by Charles Wansbrough published Prometheus Unbound Vol.1 No.2 Spring 1995

An attempt to elucidate the connections between the three principles from a perspective of causation.

"The systems which confront the intelligence remain basically unchanged through the ages, although they assume different forms: thus, through mistaking form for basis, one conceives an unfavourable opinion of sequence. There is nothing so disastrous in science as the arrogant dogmatism which despises the past and admires nothing but the present---. ( F. Hoefer, Histoire de La Chimie, Paris 1866 ).

During the past two decades, some modem scientists have begun to view their work in a relative context, rather than as a narrow speciality. At a conference held in Boulder, Colorado, in the summer of 1979, called Contrasting Perspectives on Cognition, it was realised that the difficulties being experienced by scientists in general could be summed up elegantly by the words of a biologist F. Maturana

" We biologists, must put the external world in quotations---. As we shall see later, the external world is not a reality independent of an observer. I propose to take this quote as a starting point for this article in which I wish to explore and illustrate that the Law of Similars is a universal principle which appears to underlie many ancient cultures.

To fully explore this law of correspondences, we will have to try and understand why there has been such a revolution in the science of cognition and why such a new set of beliefs is crucial in placing homeopathy at the forefront of this revolution.

The psychologist Jerome Bruner (1973), in his study of individuals, noticed that they had a tendency to perceive selectively; they had certain expectations that predetermined what they saw. He showed that we tend to see the thing we expect, but have greater difficulty perceiving the unexpected, implying that our perceptions are influenced by our expectations and not by reality. This human tendency was noted by Charles Darwin, in the Voyage of the Beagle, in which he noted that the natives were able to see their own small boats which brought them to shore but were unable to perceive the Beagle anchored in the middle of the bay, presumably because such a large ship had never entered their reality. We see what we know, and J. Bruner performed another brilliant experiment, in which people were flashed brief exposures of playing cards which they were asked to try and identify. Unbeknown to them some of the cards had colours crossed with suits e.g. a red six of clubs or a black jack of hearts. People found it impossible to see what was there, insisting, until the cards were actually put into their hands, that they were regular cards.

We make mistakes and yet feel that our own perceptions are absolutely right. This gives us insight into how our reality might be determined, yet the question becomes even more interesting when we consider the process of induction. This can be defined as the process of inferring general rules from repeated past regular instances. Why do we expect regular sequences of events to continue, and how is it that we seem to obtain evidence about the future, by extrapolating from past regularities? Such a question was posed by David Hume (British philosopher 1711-76). For example if we hit a tennis ball, we are inclined to say that the ball was propelled across the court by the racket; and if we see sequences of this order happening frequently, then we assume that the cause of the motion of the ball is directly due to the racket. But suppose the regularity were just an extended coincidence and not a causal relationship; how we would be able to see the difference. Why are we so confident that this will continue to occur and why do we treat that state as one of absolute necessity? Weather forecasts are repeated sequences but never causal certainties so what mechanism makes us distrust such sequences

Hume solved this problem; by assuming that causes were invisible, and that the mind had a propensity to impute regularity to a set of sequences. Nevertheless, this problem of perceiving regularity is ultimately tied up with stability, that is the existence of things is very much a function of their inherent stability; e.g. a car does not turn into an animal. The problematic process of induction is argued by Nelson Goodman (1973 New Riddle of Induction). He argues that we see regularity, where we have always seen it because of our own linguistic practises. We get into a car because we induce from past experiences it will not turn into an animal, and we start from the adduced premise that what our past experience has recorded is correct for future reference. Our habits of speech and our particular projections help to form the basis of the way we interact with the world. For example we expect all rubies to be red because of a previously determined set of linguistic beliefs, and therefore will not readily perceive another type of ruby. Another example, which shows how language predominates our view of reality, is the observation of a painting, which from one angle seems recognisable but at another it changes from this to smudges of colour etc.

