Many believe that dowsing is explained as a physiological reaction to some external physical field. This was the view of most dowsers, I would suggest, until perhaps the 1960s, when others started to challenge this assumption, based on their own dowsing experiences. In this 1972 BSD article, by Scott Elliot (former president of the BSD, who we have met previously in post 28/03/2020), dowsing is seen as a purely mental activity. As he puts it, it is based on a mankind’s ability to “know”. This ability is spread widely over the population, with he suggests, up to 90% of the population being able to dowse to a greater or lesser extent.

He talks of the most used technique in dowsing, that of posing a suitable question and dowsing the answer, in the manner of Socratic questioning. And this can be done from anywhere. The problem then is not the dowsing, it is more about asking appropriate questions.

Here he gives some examples of some situations that appear to confirm his assertion. For instance, his particular area of interest was archaeology. And he describes his three-stage approach, with stage 1 being working from home on a map, then conforming these findings in stage 2 by site dowsing, before actually performing a dig. The advantages are that a large area may be covered in a shorter time, than by conventional methods.

He asserts that the dowsing instrument has no particular role as any kind of dowsing detector, that is the detector as such is the dowser themselves and their tool is merely an indicator. To show this, he points out that he often dowses with hands only (this is sometimes referred to as deviceless dowsing), pointing out that for hm, this is effective over maps, or human bodies. However, dowsing tools are helpful, and one might still use different tools for different dowsing approaches, eg pendulum for map work and rod for site work.

He mentions the use of samples. In earlier times, there was an idea amongst dowsers that “like” substances or objects attracted each other in some unknown (but physical) manner, which was essential to successful dowsing. But taking the mental approach, they are seen only as a “mind focuser”, so simply writing down the name of the object sought is enough. Samples can be helpful in some circumstances but really are simply not necessary. They are an example of a “shibboleth” (see also post 06-04-2020), or an idea, which one must follow in order to dowse successfully. There are many of these in the literature. He says however, that one must develop one’s own method that work just for you. (We have seen this idea in previous posts, for example, on water divining). Dowsing is a mental discipline and may take some time to master.

He sums up by saying that all dowsing is “seeking” and so to seek well, one must have a good idea of what is sought, so background knowledge about the subject is invaluable. Good knowledge about a subject can also provide an all to important check on one’s dowsing results, which is important, as preconceived ideas might confound the results. Another aspect of the seeking though is “the need to know”, which in his experience, significantly improves the dowsing ability. The other aspect is one’s own sensitivity and this comes from training the mind to become more receptive, and with practice, the essential confidence in one’s abilities develops

The article, entitled “The Modern Dowser”, is here:

http://www.dowsing-research.net/blog_extracts/BSD_No156_1972_p25.pdf