree from which Eve picked the apple is confused in the Bible - it is either the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil or the tree of Truth, the latter spoken of as perhaps separate from the former - Hawkins deals only with the former. The knowledge of good and evil is of course the recognition of duality. In this way, Man separates himself from God and Heaven, as is no longer "one." But, as promised by the snake, he also becomes his own god in a way - as a separate entity in command of his own destiny. As Hawkins says, It is a steep price to pay - we get sickness, death, and, through our imagined separateness, we get the greed and envy and lust that leads to hatred, war, and crime.
But as Hawkins also says, it is impossible for us to think our way out of the trap of duality (in many ways, for obvious reasons. Who is doing the thinking but you, a separate entity?) I have written essays concerning this; for having experienced this unity (very briefly) at times, I then have to think: well, and so all is perfect and beautiful, right? But what of that girl who was raped, tortured and killed? For the enlightened, such atrocities are perhaps only sad cartoons that quickly fade, or at least that is the best that I can understand it. Obviously, we simple humans have an impossible task of rising above our reality. On this, Hawkins reiterates what Christianity says: it can only be done by Grace. As in Christianity, this grace is ever present; still, as Christians know, it is bestowed like the rain: on the just and unjust alike. And like the rain, we cannot predict exactly where is will fall and when. I do suspect, however, that an inclination towards the spiritual can aid in bringing about grace. If not, at the very least it brings one close enough to feel or sense it. FK