5 thoughts on “The Science of Mind

  1. While the nature of this book is pretty plausible the way it is written is horrible. The whole idea of this philosophy is that we are a spark of the divine possessing all the qualities of the Creator. Through the power of absolute certinaty we can accomplish anything.

    The draw is that Mr. Holmes writes in an obscure way that doesn’t make sense. He uses terms from our modern language and assigns new meanings to them, i.e. self-conscious suddnely means you’re aware of yourself or something along those lines. Secondly the author’s style of writing uses many big words to define something as if making it sound like a science text book. The intention was good but the way he tries to convey his message is surrounded by too much funfare and fireworks that are frankly, unnecessary.

    And besides that point this book is a little too fluffy bunny and not realistic enough for me. Try any of the writings by the Kabbalah Centre.
    Rating: 2 / 5

  2. Because the book is standard paper size, I find it difficult to read. I prefer a narrower page because it’s easier for my eyes to take in an entire line.
    Rating: 1 / 5

  3. While reading “Science of Mind” I could never get past the feeling that the author was creating a product that he thought he could market rather than a work of spirituality that came from his heart and deepest experience. There is nothing original here. If you have read any of the New Thought texts written in the 50 years prior to the publishing of this volume, you will recognize all of the usual themes. This is a “lite” version of Christian Science without the dogmatism or the controlling “Mother Church” breathing down your neck to make sure you don’t dare think for yourself. Worse, it isn’t very moving as Holmes was no more than a merely competent writer. The prose here never rises above the “Reader’s Digest” school of writing. When the author of a “spiritual” book borrows every one of his ideas from elsewhere (without any credit, I might add – Hmm, I wonder what Science of Mind says about stealing?) and then presents them in a flat prose style that adds nothing to them, I suspect that his motives have more to do with business than with enlightenment. This book will seem like news if you have never read any New Thought literature before. To the rest of us, it is simply a rehash.
    Rating: 2 / 5

  4. Regarding Meditations for Self-Help “The Things that Are”.

    It reads: The things that are, were and everymore shall be,
    Time, chance and change begone from my thought!
    The Changeless is here to stay, and the Timeless
    cannot cease from Being,
    The Things that are shall remain, though heaven and
    earth should pass away.
    I rest secure and safe within the Life of Endless
    Perfection and Completion.
    My whole Being responds to the Realization of the
    Complete Whole. I am that which Is.
    After I read this mediation I couldn’t help but feel that Ernest himself was dupped by the muse who works for negative Substance. The terms heaven and earth have many hidden representations and/or implications. If I were a proponent for Science of Mind I would definitely be concerned after reading that meditation. Please accept my sincerely universe friendly version of The Things that Are.
    The Things that were and are evermore do improve.
    Time, chance and change obey my rule!
    The Changeless is here to express and the Timeless
    cannot cease from changing.
    The things that are become better through divine
    union with heaven (mind) and earth (physical body).
    I rest secure and safe within the Life of Endless
    Perfection.
    My whole Being responds to the Realization of the
    Divine union within the Whole. I am that which is.
    The book has many other areas which require editing and unless they are not accomplished the Science of Mind movement will not speak/reach today’s generation. This would be a shame since many of Ernest’s Holme’s insights are right on track regardless of however dated they are.
    Rating: 3 / 5

Leave a Reply