The latter has been argued purely from a philosophical and psychological point of view. This might well remain an abstraction if it were not for advances in quantum theory and relativity that raise the fundamental question---as to what is real---. In the light of quantum theory I will continue to argue that cognition is entirely observer-dependent and that this has a bearing on my original thesis; that the Law of Similars is a universal though unrecognised principle.

At the very heart of quantum theory is the wave/particle duality of matter and its components. When unobserved, an atom behaves as a 'wave of possibility'; observation in effect 'collapses the wave function' and a particle appears. As observation of a particle seems to alter its state. what are the essential qualities of this process? Does it bear similarities to our own thought processes as suggested by a number of prominent researchers Szent-Gyorgi (1960)? Are there similarities between this wave/particle duality and our own mind/brain duality?

This essential problem has led to at least seven different interpretations of quantum reality, being upheld by major physicists. In each one of these interpretations the role of the observer is crucial, and this observation banishes once and for all, the notion of an objective reality. John Wheeler a colleague of Einstein and Bohr, succinctly summarized the situation by saying---No elementary phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon."" Wheeler then proceeds to illustrate this point with a metaphor showing clearly how communication can create reality.

Wheeler bases this analogy on a well known party game called Twenty Questions. In the usual version one participant leaves the room while the other choose a word. The returning participant then has to guess by asking questions requiring only the response "yes" or "no". In Wheeler's version there is no chosen word- each individual can answer as he pleases, except for the one requirement that the word chosen must be compatible with all that has gone before. Wheeler describes his experience, by saying "that at first the answers came quickly. Then they seemed to take longer and longer in answering. It was strange. All I wanted from my friends was a simple yes or no. Yet the one queried would think and think, yes and no, and yes before responding. Finally 1 ventured that the word might be cloud ? Yes came the reply and everyone burst out laughing and explained that there had never been a word in the room. Wheeler interprets his story thus;---What is the symbolism of the story? The world, we once believed, exists 'out there' independent of any act of observation. The electron we once considered to have at each moment a definite position and momentum. I, entering, thought the room contained a definite word. In actuality the word was developed step by step through the questions I raised, as the information about the electron is brought into being by the experience that the observer chooses to make; that is, by the kind of registering equipment that he puts into place.

So in the same way an observer has considerable power in influencing his reality, no word is promoted to a state of reality until the questions have set its parameters. In the same way quantum reality involves direct participation of an observer and has no independent reality until that state is recorded in human consciousness.

The quantum revolution has profoundly shaken the complacency of science, by challenging the very basis of its scientific theories.

In the History of Magic by E. Levi (1969) he defines magic---as the art of producing effects in the absence of causes-, and such a definition comes closer than anything to describing the strange counter-intuitive world of quantum reality. Such a preamble has been necessary to illustrate, that consciousness can not somehow be separated from reality, but is entangled within it, in such a way that it imputes a magical quality to this incomprehensible quantum description of reality.

The greatest surprise to emerge from quantum theory is quantum inseparability or non-locality which implies that all objects that have once interacted in some way are still connected! The non-local connection (quantum coherence) is instantaneous and impervious to distance.

In 1935 Einstein, Rosen and Podolsky, devised an argument in which they proposed that if quantum theory was correct---then a change in the spin of one particle in a two particle system would affect its twin simultaneously, even if the two had been widely separated in the meantime---. This was impossible as the theory of special relativity forbids the transmission of any signal faster than the speed of light. Obviously a signal would have to travel faster than light if one particle were to communicate its state to another simultaneously.

This profound paradox (known as Bell's Theorem) was confirmed (1986 A. Aspect) proving that the quantum world is truly interconnected such that; -quantum entities are 'aware' of the states of their spatially separated relatives---. Such a state of coherence validates the perennial vision of the mystic, in which man is inextricably and indivisibly united with the universe around him. As another physicist put it ---the violation of Einstein's assumptions (about no signal being able to travel faster than light) seems to imply that in some sense all these objects constitute an indivisible whole- (B. D'Espagnat). The phenomenon of both observer participation and quantum coherence may be seen as essential aspects in conceiving a role for the Law of Similars as a universal principle. Since it implies that nature and the individual reflect aspects of each other in this indivisible whole, like a shattered mirror that still reflects the same corresponding images.

