INTRODUCTION
Had our grandparents been
told that it would be possible to speak to friends by means of a
telephone to almost any part of the world simply by lifting a receiver,
and asking for a number, they would have laughed us to scorn. Yet today
that is an accomplished fact. What those grandparents would have thought
had they been told about modern wireless may be better imagined than
expressed. This goes to prove how ready the world is to scoff at some
new thought or fact unknown to it, whatever the generation, past,
present or future.
What now appears to be
wonderful and bordering on the miraculous, will be accepted by the next
generation as a normal event. It is only a matter of progress and
evolution. A prophet is never a hero in his own country, neither for
that matter is a pioneer, whose ideas and aspirations differ from the
established conception of things, received with any great enthusiasm by
his fellow-man.
“Speaking with the dead! How
absurd! Bunk! Eyewash! Piffle! Impossible!” These are a few of the
expressions of those who do not understand, and who have never given a
moment’s thought to such a possibility.
I confess being guilty of
this attitude before I set out to prove or to disprove the possibility
of spirit communication. As a member of the Church of England, I
believed in life eternal, but I could not visualise or grasp its meaning
to the fullest extent.
I knew that when a person
died, and was buried or cremated, that was the end of the body. What was
it that survived? And in what tangible form? That was my problem, and, I
believe, everybody’s problem. Have I succeeded in solving that problem?
Well, I will leave it to you to judge from the experiences I have had in
psychic research covering many years of intense investigation.
It may be of interest to
relate how I came to delve into the mystery of the after-life.
My wife, who has now passed
on, and I accepted a friend’s invitation to dinner. During a discussion
after dinner, Spiritualism and psychic matters were mentioned. I was
totally ignorant of these subjects and took no part in the discussion. I
was content to listen. I gathered that there were among my friend’s
guests that evening some who had attended séances—at that time I had not
the slightest notion what a séance was - and had experienced phenomena
which could not be produced by human agency. That was what we were told,
but I am afraid I held other views, although I did not express them. I
continued to listen to what was said, but I was not very impressed. In
fact, I thought it to be the leg-pull of the evening.
The views I held that evening
began to react. I started by asking myself what right had I to criticise
when I was not competent to do so. As an architect, I knew I was competent
to express an expert opinion on architecture. My training plus experience
had made me an authority, but I had to go through years of routine before
I became conversant with the profession. This applies to any other
profession.
If the High Court desires
guidance and help on a medical problem, it seeks the assistance of a
medical expert, because he would be competent to express an opinion. The
court would certainly not accept the evidence of an unqualified man. Yet,
in psychic matters, it is the unqualified individual who sets himself up
as a critic. If there is to be any criticism - and there is plenty of room
for it - let it come from those who have a wide knowledge of psychic
matters.
I talked the matter over with
my wife, and we decided to investigate the truth of psychic manifestations
for ourselves.
We heard that many people
started experimenting with a table, and we decided to follow their
example. We did not go to any Spiritualist church, nor did we read any
books on the subject. We thought it would be better to be free from these
influences.
We proceeded in a simple way.
Unless business prevented it, we ‘sat for our inquiry twice a week for an
hour. We took up our positions at the table, sitting opposite each other.
Sometimes we sat in complete darkness and other times in subdued light. We
found complete darkness best because our thoughts were not distracted by
objects in the room. We always opened our sitting with a hymn, followed by
a prayer and second hymn. The rest of the period was spent in silence.
I do not want to discourage
earnest and sincere investigators when I say that my wife and myself sat
over a period of nearly twelve years before we got even a rap on the
table. Just remember the best things of life are the hardest to get and,
to enjoy them to their fullest, one has to work very hard. |
