REAL PERSONALITY OR TRANSCENDENTAL EGO. 101 



but motion^ and that is but the product of these two limitations or 

 modes under which our Senses act, the very basis of motion being 

 the time that an object takes to go over a certain space. Now with 

 regard to the second question concerning my physical experiments, 

 if my contention is true that the whole of the phenomena of Nature 

 must be looked upon as the manifestation of the Divine Noumenon, 

 it follows that Matter is as Divine as the Spiritual but not as real, 

 it is His shadow, or the outline of His A^ery image, thrown on the 

 material plane of our Sensations, and the principle of sympathetic 

 action, upon which the whole power to influence depends throughout 

 the Universe, becomes surely the best symbol we can use for under- 

 standing the efficacy of Prayer and the connection between our 

 Transcendental Self and the All-loving. Eealize that the Trans- 

 cendental Ego is a Spirit and therefore akin to the Great Spirit not 

 only in essence but in " loving and knowing communion," then look 

 at my last experiment where we saw two material bodies (remember 

 they are shadow manifestations of the Eeality) which could influence 

 each other from the fact that they were akin not only in substance, 

 but in perfect sympathetic communion. If now we are watching the 

 shadows of two human beings thrown upon a wall and see those 

 shadows shaking hands and embracing each other, are we not 

 justified in concluding that those images give us a true explanation 

 of what is really taking place 1 and is that not exactly w^hat I have 

 done ; have I not shown, as I proposed to do on p. 146, that it is 

 possible by examining the phenomena of Nature (the shadows of the 

 Eeality) to reach that point where we may even feel that we are 

 listening to, or having divulged to our consciousness, though through 

 a glass darkly, some of what may be called the very thoughts of the 

 Great Eeality 1 There are several other phenomena which I might 

 have examined, but I chose this particular aspect of the Eeality as 

 best illustrating the subject of my paper, though it was probably the 

 most difficult one to bring home to so critical an audience as we have 

 at these meetings. 



The next two speakers must evidently be classed with those to 

 whom the very word " evolution " is still as a red rag to a bull, and 

 I can only recommend them to study the subject more perfectly and 

 especially the latest light thrown upon it by discoveries in Embry- 

 ology : How the Eev. Dr. Irving can have got the impression, as he 

 appears to have done, that I do not recognize " directivity " as a 



M 