Generally speaking causes and effects follow each other with a regularity, which allows us to extrapolate with certainty the relationship between the two. But the human mind tends to impute regularity into reality and therefore create a linear model that is limited by time and space. Time maintains the illusion of regularity since it gives reality a sense of direction, which enables us to perceive in a linear manner. This form of perception enables individuals to create a matrix of rational certainty based on causal regularity that creates order but limits perception to one mode of perception. It is as though our minds were programmed to a state which limits us moving beyond linear causality. Moreover since the foregoing preamble has established that reality is observer dependent this apparent linear causal connectivity may only be a limited and false picture of a much greater whole.

Quantum theory appears to indicate the existence of a state of indivisible unity and such coherence implies a state of acausal connectedness in which various aspects are related, yet in ways which are disparate and incomprehensible. To illustrate this, one might imagine a two-dimensional being who could view reality in two dimensions only, and whose vision was only limited to flat perspectives. If one were to introduce a cube into such a world, with each side being a different colour, a flatlander would see only lines of colour. As the cube was turned over, he would assume that the cause, of say, yellow, was followed by the effect of blue; being causally related in a linear fashion, but would be unable to make any assertions about the causal connection each colour had to each other. Thus his perception would be linear, reliant on a visual sequence though strictly speaking one colour was not causally related to another but part of an acausal whole.

So if our cerebral programming is restricted by certain parameters, we are unable to access or make assertions about how objects are actually connected. To quote Jung ‘if the connection between cause and effect turns out to be only relatively true then

the connection of events may require another principle of explanation". Jung dubbed this acausal principle Synchronicity; defining it as the simultaneous occurrence of two meaningful but causally unconnected events occurring together as if in simultane- oussympathy (the law of similars would be equally relevant here). Paul Kammerer, a Viennese biologist, pre-empted Jung's observations by some 40 years, becon-dng fascinated in the 1920's with coincidences, and published a book called Das Gesetz der Serie ( meaning in German---it never rains but it pours---) in which he collected cases of meaningful coincidences. His key idea was as follows---A series manifests itself as a lawful recurrence of the same or similar things and events; a recurrence or clustering, in time or space, whereby the individual members in the sequence, as far as can be ascertained by careful analysis, are not connected by the same active cause. T hecrucial phrase is -lawful recurrence- as he tries to prove that what we call a series of coincidences is in reality the manifestation of a universal principle in nature which operates outside the known laws of causation. His laws of seriality are as fundamental as the laws of linear causation and indicate the possibility of some other state of correspondence which

have been so far unexplored. After classifying methodically over a hundred cases of serial coincidences, an example of which is the following; My brother in law E Von W, attended on 4 November 1910 a concert in the Bosendorf Saal, he had seat No 9 and his cloakroom also showed No 9. On 5 November, that is, the next day we both attended another concert in the Musikvereinssal- he had No 21 and cloakroom ticket No 21 Although trivial, such coincidences were remarkable for their statistical improbability and his ideas are summarized by Arthur Koestler in his book " The Case of the Midwife Toad"; "Side by side with the causality of classical physics, there exists a second basic principle in the universe which tends towards unity; a force of attraction comparable to universal gravity. But while gravity acts on all mass without discrimination this other universal force acts selectively to bring like and like together ( my italics) both in space and in time; it correlates by affinity, regardless whether the likeness is one of substance,

form, or function, or refers to symbols.---Though unable to explain such occurrences Kammerer pointed to analogies on various levels, where the same tendency towards unity, symmetry and coherence manifests itself in conventionally causal ways; from sexual attraction, symbiosis, imitative behaviour etc, as though in his own way he were trying to give some form of consensus to his vision of unity. In his own words---We thus arrive at the image of a world-mosaic or cosmic kaleidoscope, which, in spite of constant shuffling and rearrangement, also takes care of bringing like and like together---. Sadly, Kammerer was misunderstood by the scientific fratemity of his day and his work would surely have been received differently in the light of quantum coherence today.

By now, it would appear tempting to speculate that the Law of Similars as a healing principle, is one aspect of a far deeper paradigm that may actually be the very cement of the universe. Such a law of correspondences with its possible universality seems akin to a mystical unifying principle which may be grasped by intuition but not understood by the intellect.

Empirical data from quantum theory and homoeopathic medicine enable us to give credence to some sort of acausal interaction that is born of mysticism and not of science.

The belief in acausal connections certainly did not originate with Jung or Kammerer, its immediate ancestry can be traced back to Schopenhauer who taught that causality was only one principle of the universe. He wrote

"Coincidence is the simultaneous occurrence of causally unconnected events-if we visualize each causal chain progressing in time as a meridian on the globe, then we may represent simultaneous events by the parallel circles of latitude-All the events in a man's life could accordingly stand in two fundamentally different connections-

Such is the historical persistence of this principle that it has dominated esoteric thought throughout the centuries. To promote awareness of such complexity necessitates a change in our mode of perception, so as to expand the attention from the separated parts to the unified whole and has been the domain of the sacred and not of the profane.

We have progressed in technological prowess, at the cost of the sacred and descended into the profanity of materialism. In the words of A.Versluis---Since the time of Egypt, there has been an unparalleled catastrophe, in which a translucent world- a marriage to celestial reality - was dissolved, earth sundered from the heavens, in which the sacred symbols and Mysteries of the ancients were condemned and ignored; in which Nature came to be seen merely as a concatenation of matter; in which Gnosis was replaced by mere reason, by mere dogmatic externalism." Today as we reel drunk with the logic and finality of science, we seem to be on the brink of chaos. This is why it is imperative to look anew at the teachings of ancient cultures to try and understand how they maintained harmony.

A controversial theory based on the law of similars was postulated by Rupert Sheldrake in 1980, in his book called " A New Science of Life---. His theory of morphic resonance was prompted by the need for biologists to explain the consistency of form that nature exhibits throughout space and time. Some biologists suggested that form was not only a function of genes but also due to a morphogenetic ( form generating) field which helped to guide nature towards its structures. Such fields were first suggested as early as 1920 by biologists to help explain how embryos were able to grow and differentiate into complete adults. Rupert Sheldrake holds that biological fields have a reality of their own; and by his theory morphogenetic fields are continuously shaped and reinforced by previously existing organisms of the same kind. Living members of a species are linked with the forms of past members of the same species through a causal link that transcends space and time. Such a linkage occurs by morphic resonance, a phenomenon requiring similarity of form. This state of morphic resonance is not limited to animals only, but is put forward as a universal principle of form and order in nature. Though the scope of this essay is not primarily about biological theory, 1 have commented on this theory as it is based on two implicit assumptions, that of the law of similars and some unknown causal theory that would transcend space and time. Though highly contentious, his theory of resonance is based on a correspondence between form that probably works in an identical way to the Law of Similars and catapults the latter to the status of a universal principle capable of explaining how forms and structures emerge in nature. Such a theory rest on an organic vision that may at times be difficult to envisage since we are bound by our Cartesian view of existence compounded by its linear causality.

Nevertheless such visions were far more unifying in ancient cultures and were extraordinarily fertile in esoteric traditions, leading to conceptual insights that only today are being finally understood in contemporary science. One such inveterate philosophy was that of the Hermetic tradition. This was based around a collection of Hermetic documents now known as the Poimandres published around the second century AD, which inspired the widespread interest in Magic that occurred at the time of the Renaissance. It is not my object to enter the philosophy underlying this tradition, but to demonstrate that its epistemological foundations lie in the law of correspondences.

