So I just finished reading half of “The Game of Life and how to Play it” . . . I say half because it appears to be a pattern of the same message just around whatever topic that CHAPTER is about.
I try to read with an open mind, but there is continual reference to scriptures used out of context, apparently in support of some conformation bias Florence is trying to equate to situations and circumstances in life. While she has numerous stories to tell that all seem to be "In Favor" with her perspective regarding Life, God and Karma, she is forgetting that she has set herself up as a person in a community where she has access both in her teaching (students and their families) and as someone who is open to give advice to those in trouble.
Many of these affirmations to her way of thinking, can be directly linked to Statistics, Stress, Timing, and attitude towards life. A person who is thinking about getting sick all the time will get sick out of stress alone . . . That kind of psychological to physiological reaction is common. If a person's business is doing poorly, and you tell them to change a thing and business will pick up, you are directly affecting both attitude and drive, as well as the timing of normal ebb and flow of business . . . If you reach a person at their lowest, they can only go up from there, thereby seeming to benefit from your timely interaction.
So, what we see now with communications far more advanced than the common telephone or word of mouth (of that time), is the statistics of what used to be considered "Miracle" or "Unlikely Coiencidences". Given the actual number of people interacting, the statistical likeliness is far LESS fantastic.
She makes a reference that is contridictery regading destiny . . . "Many people, however, are in ignorance of their true
destinies and are striving for things and situations which do not belong to them, and would only bring failure and
dissatisfaction if attained." - In this, there can be no real "Freedom of Choice" . . . Does she not support "Free Will".
Her concept of Karma doesn't seem to be in cooperation with any "balance" . . . The idea of good and bad, needing a certain level of justice in it's balance seems only offered out to be linear in her concept. The idea that someone doing bad to someone else will result in receipt of bad karma itself, has no explination for that bad act possibly being bad karma returning to the other person in the first place . . . And so karma should be alomst as a snake devouring itself and growing . . An unending trade off of good and bad.
Also, the good luck charms refered to as "Graven Images" UNLESS, they are ordained by God, and God be given the credit, thus any luck generated be sort of a blessing, is a bit odd.
I found her to be someone of who is looking to solve the "Why's and "What for" of situations that present itself to be restricted to a Spiritual or "God Belief" box.