Many believe that dowsing is explained as a physiological\nreaction to some external physical field. This was the view of most dowsers, I\nwould suggest, until perhaps the 1960s, when others started to challenge this\nassumption, based on their own dowsing experiences. In this 1972 BSD article,\nby Scott Elliot (former president of the BSD, who we have met previously in\npost 28\/03\/2020), dowsing is seen as a purely mental activity. As he puts it,\nit is based on a mankind\u2019s ability to \u201cknow\u201d. This ability is spread widely\nover the population, with he suggests, up to 90% of the population being able\nto dowse to a greater or lesser extent. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
He talks of the most used technique in dowsing, that of\nposing a suitable question and dowsing the answer, in the manner of Socratic\nquestioning. And this can be done from anywhere. The problem then is not the\ndowsing, it is more about asking appropriate questions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Here he gives some examples of some situations that appear\nto confirm his assertion. For instance, his particular area of interest was\narchaeology. And he describes his three-stage approach, with stage 1 being\nworking from home on a map, then conforming these findings in stage 2 by site\ndowsing, before actually performing a dig. The advantages are that a large area\nmay be covered in a shorter time, than by conventional methods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He asserts that the dowsing instrument has no particular\nrole as any kind of dowsing detector, that is the detector as such is the\ndowser themselves and their tool is merely an indicator. To show this, he points\nout that he often dowses with hands only (this is sometimes referred to as\ndeviceless dowsing), pointing out that for hm, this is effective over maps, or\nhuman bodies. However, dowsing tools are helpful, and one might still use\ndifferent tools for different dowsing approaches, eg pendulum for map work and\nrod for site work. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
He mentions the use of samples. In earlier times, there was\nan idea amongst dowsers that \u201clike\u201d substances or objects attracted each other\nin some unknown (but physical) manner, which was essential to successful dowsing.\nBut taking the mental approach, they are seen only as a \u201cmind focuser\u201d, so\nsimply writing down the name of the object sought is enough. Samples can be\nhelpful in some circumstances but really are simply not necessary. They are an\nexample of a \u201cshibboleth\u201d (see also post 06-04-2020), or an idea, which one\nmust follow in order to dowse successfully. There are many of these in the\nliterature. He says however, that one must develop one\u2019s own method that work\njust for you. (We have seen this idea in previous posts, for example, on water\ndivining). Dowsing is a mental discipline and may take some time to master.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He sums up by saying that all dowsing is \u201cseeking\u201d and so to\nseek well, one must have a good idea of what is sought, so background knowledge\nabout the subject is invaluable. Good knowledge about a subject can also\nprovide an all to important check on one\u2019s dowsing results, which is important,\nas preconceived ideas might confound the results. Another aspect of the seeking\nthough is \u201cthe need to know\u201d, which in his experience, significantly improves\nthe dowsing ability. The other aspect is one\u2019s own sensitivity and this comes\nfrom training the mind to become more receptive, and with practice, the\nessential confidence in one\u2019s abilities develops <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The article, entitled \u201cThe Modern Dowser\u201d, is here:<\/p>\n\n\n\n