This tradition had been so dominant and far reaching in its insights, that even Sir Isaac Newton, was deeply influenced by it. In a remarkable book called 'The foundation's of Newton's Alchemy' B.Dobbs discusses Newton's efforts in the alchemical tradition, work that was suppressed together with his religious writings for two centuries, since it did not fit in with his so called scientific views. She writes--When the Principia was published, Newton's opponents were quick to cry out that Newton's forces were occult qualities. Newton claimed they were derived from phenomena and so were not really occult, even though their causes were not yet known, but in a very real sense his critics were right; Newton's forces were very much like the hidden sympathies and antipathies found in much of the occult literature of the Renaissance period---. Another authority on the history of science argues that it was thus the wedding of the hermetic tradition with the mechanical philosophy, which produced modern science as an offspring.

Nevertheless occultism is in disrepute, associated with sinister and malign influences, and is deemed unworthy of serious investigation. Nevertheless both magic and alchemy, both derided for countless centuries, arose within the Hermetic tradition and can be shown to have been based on supra-rational principles that modem man, immersed in his material mode is unable to appreciate. A common theme in occult literature is the notion that all phenomena in the divine and material realms are linked by sympathetic powers or energies into one indivisible whole. This particular idea can be found in theological and philosophical systems both primitive and sophisticated. It may partially be explained by assuming that different structures in a multidimensional universe can possibly resonate with each other, though they may seem to be totally different to our own perceptions, explaining why sudden coincidences occur for no apparent reason.

The principal of sympathetic resonance is familiar in homoeopathic philosophy and is apparent also in the strange world of quantum coherence. The anthropologist, Sir James Fraser, (The Golden Bough, published in 1922), a work in twelve volumes, derides magic as a relic of the dark ages, an irrational attempt to control the unknown, and a form of bogus science. Nevertheless he gives a lucid interpretation of its ethnic principles, and says---if we analyse the principles of thought on which primitive magic is based, they will probably be found to resolve themselves into two, first that like produces like, or that an effect resembles its cause; and, second, that things which have once been in contact with each other continue to act on each other after the physical contact has been severed from the first principles, the magician infers that he can produce any effect he desires merely by imitating it; from the second, he infers that whatever he does to a material object will affect equally the person with whom the object was once in contact, whether it formed part of his body or not." These two principles were called by him homoeopathic magic and contagious magic respectively. He derides magic mercilessly---It is a false science as well as an abortive art.

Times have changed, however and 'magical thinking' is no longer out of fashion, Frazer being considered ante-deluvian by modern anthropologists. Moreover its doctrine of acausal interaction is more prevalent than ever in the ever more abstruse twists of quantum theory. Evelyn Underhill, writing in 1911, in her own work on Mysticism, goes some way to redress the balance.

---Magic, as described by its apologists, is found to rest upon three fundamental axioms which can hardly be dismissed as ridiculous by those who listen respectively to the ever- shifting hypothesis of psychology and physics.

1) "The first axiom declares the existence of an imponderable---medium-or -universal agent, which is described as beyond the plane of our normal sensory perceptions yet interpenetrating and binding the material world.

2) 'The second axiom--- also has a curiously modern air; for it postulates the limitless power of the disciplined human will- The first lesson of the would be magus is self-mastery---.

3) "The third axiom- is the doctrine of Analogy, of an implicit correspondence between appearance and reality, the microcosm of man and the macrocosm of the universe, the seen and the unseen worlds." ---Quod superius sicut quod inferius- -That which is below is like that which is above ( The Tabula Smaragdine of Hermes Trimegistos).

Frazer and Underhill were writing at the turn of the century, but neither were magicians. A modem magician of some distinction, who wrote under the pseudonym of Dion Fortune defined magic as---The science and art of causing changes in consciousness to occur in conformity with will---. This could be analogous to the homoeopathic process, through drawing power from nature to correct a disharmony in the individual patient, leading to a change in consciousness, in conformity with the will of the individual. Moreover the entire idea of drawing power from ‘nature and the gods" which was a distinctive attribute of the practise of magic, has its modem parallel; in a resonating body, which can by sympathetic entrainment, sets off another similar system, such as is supposed to occur when a remedy is given.

