History is full of instances going to show that man, in the subjective condition, is always safe from harm by wild animals. The subjective powers of primitive man were undoubtedly far superior to any now possessed by any one save, perhaps, the East Indian adepts. Before the development of objective means of communication in the form of speech, his ideas were conveyed to his fellows by telepathy. And just in proportion to the development of objective means of communication did he cease to employ, and finally lose, his primitive methods and powers. God gave him dominion over the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air. In his primitive condition he was destitute of effective weapons of offence or defence, such as have been evolved during the long ages of a later civilization. He was surrounded by a monstrous fauna, capable of annihilating the present race of civilized mankind, could it be suddenly resurrected and turned loose in its old numbers and haunts. In what consisted the power of primitive man to assert and maintain his God-given dominion over the monsters of his day and generation? It must have been the same power which is now exceptionally exercised by the artificial displacement of the threshold of consciousness, thus developing in a small degree his long dormant subjective powers. His dominion was then a true one, all-potent, and far more perfect and effective than it is to-day, with all the appliances of civilization at his command.
Facts of record are not wanting to sustain the proposition that man in a subjective, or partially subjective, condition is safe from the attacks of wild beasts. One of the first recorded instances, and the one most familiar, is the story of Daniel. Daniel was a prophet,—a seer. At this day he would be known in some circles as a spiritual medium; in others, as a mind-reader, a clairvoyant, etc.,—-according to the conception of each individual as to the origin of his powers. In other words, he was a man possessed of great subjective powers. He was naturally and habitually in that state in which, in modern parlance, the threshold of his consciousness was displaced, and the powers of his soul were developed. In this state he was thrown into the lions' den, with the result recorded. The sceptic as to the divine authenticity of the Scriptures can readily accept this story as literally true when he recalls the experiments made in Paris a few years ago. In that city a young lady was hypnotized and placed in a den of lions. The object of the experiment is not now recalled; but the result was just the same as that recorded of the ancient prophet. She had no fear of the lions, and the lions paid not the slightest attention to her.
The adepts of India, and even the inferior priests of the Buddhistic faith, often display their power by entering the jungles, so infested by man-eating tigers that an ordinary man would not live an hour, and remain there all night, with no weapons of defence save the God-given powers of the soul.
The power of idiots, and persons afflicted with certain forms of insanity, to tame and subdue animals has often been remarked. In such persons the objective mind is either wholly or partially in abeyance, and the subjective mind is proportionally active. Their immunity from harm by animals, however ferocious, is proverbial.
Volumes might be filled with facts showing the power of the subjective mind of man over animals; but enough has been said to demonstrate the fact that the power exists, and that under certain well-defined conditions it can be exercised by any person of ordinary intelligence.
It is believed that enough has been said to show the source of the power developed by mesmeric processes, as distinguished from the results of hypnotism. It has been seen that the primary source of power is in the mesmerist, that it is developed by processes which place him in the same condition as, or in a condition cognate to, that in which the subject himself is placed, and that when these conditions exist, and just in proportion to the perfection of these conditions, can the phenomena of telepathy, clairvoyance, and all the higher phenomena of subjective activity be produced.
The difference between the effects of mesmerism on man and animals is one of degree only; and the difference of degree is determined only by their difference in intelligence. The laws are the same. When a man is mesmerized, his subjective mind may be stimulated to activity, whether his objective mind is completely in abeyance or not. If it is completely in abeyance, the subjective phenomena will be all the more pronounced and complete. But when an animal is put to sleep, little or no subjective phenomena can be exhibited, for the simple reason that he has not the power of speech, and his intelligence is otherwise limited. The same law also governs the production of hypnotic phenomena in men and animals alike. An animal can be put to sleep by hypnotic processes; but he cannot be made to exhibit subjective phenomena during that sleep, owing solely to the limitations of his intelligence. He is not capable of receiving and understanding a suggestion. Besides, in hypnotism, as has been shown, there is no telepathic rapport existing between the operator and the subject. Consequently the phenomena which may be exhibited through or by means of mesmeric processes, which grow out of telepathic rapport, cannot be exhibited in hypnotism.
It may be thought that the laws governing the production of mesmeric phenomena show that the law of suggestion is, after all, limited in its scope and application. This is not true, except in the sense that suggestion, as has already been shown, is not a necessary element in the induction of the hypnotic state. The proposition that the subjective mind is constantly amenable to control by suggestion is not affected in the slightest degree by mesmeric phenomena. On the contrary, they distinctly prove the universality of that law. Suggestion is not necessarily limited to oral communication. Nor is it necessarily a communication which can be taken cognizance of by means of any of the objective senses. Telepathic communication is just as much a suggestion to the subjective mind as is oral speech. Indeed, telepathic suggestion is often far more effective than objective language, as will be clearly shown in a future chapter on the subject of psycho-therapeutics. Hence the power to mesmerize at a distance. In such cases, however, it seems to be necessary that the operator and subject should be by some means brought into telepathic rapport. When that has been done, especially when the rapport has been established by the subject having been previously mesmerized by the same operator, it is perfectly easy to mesmerize at a distance. In such a case no previous arrangement is necessary. The suggestion is then purely mental. But it is suggestion, nevertheless, and demonstrates the universality of the law. Numerous instances of the exercise of this power by purely telepathic methods are cited in the able work on Hypnotism by Professor Björnstrom, to which the reader is referred for particulars.
One further remark should be made regarding the power to mesmerize at a distance, and that is, that it depends solely upon the faith and confidence of the operator. Distance, or space, as it is cognized by our objective senses, does not appear to exist for the subjective mind. There is, therefore, nothing in distance, per se, to prevent the full effects of mesmeric power from being felt at the antipodes just as plainly and effectively as it is in the same room. We are, however, so in the habit of regarding distance as an adverse element that it is difficult to overcome the adverse suggestion that it conveys. When this principle is once understood and fully realized, there will be nothing to prevent an operator from exercising his power at any distance he may desire.