Our Magical World – Part Two

How we mould our world

The fact that the oak tree emerges upon examination to have a mental and subjective source rather than an outward and objective nature, does not in any way alter its apparent reality. It continues to stand proudly before us, and to appear as something distinctly separate from ourselves.

Yet this apparent independent reality is illusory, for what our detailed investigation into the nature of matter has revealed, is that the tree is intrinsically part of ourselves, and is responsive to our every thought and deed.

The universe, of which our oak tree is a part, is a construct of the mind. Being mind-made, it can always be remade.

This priceless jewel of understanding is the culmination of our search into the meaning of manifested form. It is this discovery of the inherent plasticity of our world which allows us to mould it according to our birthright of creative freedom. Yet we remain plagued with doubt.

The idea that the mind can somehow come to influence the objective world that we see and sense around us, seems in complete conflict with our sensory perceptions. For, as one questioner challenged Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj:

QUESTION: “How can the mind be a part of nature?

MAHARAJ: Because nature is in the mind; without the mind where is nature?

QUESTION: If nature is in the mind and the mind is my own, I should be able to control nature, which is not the case. Forces beyond my control determine my behaviour.

MAHARAJ: Develop the witness attitude and you will find in your own experience that detachment brings control. The state of witnessing is full of power, there is nothing passive about it.” 5

Not only are the twin worlds of mind and matter intrinsically linked together, but the world of matter always derives its nature and character from the underlying cast of mind. It is the mind which both creates form and then determines the relationships which bind these forms together.

The world is not created according to some divinely ordained set of rules. The entire universe manifests according to that structure of belief which we ourselves impose upon it, and each one of us is free to change that structure as and when we wish.

Every object that exists within time and space can be linked together in any way we choose. That is the message of the mystics.

“The relation between space and objects and between time and events is according to your estimate of them; there is no intrinsic relationship between them.” 6

“Whatever propositions are made of logic are no (true) propositions, for they stand in no intrinsic relation to my inner light.” 7

Our experiences in life are invariably determined by those patterns of belief which characterise our particular description of the world. We have seen how, in the western world, our experiences are dominated by the scientific description of the universe. Although this scientific overlay of thought normally defines the character of our experiences in the world, we are not bound by this scientific code of thought.

If we choose to vary our description of the world, we will find that our experiences will vary in unison with this new description. If we choose to define the world in a way that is in conflict with the scientific description of the world, we will find that our experiences will equally be in conflict with scientific opinion. We will then discover that we are able to do what science deems impossible.

Evidence of the truth of this assertion surrounds us on every side. Yet we hardly dare to look at it for fear that it should undermine our carefully reasoned state of mind. Perhaps nowhere has this subtle marriage of mind and matter been demonstrated more dramatically in recent years than in the strange saga of “radionics”.

In the early years of the twentieth century, at a time when the Italian physicist Guglielmo Marconi was experimenting with the transmission of long-wave radio signals, a young Californian physician named Albert Abrams made a strange discovery. While he was examining a patient who was suffering from a cancerous growth on his lip, Dr. Abrams found that a particular area of the patient’s abdomen produced a dull sound when struck by his fingers.

What made this discovery even more mysterious was that this dull sound was only detectable when the patient was facing west. Because of the limited direction in which this anomaly occurred, Abrams speculated that he was dealing with an unusual electrical phenomenon, perhaps linked in some way with the earth’s magnetic field.

Intrigued by this curious effect, Abrams conducted numerous tests with other patients who were suffering from other forms of disease. He found that each type of disease was characterised by a similar dull percussive response on a specific part of the abdomen. These results led Abrams to develop an unusual theory about the nature of disease.

Since all matter was then known to be composed of energy, Abrams suggested that all bodily tissue gave off certain “radiations” of a frequency which was specific to the organ concerned, and that these radiations could be monitored by the use of suitable electrical equipment.

To this end Abrams designed a special apparatus which he called an “oscilloclast”, a type of variable electrical resistance-box that he developed in conjunction with a leading expert in radio waves. By varying the resistance of this instrument, Abrams claimed to be able to assign a value in ohms to the emanations given off by various organs, and so identify the radiations associated with each organ.