References to the law of correspondences are found throughout the entire corpus of medical and magical literature, from early times onwards. Such an illustration can be found in one famous book written in the Renaissance by Agrippa Von Nettesheim, 14861535, called Occult Philosophy, in which one passage goes;

"The latter are infused into things through ideas by means of the world-soul. In order to ascertain occult virtues, we should explore the world by means of resemblances. For instance, fire here below excites celestial fire, the eye cures the eye, and sterility produces sterility. Therefore sacrificial fire reacts upon the divine fire or light; frogs' eyes cure man's blindness; mules' urine renders women sterile. As there is accord between things akin, there is discord between things hostile, Experience has shown, for instance, that between the sunflower and the sun there is accord; whereas between the lion and the cock there is hostility, just as between the elephant and the mouse. It is the task of the magus to recognize these sympathies and antipathies in order to operate magically through nature"

Moreover this doctrine of Analogy, was not confined to the western tradition alone, (where its major influence on medicine is found in the application of the Doctrine of Signatures ) but unites all forms of magical practise from the most sophisticated to the most primitive cultures. An illustration of this is Taoism, a tradition that espoused the law of correspondences, and had an incalculable influence on the theory and practise of Chinese medicine. One example of the doctrine is found in Ko Hung's ' Rejoinder to Popular Conceptions', where he wrote, "Since man knows the best medicines are potent for extending his years, he takes them in his search for geniehood. Knowing the great age attained by tortoises and cranes, he imitates their callisthenics to augment his own lifespan. It is clear that in special areas many creatures far surpass man; this is true not only for the tortoise and the crane"

Why I feel the study of Renaissance magic and its associated disciplines may be of interest is due to the fact that many Magi, were also famous healers and obtained extraordinary results. These were obtained partially because of their own states of heightened awareness and also due to the applications of the law of similars, in a way that may not have been strictly homoeopathic, but nevertheless produced results and correspondences that may be worth exploring. A case in point is Nostrodamus, whose fame is based on his startling powers of seer ship today but in his own time his fame rested mainly on his powers as a man of medicine.

Neils Bohr, the principal founder of quantum theory, concerned himself all his life with the problem of interpreting his theory and formulated his complementarity principle;---that it is in the very nature of reality that there exists qualities or aspects that human knowledge cannot grasp simultaneously, and that it is because of the inherent relation between man and his universe, he can never know what is behind appearances, if indeed there is anything, beyond the framework of complementarity.-( J. Hayward, 1987).

Heisenberg, a pupil of Bohr, made a more spectacular interpretation. He suggested that an atom should not be considered as having a definite actuality in the physical world. Rather we should consider it as being in a kind of suspended state of potential possibilities, and only when measurement takes place does it then become a definite particle.

Another view is that matter consists of fleeting vibratory patterns in a vast field of consciousness; a universal mentality interpenetrates the physical world. This concept (quantum animism) suggests that every quantum wave contains consciousness and vice versa.( Herbert 1993). This view follows a tradition in western philosophy known as Idealism, which is a feature of Hindu and Buddhist thought and has enjoyed a revival in its present form as quantum animism. If such an interpretation implies that everything is ultimately Mind, then quantum theory as a description of reality parallels Magic in its own understanding of nature. The three axioms discussed by Underhill (see previous discussion) seem strangely familiar in the territory of quantum reality, and if awareness can be focused to an inordinate degree, then it should be possible to draw power from nature or as A. Crowley defined it "cause changes to occur in conformity with will ".

Between the three disparate disciplines of Quantum theory, Magic and Homoeopathy, there seems to be a common link. Each discipline emphasises two crucial principles; that of the role of consciousness and that of coherence. Each may formulate them differently but all three claim similar assertions. Quantum theory represents a possible description of reality, Magic illustrates the methodology of accessing that reality solely through individual willpower, and Homoeopathy represents a bridge between both disciplines, potentising nature and crystallising this fleeting moment into a remedy of incomprehensible and immeasurable energy.

