In searching for truth in the fields of thought, we often run counter to
our own prejudices, and almost unconsciously call a halt. There are some
whose self-conceit is so great that they invariably do so the moment
that any of their prejudices is in the slightest danger of a shock. But
it is rather to the seeker who has in part divested himself from this
hampering load, which he had perhaps inherited like a humor of the
blood, that I now speak.
What is to be done? How proceed in such a case? The remedy is simple.
Whenever you are dealing with abstract ideas, and find one that is
refractory, either in itself for want of further analysis, or because of
some special weakness of yours which incapacitates you from subduing
it, never give it up; if you do, you will find yourself under it like a
toad under a stone for an indefinite length of time. No, the right thing
to do is to pass at once from the abstract to the concrete, and find in
material things the counterpart of the truth under examination, and then
proceed. The effect is often wonderful.
To illustrate. Suppose you are examining the abstract idea of the
expediency of doing right. You may have some particular case in mind,
probably will have, if the decision is to count for anything in your
life. You may call to mind the famous saying, It is better to be right,
than to be president. You will recognize the principle involved in this,
but is it of universal application? you may inquire. Is there not some
way by which I can take the free-and-easy course and yet incur no
penalty? A great many people appear to be able to, why should not I?
This is the point where you need to transfer the case from the abstract
to the concrete form, and ask yourself, Suppose I were mixing chemicals
according to a certain formula to produce a certain compound, and
suppose one of the ingredients were wanting. Should I go ahead and trust
to luck, and expect to get the compound just the same as though I
followed the directions? Surely not. What would the science of chemistry
amount to if such a thing were possible? How could anything new be
discovered if the governing principles could not be depended on, or, in
other words, if like causes did not _always_ produce like effects, and
unlike causes, unlike effects?
The most intrepid explorer in the scientific field might well despair of
the prospect in such a case. But this is chemistry, and the laws of
conduct are not so rigid, you may say. That is just where you miss the
path. Until you attain to a belief in the unity pervading all things,
from the lowest to the highest, this unity differing in outward
appearance or manifestation only, and not in essential character, you
will find no peace nor rest. The laws of conduct less rigid than the
laws of chemistry? Say, rather, infinitely more so. For the higher the
plane of action, the less likelihood is there of any superior force
interposing to divert the current of events from its natural course; and
the laws of conduct, remember, pertain to the life of the soul, which
makes them higher than the laws of chemistry by two removes, for the
laws of health relating to the physical body come in between.
But the laws of conduct are not well understood, you say. That, indeed,
is true. We have only a few keys opening into this realm of the soul,
and most people are content to take public opinion as a sufficient guide
rather than to take the trouble to explore for themselves.
But it is the plane just below this, that of bodily life and death,
which we are attempting more especially to elucidate. There seems to be
no systematic teaching in regard to this that is worthy of the name of
science.
The problem of life itself, what it is as a force differing from other
forces, how to deduce from the manifestations of vitality what vitality
is, remains unsolved. And why so? For a very simple reason. Because
those who attempt the problem are unwilling or unable to conform to the
conditions which they recognize as necessary in all other departments of
scientific research. They do not study life _objectively_. They may
think they do. They may think that to study life in other men or in
animals is a truly objective method, but this is a fallacy.
The theory that life needs to be studied from an outside standpoint in
order to be comprehended, is all right, but the man who uses his own
life-force in studying that of other men or animals is not outside the
subject of his thought at all. The active currents of his own being
continually intervene to obscure the processes of thought and render his
conclusions valueless.
It may be true that no other method which can be called objective is
immediately apparent, but it does not follow that there is no other; and
if we simply enlarge our ideas of what is possible, we shall find the
true method to be just what we ought rationally to expect, and that is
this: The student who wishes to solve this problem, either for his own
satisfaction or for the enlightenment of others, must eliminate from
the problem the one disturbing element, _his personal life-force_.