In this way he developed a catalogue of frequency radiations emanating from all parts of the human body. In experimenting with patients suffering from different diseases, Abrams found that diseased tissue also gave off these subtle radiations, but did so at vibratory rates which differed from those of healthy tissue.

Abrams therefore advanced a novel theory of the treatment of disease. He claimed that diseased tissue could be cured by subjecting it to healing vibrations which were precisely attuned to those radiations which he had found to be compatible with those of healthy tissue. By simply calibrating his oscilloclast to the correct rate of vibration, Abrams claimed to be able to heal diseased tissue.

Treatment involved attaching an electrode to the affected area of the patient’s body, and then applying current to the oscilloscope at the required vibratory rate. In the diagnosis of disease, Abrams later found that it was not even necessary to obtain a sample of diseased tissue, as a single drop of the patient’s blood would do as well.

Although Dr. Abrams was able to support his claims with documented evidence of successful cures, his novel theory of disease incurred the wrath of the medical profession. The formidable voice of the American Medical Association condemned radionics as “based on voodoo” and pronounced it “claptrap invented by quacks for the desperate and the gullible”. 8

Far from eradicating these unusual practices, however, this fusillade of criticism served only to publicise and promote them. One of those who took up the torch of radionics was a young man by the name of Curtis Upton. Although Abrams had confined his practice to the treatment of disease in people, it occurred to Upton that these discoveries might also be used in the treatment of diseases in plants and crops.

With the help of an electronic engineer, Upton designed his own version of an oscilloclast by substituting a radio frequency transmitter. And instead of using the vibratory rates in ohms which Abrams had devised, Upton used samples of certain chemicals and other “reagents”, which he found by trial and error.

Instead of a drop of blood which Abrams had used for diagnostic purposes, Upton took a leaf from the diseased plant and sprinkled on it a quantity of the appropriate chemical or reagent. Although the treated leaf might be many miles away from the diseased plant, Upton found that he was able to cure at a distance by means of his radio transmitter.

Upton found, in fact, that he could use his apparatus in two different ways. He could either stimulate the growth of a plant, in which case he would put a leaf on the input plate of his machine, and switch on the transmitter which had been set to a prescribed frequency that promoted growth. He could also use his machine to remove infestations of beetles or unwanted insects by treating a leaf of the affected plant or crop with an appropriate pattern of radio waves.

Upton found that after these treatments the insects had either been killed or else had moved away from the affected area. He then went on to make an extraordinary discovery. Instead of having to rely on actual leaves from diseased or pest-ridden crops, he found that he was able to treat a large area of crops simply by taking an aerial photograph.

What he did was to mark out a designated area in a field with white sheets. When photographed from the air these white sheets would appear on the photographic negative as black areas. Upton then cut away and burned all parts of the photographic negative which did not need to be treated.

After radionic treatment, he found that only that area marked by white sheets had benefitted. Everything outside this area remained unchanged. So confident was Upton of obtaining beneficial results, that he made it his practice not to charge for his services unless he was successful.

Another person who successfully carried on the ideas of Albert Abrams was Thomas Hieronymus. Hieronymus also adapted Abrams’ oscilloclast to his own ideas, this time utilising vacuum tubes for amplification and condensers for tuning. He applied for a patent for his unusual machine and was granted one by the United States Patent Office in 1949.

In his application for this patent, Hieronymus noted that it was based on the manipulation of energy radiated by known elements of matter. Although he was unable to say precisely what these radiations were, he thought that they were probably of an electrical nature. In 1956, Hieronymus presented a copy of his patent to John Campbell, who was a trained scientist, and editor at that time of Analog magazine.

At the suggestion of his friend Arthur Young, Campbell made a simplified model of the apparatus designed by Hieronymus. But instead of incorporating vacuum tubes and condensers, he merely drew a circuit diagram of the patented machine, with printed symbols in place of the component parts. To his utter amazement, Campbell found that this symbolic design achieved similar practical results to that of the actual apparatus used by Hieronymus!

