Discussions about Afterlife Research, Survival Science, Near Death Experiences, Out of Body Experiences, Spirit Communication, Mediumship, Ghosts, Spirits, etc.
4 posts • Page 1 of 1
Sooooo, I had to follow my wife into one of those meta-physical bookstores over the weekend as she was hoping to find a new yoga book. You know the place, books laying all over the place, many of them used and laying on top of each other instead of side by side. The place that will have a whole shelf devoted to the Lost City of Atlantis then the next shelf is a Louis L'amour collection. The smell of incense permeates the air. The lady behind the counter offers readings whilst the man at the computer searches high and low for a new kind of crystal healing device. Got the picture?
Anyway, I'm browsing the Cryptozoology shelves and lo and behold, there it is laying on top of a stack of Sylvia Browne books, but nothing less than the Wisdom of the Mystic Masters itself!
So, because I felt this guilt complex rush over me as I thought about passing it up and I knew Craig B was probably watching me from afar with his own psychic wisdom, I decided to buy it. It's hard to pass up a challenge, ya know.
This morning, after my first cup of coffee and second cigar, I decided to warm up the ol' toilet seat and give the book a go.
The first page--THE first page CB, it proudly announces how we use only 5% of our brain and even genius' only use 15%. Thanks to brain scans, we now know that is probably not true at all. Additionally, I didn't know it was going to cover Rosicrucianism, but it appears that it will be quite devoted to that wonderful secret society.
Because of the disappointing first 2 pages, must I continue through the whole book?
Last edited by ProfWag on 25 Oct 2011, 02:56, edited 1 time in total.
1968 I think it was. Oh, I know that's what they thought at the time, but if these mystic masters had so much wisdom, why didn't they know that? (Okay, I'm just being a skeptic-ass...) I'll continue the quest in the morning...
In the time that book was written such as a "scientific" assumption -- a theory based on how everyone compared to dear old Uncle Albert I'd think you read enough to understand that.
I do think the first printing of that book is a bit older than 68. . . I want to say 57 but I may be wrong.
4 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests