Unnecessary Mysticism
933704
The movie improved as it progressed but I did not like the Mysticism mixed in with the action. It seemed out of place and unnecessary.  I like Minnie Driver but this was one of her worst performances I have seen.
1148115
This is not Feel-Good Spirituality.

The author opens with, "There are many books out there that will help you live a better life, become a better person, and evolve and grow to realize your full potential as a human being.  This is not one of them."

Then he quotes Wei Wu Wei, "The essential Understanding is that in reality, nothing is.  This is so obvious that it is not perceived."

If that statement doesn't convince you that you're about to read the ravings of a madman, buy the book, because any props you have left to hold up the illusory structure of an illusory ego are about to get knocked out from under you.
162144
I love Steve Skroce's beautiful artwork, and the Wachowski bros. did great (mostly) with "The Matrix," but this seems to be nonsense that can't even make a bimonthly deadline.  I tried to buy the books for the pretty pictures, but as a Christian who thinks my religion is pretty intelligible, the Bros. go overboard.

Jesus was a boy trained by magic fairies.  The Church is an evil entity bent on destroying anything it can't control.  Sound familiar?  It's the same tired mantra - "religion is bad, religion is bad."  Probably not worth your money.
2772266
I detested this book.

That's mostly because of my Sola Scriptura. The authors write a lot about what different people thought about the spiritual life, but they apparently forgot to ask GOD what HE thinks about the spiritual life. (I hear that He wrote a Book about it; apparently, it's quite the authority.)

This book contains a lot of speculation, but if I'm reading speculative fiction, I'd prefer that it include dragons, explosions, and/or Doctor Who. To spare myself, I tried to read more quickly, but it's difficult to read when you're always eye-rolling. This book is neither Biblical enough to be reliable nor heretical enough to be interesting. I'm not really into fan fiction, and this book didn't change that.

(Of course, some of this could be consonant with the Bible. But the authors make very little effort to root these ideas in Scripture.)
4380879
This is basically a very bland secondhand reiteration of the path to Truth through Self-Enquiry as taught by some of the great spiritual Masters such as Sri Ramana Maharshi snd Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj. Don't bother with this somewhat lacklustre rendition. Purchase instead the real gems from their original source such as&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/I-Am-That/dp/0893860468/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">I Am That</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-collected-works-of-Ramana-Maharshi/dp/B0006C256O/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The collected works of Ramana Maharshi</a>&nbsp;and be prepared to be truly inspired.

And why is Mr. Puff awarding himself 5 stars on this and all his other books on Amazon.com?
2917661
The author excoriates Daniel Dennett and Carl Sagan by name, and by implication all of the New Atheists. My criticism of Richard Dawkins, to name another, is that he has blind spots about religion and is dishonest in addition to being irrational and ignorant. I give Dawkins a character quotient of zero. Jean-Paul Sartre, on the other hand, gets a character quotient of 100 because of the following quote:

"Thus the passion of man is the reverse of that of Christ, for man loses himself as man in order that God may be born. But the idea of God is contradictory and we lose ourselves in vain. Man is a useless passion." (Jean-Paul Sartre,&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Being-and-Nothingness-The-Complete-Text-Fourth-Printing/dp/B001BYRL5G/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Being and Nothingness: The Complete Text (Fourth Printing)</a>, New York: Washington Square Press, p. 784)

Sartre and Schaeffer have similar concepts of God. The "contradictory" nature of God is perfectly consistent with Thomas Aquinas's understanding that God is pure act of existence and humans have an existence that is limited by an essence. The paradox, contradiction, or mystery about God is the question of what would motivate an infinite being to create finite beings.

God has revealed to mankind through the prophetic religions of the Near East, the mystical religions of India, and the Wisdom religions of China that there is life after death.  We are not guaranteed salvation, but can hope for it with "fear and trembling." We have to decide whether this is true, not whether or not God exists. Faith is both a decision and a gift from God. Schaeffer does not believe our freedom is before God because God does not want him to believe. Schaeffer has no grounds for thinking that his metaphysical insights are what prevent him from believing that his beloved mother is in heaven.

Sartre and Schaeffer both realize that the Resurrection of Jesus was an historical event that can't be understood in terms of any other historical event. He says, "the Enlightenment was a Christian heresy." (location 1355) Schaeffer calls himself a Christian because Jesus taught that human beings should be compassionate.  Schaeffer does not see the Enlightenment as a rejection of Jesus, but rather an improvement of Jesus' message. Needless to say, he does not think that the Enlightenment caused the genocide and wars of the 19th and 20th century.

Sartre admits that life without God has no meaning, but Schaeffer thinks it does and tries to prove it by telling about his loving parents, successful careers, and happy marriage.  His only rational argument against religious faith is the insight that if God cared about our welfare, He would not cause so much suffering in the world. I'm giving Schaeffer a character quotient of 50.
2687789
Tart complains about the social put-downs that have invalidated the spiritual hopes and dreams of many, but he doesn't provide much evidence for either the existence of the paranormal or the spiritual. He complains that scientism makes life meaningless, but he doesn't think if he survies death it will be his personality that lives on, or that it will be forever. Nor does he give any indication of how survival would be a meaningful existence. He does provide many insights into his private thoughts and beliefs. He calls critics of the paranormal "irrational" and says he "never saw the point in collecting more proof-of-existence evidence that would also be irrationally ignored." This attidute keeps him from taking criticism seriously.

Some readers are going to recognize, however, that you don't undermine materialism by assuming that processes occur that can't be explained by physical means today and are unlikely to be explained by physical means tomorrow, especially when there are perfectly logical explanations for what he claims are inexplicable on materialist grounds. When one joins this assumption and the belief that skeptical critics are irrational with the rejection of any alternative explanations for the data (psychological, statistical, physical, pathological, etc.), one has created an impenetrable shield around one's beliefs.

Some readers will find it annoying that Tart repeatedly asserts that the data is primary and theorizing is secondary, while he skips over or ignores the data that is inconvenient to his theories.

He says he wrote the book for those who are conflicted about their spirituality. This book probably couldn't help too many who are conflicted about the spirit world because it is written as if there is no need to prove the existence either of the paranormal or of spirits. It is written for those who already reject materialism, accept the reality of the paranormal, and don't really care one way or the other what science has to say about either.

If you want to know more about the inner workings and private thoughts of Charles Tart, by all means read his book. Some readers might find it interesting that Tart doesn't think much about the future. If you want to read a book by someone who thinks life would be meaningless if materialism were true, then this may be the book for you. If you are looking for new evidence or insights into the old evidence for the paranormal or the spirit world, you might want to try something else.

Robert T. Carroll, Ph. D.
Author of&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-Skeptic-s-Dictionary-A-Collection-of-Strange-Beliefs-Amusing-Deceptions-and-Dangerous-Delusions/dp/0471272426/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions</a>
[..]
4483821
Thinks he is a genius about spirituality because of one experience.  Now openly into the occult in search of other supernatural experiences:  He is a Fool. Author is narrow minded and not educable.  You'd think he would have learned something from his experience.  Confuses supernatural experience with spiritual experience and falsely seeks supernatural experiences as means of spiritual growth.  Thinks he is spiritually advanced when he should know he isn't.  Arrogant and blind.
4851261
Although, I'll admit some of the "truths" that "God" (Aka Neale) puts forth are believable, I'd say they are derived from reading of historical religious texts and the writers own postulation of who or what God is. But in the end, it seems that our dear author is either delusional or deceptive.  "God" at times speaks so utterly poorly, convoluted, and confusing, it's almost insulting to the writings/sayings the great Spiritual leaders "God" affirms and praises. For example:

"In the beginning, that which Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. Yet All That Is could not know itselfbecause All That Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. And so, All That Is was not. For in the absence of something else, All That Is, is not.

This is the great Is/Not Is to which mystics have referred from the beginning of time.

Now All That Is knew it was all there wasbut this was not enough, for it could only know its utter magnificence conceptually, not experientially. Yet the experience of itself is that for which it longed, for it wanted to know what it felt like to be so magnificent. Still, this was impossible, because the very term magnificent is a relative term. All That Is could not know what it felt like to be magnificent unless that which is not showed up. In the absence of that which is not, that which IS, is not.

Do you understand this?"

Do I understand it?  Yeah, but it felt like the ultimate word problem from an Algebra class.

I understood that God couldn't reflect on him/herself as to how "Magnificent" he/she was since it was the only thing that existed, so it needed something else to compare her/himself to so she/he could gaze in the mirror and say "Wow, you're awesome!".

So, (spoiler alert), God split itself into a gazillion spirits, created time and space, and puts the spirits in newborn humans, but makes them forget they are eternal preexisting spirits from God so that they can figure it out via God's cryptic, vague messages (such as the example paragraph) and experience their divinity.  And Hitler goes to heaven since there is no hell.

I also love how "God" speaks in roughly American 90's vernacular then randomly drops in words like "beseech" and religious speak that comes straight from the bible at times.

OK, I know I sound pretty cynical.  I actually personally believe in something greater, in the divine.  But the conversations Neale puts forth just reek of self-indulgent ramblings of a puffed up spiritualist, with obvious political leanings. Not that God couldn't speak through such a person, for instance, Balaam's Ass.

I'll agree with the main thing: follow your feelings, follow your heart.  They are the best compass you have.
3253833
Another dose of Gilbert's New-Age gibberish - There is absolutely nothing "magic" about creativity - it is hard work, disciplined, and thought filled - and not all of "creativity" is "good - A crucifix in urine, for example, is simply puerile crap - creativity is, however, to be encouraged in children - it is the way they learn, but it has to be guided by facts and truth, not sentimental garbage - not every one is a writer, an artist nor can they ever be in the professional sense - Gilbert's "novel" film Eat, Pray, Love was sentimental escape lust-in-the-dust dreams for teen-aged minds - she made a fortune from it and now she just keeps plying the old tired worn-out nonsense and makes even more money spinning juvenile "Rah,Rah." However, Gilbert does encourage creativity as habit and that is a positive - in our own lives, in our own way we should encourage our creativity to create beauty, to inspire our spirituality, and to transform our thinking and attitude. Writing has been found to be a fine way to help transform our thinking -
2647300
This book has wonderful illustrations:  figures from eastern spiritual traditions that capture all the mystery and complexity of the subject.  Unfortunately, the author does not refer to these figures or incorporate their complexities into his text.  I always bristle when someone starts going on about what "We" think and feel.  This author's overuse of the "We" construction is particularly annoying because the audience he envisions is a collection of besotted sensualists.  No, Mr. McAfee, my personal relationships do not all eventually disintegrate into jealousy and possessiveness.  I am very sorry for you if yours do.  At one point, McAfee suggests that the reader go to a cocktail party and refrain from drinking, "just as an experiment" to see how stupid everyone else sounds.  Who over the age of 25 has not had this experience?  Furthermore, these admonitions strike me as awfully self-righteous.  We all have our own personal demons.
It seems quite odd that someone writing a book purporting to be about the yoga of relationships would assume, as McAfee does, that his readers have never questioned the nature of the self, or even that they do not understand that the image of the self carried in the conscious mind is an illusion.  This idea is the very heart of yoga.
There is little substance in this book.  The author's comments about meditation at the conclusion are worthwhile, but most students of yoga will already be aware of the techniques he suggests.  If you are interested in the concept of the self in yoga, I suggest "Raja-Yoga," by Swami Vivekananda.  This an astonishingly insightful series of essays written around the turn of the century followed by a very cogent commentary on the Sutras of Patanjali.
2112842
This book reminds me of a surgeon trying to operate on different parts of the body simultaneously, concentrating on the interconnections rather than on a specific operating field, in this case alchemy.

The author is good at names-dropping of Sufis and authors. However, he "forgot" to quote Imam 'Ali ibn Abi-Talib on alchemy and thus from the outset reveals a bias in favour of Shi'at Mu'awwiya, the original historic name of the party of Muawwiya, opposed to the party of 'Ali, the latter still known today as Shi'at 'Ali, the former having given itself the name "Sunni". The author further expresses this bias for example in citing the late French professor Dr. Henry Corbin without however mentioning e.g. his extensive publications of Haidar Amoli, Sadruddin Muhammad al-Shirazi and other Islamic sages who criticised and developed the work of Ibn al-'Arabi. One finds Mr Eberly's pro-Sunni leanings confirmed again at the end of this book in the definitions found in the glossary.

Like several other proponents of occidentalised neo-Sufism, Mr Eberly tends to equivocate vagueness with enlightenment, quite in contrast to renowned authors of Irfan including Ibn al-'Arabi, whose works often contain detailed cosmological and other diagrammes with clear explanations.

Mr Eberly's book is mystical in the sense of mysterious, relates several nice tales of Sufis, but alas utterly fails to fulfill its subtitle, "The Mystical Islamic Essence of the Sacred Art of Alchemy", probably a simple impossibility. Most authorities consider the hermetic Tradition and its application alchemy to be independent of any specific religiously related Tradition.

Those who are interested in the contributions of Muslims to alchemy are kindly and better advised to read "Islamic Alchemy", Chapter 5, 44 pages, of E. J. Holmyard's book "Alchemy" and Professor Henry Corbin's relevant works.
3207927
I do believe in miracles, but this book is often tedious, condescending, and preachy.  It's written as if the reader is a total idiot who would be lost without reading these stories, which simply isn't true.  I (and I am sure others) have had personal spiritual experiences and do not need validation of my beliefs from this book.  It also states the book has come into your life for a reason; the only reason it came into my life is my dad is preachy and pushy-otherwise I would never have made it past the introduction.  Am I glad the people in these stories received miracles?  Absolutely!!  Did I enjoy the book?  No.

So you know I am not totally opposed to these kinds of stories themselves, I have watched a TV shows on miracles and angels and thought many were very beautiful and uplifting.  If the style of this book had been different I think it could have been enjoyable.
4977613
Thus turns the wheel of the gods, in a round of Osho cliches. Before we had prophets of god, now we have prophets of no god, with a twist of Nietzsche lemon. It makes sense to rid religion of the dreary dogmas of theism, but the genius of Nietzsche found the devil's clue to making secularists (atheists?) poor devils. Just as the brimstone preacher warned, these shamblers are headed down hill. They should soon repent. 'God' was once a 'higher power' beyond the caudillos of buddha dictatorships like those of Osho...Without 'god' you have no appeal against the tyranny of the buddhas.
The only way is beyond theism and atheism to some understanding of why monotheism arose in antiquity, as new agers foment the lost paganism of the ancients with the occult paganism of buddha gurus in their god realm. Osho wants to play in the majors here, but his buddhafield is a mediocre field of crypto-fascism and the rehash of mindfulness techniques. It is not clear if we are free of the god conspiracy, if there was one, and we are clearly not free of the guru/buddha conspiracy of the attack on autonomy and freedom. Was the Osho figure really enlightened? we are none the wiser as yet. Man is 'hypervaded' at all points of space with an antinomial mysterious eck, god, void, or kantian chewing gum. After a boring epoch of theists we confront a boring epoch of atheists, and Osho is its prophet.
1421425
Crowley's esoteric masterpiece - 25 years in construction - is divided into four parts: 1)Mysticism, (incorporating Yoga and Meditation); 2)Magick: Elementary Theory, (outlining the symbolism of the Wand, Cup, Sword, Robe, etc., employed in Ceremonial Magick); 3)Magick in Theory & Practice, (in essence the Philosophical, Kabbalistic and Scientific basis of Magick); 4)The Law Of Thelema: being an autobiographical account of how Crowley came to receive the Book Of The Law, followed by a full transcript of the text.

This tome is revered amongst Crowley Disciples as a kind of Occult Bible - and it certainly is the practical and theoretical cornerstone of the Religion of Thelema. What quite a few of Aleister's fans do not realize, however, is that he wrote "Magick" as a reference book, or guide: an addition to one's own independent line of esoteric study. Such is clearly outlined in the introductory "Note" penned by Mary d'Este Sturges, in which she also states that A.C. "does not ask for followers". Try telling that to the veritable legions of Crowley obsessives in existence nowadays. Put simply: the complex and (alleged) incomprehensible nature of the work which has left so many seekers dumbfounded and confused is a rich and colourful, alternative universe, the intention of which is to totally absorb the consciousness of the individual and cut off the malaise of triviality and "everydayness" - thus allowing supernormal, subconscious powers to be liberated. This process also underpins the nature of ALL Occult Ceremonies and Rituals.

The rationale lying behind Aleister's execution of this work lay in his strenuous conviction that each individual human being should strive to discover their True Will. The active pursuit of this goal must take precedence over everything else, the basic idea being to "free-up" the individual and force him/her to realize that they have been - in essence - living a lie. Whatever a person's role, rank, position or status in life, there was the probability that this was a falsehood, an act, a role-play.

The dangers of Crowley's Magick as outlined in this work have been exaggerated and misinterpreted by the frightened, the righteous and the hysterical. Many self-ordained "Crowleyites" are self-evidently driven by nothing more than a completely insincere, ego-driven lust "to be a Magician". By their very pretentious, imbecilic stances and puerile posturings, these people involuntarily and unwittingly actually do Invoke powerful Forces that will painfully make them realize that they are fakes, charlatans, pretenders. In each case, the extrovert egomaniac will be faced with the unpleasant fact that his True Will has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Magick, Thelema or, indeed, Occultism of any kind. Its real nature is yet to be discovered.

"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" means "Find out precisely who you really are - not what your idealistic, ego-crafted image of yourself happens to be." This is why the charlatans are pre-destined to be self-destroyed by the very Forces they so arrogantly and erroneously align themselves with.
3454733
The subtitle leads one to think that the authors will explain why it matters that we discover our cosmic selves, but fail miserably to deliver that information. Just another 'scientific' attempt to explain physics while eliminating God, using such phrases as (p 186): Human beings might be a bright idea the universe had, or (p224): Cosmic mind is an organizer with a viewpoint; Consciousness is the driver which selects states; and :If the cosmos has a mind, it must be alive. In addition, they never attach any meaning or purpose to human consciousness, nor explain afterlife and  consciousness after death. Their presentation is smartly clever, but is empty.....it doesn't apparently matter at all that we live on Earth.
863282
Monks and mystics are never ordinary people, and everyone cannot become a monk or a mystic.  Having a PhD in psychology and being a facilitated author by the major publishing houses does not qualify one as a contemplative or in even understanding the subject.  Really spiritual people don't hawk this subject and build marketing empires on it (replete with lawyers), nor do contemplatives open their lives to intimate dissection by persons such as Ms. Sinetar....this is exploitation.  Likewise, those with advanced degees in the elite club (see her website) are not automatically qualified as spiritual directors...God never bestows His gifts on people according to title or self-proclaimed rank. What we have in this country is an elite that is increasingly insular, that exploits others (often by unconstitutional satellite surveillance), and that wants control over everything from what we eat to our spiritual lives to our political culture. If you want real spirituality, find it in the classics of the spiritual life, written before this age of Orwell, and from people who use their own spirituality.