experience is unreal. I am quoting my own former views, for I thought the same thing before I thought clearly enough. It seemed to me that when one thinks health and wealth he gets it; but that when he thinks sickness and poverty he doesn't get it, he only thinks he gets it. This was a mistake. What man sows in thought, that shall he also reap, be it pleasant or unpleasant. All effects are as real as their causes and "the thing exists in the thought as well as the thought in the thing." Again it was a mistake for me to say, for example, that "darkness, being the lack of light, is therefore nothing." The fact remains that the experience of darkness is just as real as that of light. If it were not, I could not be conscious of it. One cannot be conscious of that which is not. If, therefore, I am conscious of poverty or sickness, my consciousness is as true as my consciousness of wealth or health; or else I am conscious of neither. But I am conscious of both. What is needed, therefore, is not that I should change the fact but that I should change the thought that produces the fact.

Again it was wrong for me to say that there can be the absence of something and therefore a nothing. If experience is real enough for me to cognize it and I call it "nothing," I am saying that there is a "nothing" as opposed to the Something which is God or Infinite; and I am therefore positing a dual universe and limiting the Limitless. This is impossible. Therefore my experience of health, wealth, and love, or my experience of poverty, sickness and unhappiness are equally