Epstein Secrets

" are all confused now, "we" will all be confused in the future. What kind of scientist would accept a proposition like that? From: > on behalf of Brad Bartholomew ‹ > Sent: 21 July 2016 03:11:04 To: Subject: Re: SV: [Sadhu Sanga] Consciousness Dear Soren & Witt I think most scientists would agree with the pr

8 AM, Deepak Chopra < > wrote: The inner self which is pure consciousness has no form . Having no form it is beyond birth and death ( non local ) Upanishads ( Gita )" Water cannot wet it , fire cannot burn it , weapons cannot shatter it . It is ancient unborn and deathless " That which has form is in ti

we" are all confused now, "we" will all be confused in the future. What kind of scientist would accept a proposition like that? From on behalf of Brad Bartholomew ‹ > Sent: 21 July 2016 03:11:04 To: Subject: Re: SV: [Sadhu Sanga] Consciousness Dear Soren & Witt I think most scientists would agree with the pr

8 AM, Deepak Chopra < > wrote: The inner self which is pure consciousness has no form . Having no form it is beyond birth and death ( non local ) Upanishads ( Gita )" Water cannot wet it , fire cannot burn it , weapons cannot shatter it . It is ancient unborn and deathless " That which has form is in ti

e" are all confused now, "we" will all be confused in the future. What kind of scientist would accept a proposition like that? From: on behalf of Brad Bartholomew ‹ > Sent: 21July 2016 03:11:04 To Subject: Re: SV: [Sadhu Sanga] Consciousness Dear Soren & Witt I think most scientists would agree with the prop

8 AM, Deepak Chopra < > wrote: The inner self which is pure consciousness has no form . Having no form it is beyond birth and death ( non local ) Upanishads ( Gita )" Water cannot wet it , fire cannot burn it , weapons cannot shatter it . It is ancient unborn and deathless " That which has form is in ti