It is hardly surprising that conventionally trained scientists and physicians found the extravagant claims of radionics impossible to swallow. Not only did they contravene the accepted understanding of physical science, but they also contradicted existing theories of medicine as well. To top it all, they flatly confounded all common sense.

While Abrams claimed to be able to intercept electrical “radiations” given off by human tissue on his oscilloclast, physicists could detect no trace of these radiations on their own sophisticated electrical equipment. Accepted physical theory did not even provide for the existence of such radiations.

Besides, the oscilloclast which Abrams had concocted was a rudimentary piece of electrical equipment which seemed hopelessly inadequate to achieve the type of results which he claimed to have obtained.

The idea that diseased tissue could be cured by means of radio waves was ridiculous enough, but that the diagnosis of such diseased tissue could be made from a single drop of blood seemed patently absurd. The ludicrous nature of the entire rationale of radionics was further compounded when Upton claimed to be able to cure plant diseases and destroy insect pests at a distance by the use of radio waves.

Credibility was strained even more when he claimed that he could eradicate these pests by simply treating an aerial photograph of the plants in question. There seemed little doubt that the entire subject belonged to the nether world of mumbo-jumbo when John Campbell announced to the world that he was able to achieve radionic healing by using a symbolic drawing of Hieronymus’ patented machine.

Because the need for a physical machine in obtaining these cures was seen to be unnecessary, the ideas on which these machines were based now seemed to be effectively demolished.

Yet there was one fact which no amount of medical or scientific contumely could deny, and that was that these methods worked. All of these people were able to achieve genuine results, in spite of their illogical theory and their hopelessly inadequate machines.

It was only much later that investigators into the claims of radionics began to recognise that a subtle interaction was taking place between the minds of the operators concerned and the physical effects associated with them.

This suggested that the weird contraptions invented by various practitioners were in fact incidental to their claims, and that since what was most likely occurring was a direct interaction between mind and matter, the machines themselves were ultimately not needed.

For this reason, the way in which these interactions came to be rationalised and explained was equally irrelevant. As Edward Russell has pointed out:

“Young, therefore, was probably the first to realize – and Campbell the first to demonstrate – that mind and pattern are the key to radionics, and that the type of instrument used is of secondary importance because the instrument only serves to focus the thoughts of the operator”. 10

This secondary importance of the role of the equipment involved has also been emphasised by researcher James Beal:

“The machines perform no understood function by themselves, based on our present understanding in physics. They appear to have been developed over the years by their inventors in a deductive fashion and definite relationships seem to exist between shape, materials used, texture, arrangement of components, and size of components. Persons using this equipment appear to act as receivers of information on the subconscious level.” 11

Just how effective each practitioner was clearly depended upon the calibre of their minds. Those who doubted the entire theory found that they could get no results at all, while those who had some facility in this field found that they could achieve modest results, albeit with the aid of a machine.

Finally, there were certain exceptional people found that they could not only get positive results, but that they could even dispense with the need for any form of machine altogether.

To the intuitive investigator, it seemed evident that the mind was capable of influencing matter in ways which defied the accepted laws of science. The fact that it did so, however, did not so much deny the validity of these laws, as to suggest that they were actually mind-made, and that having been made by mind, they could be re-made whenever conditions were appropriate.

Another example of the power of the mind to influence matter was exhibited by two Americans who claimed to have invented what they called “free-energy machines”. Unfortunately, John Keely and Edwin Babbitt took their secrets with them to the grave. However, another American was sufficiently intrigued by their claims to conduct experiments of his own. His name was Henry Moray.

In his youth Moray was inspired by the work of the extraordinary American-Croatian genius Nikola Tesla, and especially by his claims of energy sources that were infinitely greater than those that had already been discovered. After completing his schooling at Salt Lake City, Utah, Moray pursued his interest in electrical engineering and obtained his doctorate from the University of Uppsala in Sweden.

Soon after his return to the United States he succeeded in designing a “free energy” device that was capable of generating considerable amounts of electrical energy. One prototype, which weighed just sixty pounds (27 kilograms), was able to produce 50,000 watts of energy.

