the recognition of this principle the only possible conception which the
discarnate individual could form of himself would be that of a purely
subjective being; and this carries with it all the limitations of a
subjective life unbalanced by an objective one; and so long as the
principle of physical resurrection is denied, so long the life must
continue to be merely subjective and consequently unprogressive.[7]

But it may be asked why those who have realized this great principle
sufficiently to carry their objective mentality into the unseen state are
liable to the change which we call death. The answer is that though they
have realized _the general principle_ they have not yet divested themselves
of certain conceptions by which they limit it, and consequently by the law
of subjective mind they carry those limitations into the working of the
Resurrection principle itself.

They are limited by the race-belief that physical death is under all
conditions a necessary law of Nature, or by the theological belief that
death is the will of God; so then the question is whether these beliefs are
well founded. Of course appeal is made to universal experience, but it does
not follow that the universal experience of the past is bound to be the
universal experience of the future--the universal experience of the past
was that no man had ever flown across the English Channel, yet now it has
been done. What we have to do, therefore, is not to bother about past
experience, but to examine the inherent nature of the Law of Life and see
whether it does not contain possibilities of further development. And the
first step in this direction is to see whether what we have hitherto
considered limitations of the law are really integral parts of the law
itself. The very statement of this question shows the correct answer; for
how can a force acting in one direction be an integral part of a force
acting in the opposite direction? How can the force which pulls a thing