The Law Of Psychic Phenomena - online book

Bringing a scientific basis to research of the paranormal, spiritual & psychic.

Home | About | Alternative Health | Contact

rarity of its manifestation is that it requires exceptional conditions to bring its results above the threshold of consciousness. There is every reason to believe that the souls, or subjective minds, of men can and do habitually hold communion with one another when not the remotest perception of the fact is communicated to the objective intelligence. It may be that such communion is not general among men; but it is certain that it is held between those who, from any cause, are en rapport. The facts recorded by the Society for Psychical Research demonstrate that proposition. Thus, near relatives are oftenest found to be in communion, as is shown by the comparative frequency of telepathic communications between relatives, giving warning of sickness or of death. Next in frequency are communications between intimate friends. Communications of this character between comparative strangers are apparently rare. Of course the only means we have of judging of these things is by the record of those cases in which the communications have been brought to the objective consciousness of the percipients. From these cases it seems fair to infer that the subjective minds of those who are deeply interested in one another are in habitual communion, especially when the personal interest or welfare of either agent or percipient is at stake. Be this as it may, it is certain that telepathic communication can be established at will by the conscious effort of one or both of the parties, even between strangers. The experiments of the Society above named have demonstrated this fact. It will be assumed, therefore, for the purposes of this argument that telepathic communion can be established between two subjective minds at the will of either. The fact may not be perceived by the subject, for it may not rise above the threshold of his objective consciousness. But for therapeutic purposes it is not necessary that the patient should know, objectively, that anything is being done for him. Indeed, it is often better that he should not know it, for reasons set forth in a former chapter. The second proposition is that a state of perfect passivity on the part of the percipient is the most favorable con-