Because his device incorporated the use of a cold cathode tube, which was known to be incapable of generating electricity, it was immediately dismissed by other scientists as fraudulent. Moray was denied a patent by the U.S. Patent Office because he was unable to identify the source of energy utilised by his machine.

Although Moray successfully demonstrated his device before numerous other scientists and engineers, and on one occasion even took his equipment several miles into the country so that he could not be accused of surreptitiously using a hidden source of energy, Moray’s invention continued to be ignored by science. When he died in 1974, his dreams of tapping a vast reservoir of unknown energy for the benefit of humanity had proved a dismal failure.

The tragedy of Henry Moray was that there was no room to accommodate him at the inn of modern science. His ideas remained outcast, since they were unable to be incorporated within the dominant scientific paradigm of his times. Fortunately for humanity, Moray’s ideas have continued to survive via his book “The Sea of Energy in which Earth Floats”, awaiting the day when science is finally ready to embrace a new view of reality.

It is not difficult to see the parallels here between the responses of the medical fraternity to the claims of radionics, and the reaction of the scientific community to the free energy devices created by Keely, Babbitt and Moray. In both cases, startling new ideas were advanced which were completely at odds with the accepted paradigm of science.

The fact that these pioneers could point to successful practical results did not prevent them from being cast out as heretics for having had the temerity to challenge the accepted scientific way of thinking.

The problem which confronted Moray, just as it did Albert Abrams and others before him, was that they were unable to incorporate their theories into the established paradigm of their peers. Yet all these men were profoundly scientific in their methodology and embarked upon an empirical search for substantiation of their hypotheses according to the established protocols of science.

That they were condemned was not because they were poor scientists, but because their results conflicted with what accepted thinking had decreed. The fundamental difficulty which confronted such inventive men as Moray, Abrams and Hieronymus, was that they were unable to explain why they had obtained their results.

Based on their intuition, each had proceeded in a certain way and had achieved certain practical results. In order to gain the acceptance of their peers, however, it was necessary for them to explain how their results had been obtained. Since these fell outside of the existing paradigm of thought, this was a task which clearly lay beyond them.

The true explanation of such enigmatic phenomena as radionics and free-energy machines rests with the insights of the mystics. Since, they avow, the universe is not some vast objective reality that exists outside of ourselves, but is a subjective creation in consciousness, there can be no a priori rules which govern the functioning of the universe.

What we find therefore is what we seek. And what we seek is determined by what we believe. Where thought is sufficiently strong it inevitably comes to imprint itself on physical reality. How it does so does not require adherence to some consistent set of rules, for each obtains results according to their predetermined beliefs.

Abrams obtained radiations from human tissue because he believed it was possible to do so. Scientists and conventional medical practitioners find no evidence of these radiations because they have been taught to believe they do not exist. Yet if they could only be persuaded to change their way of thinking, they would undoubtedly find evidence to support them.

The world is full of examples of people who do things that defy conventional scientific thinking. The fact that they do so is not only a tribute to their faith, but also proof that the universe is not bound by scientific law, as will be seen in the following instalment. 

Continued in Part Three 

References: 

5 “I Am That”, Conversations with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, translated by Maurice Frydman, Book I, Chetana, Bombay, 1973, p. 214.

6 “Tripura Rahasya”, translated by Swami Saraswathi, Sri Ramanasramam, Tiruvannamalai, 1962, p. 103.

7 Yoka Daishi, “Song of Enlightenment”, Verse 33, Quoted in “Manual of Zen Buddhism”, by D.T. Suzuki, Rider, London, 1983, p. 97.

8 Joseph Goodavage, “The Incredible Hieronymus Machine”, in “Future Science” edited by John White and Stanley, Krippner, Anchor, New York, 1977, p. 390.

9 Edward Russell, “Radionics – Science of the Future”, in “Future Science”, op.cit., pp. 366-385.

10 Ibid., p. 371.

11 James Beals, “Fields within Fields”, quoted in “Future Science”, op.cit., p. 340.

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 21st, 2019 at 2:08 pm and is filed under Our Magical World. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments and pings are closed.