Homoeopathy is of crucial importance since not only does it demonstrate the inextricable web that is woven between universe and man, but also brings an empirical science to bear on an aspect of Mind whose emergent properties are only now becoming evident. Its formulation of coherence (ie law of similars) points to an indivisible whole of relentless unrealised vibratory possibilities, that can be accessed by the process of potentization. It must be realized that a new movement is afoot in Science and its most potentially exciting developments are being examined in the field of consciousness. It has been realized that pure reductionism is not a valid paradigm anymore, and that movement has to be made to accept and examine all aspects of mind, from that of mystic revelations to the most scientific models presented- My point is that Quantum field theory has prompted enormous research into the possible links to consciousness, since parallels have been drawn between it and descriptions of reality accorded to eastern religion traditions. If we are to accept quantum theory as a possible description of reality, then it will have to further theorise on, an unexplained and hereto unexplored field; that of the potentized remedy. This field or " etheric counterpart " may be the last jigsaw to a grand unified theory of the universe. Since it may represent an aspect of Mind that has not been recognised, as quantum theory deals with a microcosmic level, Magic with a macrocosmic level and that thread that weaves these two levels together may well be the field action of the potentized remedy.

We use homoeopathic principles but do we fully comprehend what level of reality we are accessing in potentizing remedies? Science rejects it, magic embraces it, but neither gives us satisfactory explanations. Nevertheless, as in every case of healing there abides a quality of the sacred that is incomprehensible, made possible by Mind or Magic that cures and returns a patient to harmony. To finally end, in the words of Paracelsus, "Magic is a teacher of medicine far preferable to all written books. I have reflected a great deal upon the magical powers of the soul of man, and I have discovered a great many secrets in Nature, and I will tell you that only he who has acquired this power can be a true physician. If our physicians did posses it, their books might be burnt and their medicines thrown into the oceans, and the world would be all the better for it---. He defined it as the "greatest wisdom- and said---it only requires a strong faith in the omnipotent power of all good, that can accomplish everything if it acts through a human mind that is in harmony with it'. Furthermore he drew a very clear distinction between occult magic and natural magic, decrying the latter and stating clearly that---a magus disdains all extra-natural help and knows no illicit magic, but relies on his intimate knowledge of Nature's hidden forces alone.

"Magic",hence does not work miracles but uses powers which are natural, though they may not be sufficiently known.

REFERENCES

Sir S.G. Frazer, The Golden Bough ( abridged ed) Mactnillan 1977

Medicine, Mind and Magic, Guy Lyon PlayfairAquarian Press 1985

New Metaphysical Foundations of Modem science, edited by willis Harman- Institute of Noetic Science 1994

Shifting Worlds, Changing Minds, Jeremy W.Hayward-New Science Library Shambala 1987

The Creative Cosmos by Ervin Lazlo -Floris books 1993

The Christ, Psychotherapy and Magic George Allen

and Unwin 1969 The Philosophy of Magic Arthur Versluis Arkana 1986

The Egyptian Mysteries Arthur Versluis Arkana 1988 Synchronicity by C.G. Jung Routledge Kegan Paul 1977

The Case of the Midwife Toad by Arthur Koestler Picador 1971

The Egyptian Hermes by Garth Fowden Cambridge University Press 1986

Changing Order H.M. Collins Sage Publications 1990

Mirror of Magic Kurt Seligmann 1948

History of Magic R.Cavendish Weidenfeld and Nicolson London 1988

The Challenge of Fate T. Dethlefson Coventure Books 1984

Divided Legacy Vol. 1 Harry Coulter 1980

History of Magic Eliphas Levi Rider and Company 1969

Space, Time and Medicine Larry Dosey New Science Library 1982

A New Science of Life Rupert Sheldrake Paladin 1981

Elemental Mind; Human consciousness and The New Physics N.Herbert Penguin 1993

Quantum Coherence in Microtubules; A neural basis for emergent consciousness. by Stuart R.Hameroff. Journal of Consciousneess Studies

Vol 1 Nol.1994

Beyond the information Given Jerome Bruner WW Norton 1973

Janus ; A Summing Up Arthur Koestler Picador 1978

The foundations of Newton's Alchemy

B.J.T.Dobbs Cambridge Univer Press 1975