Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00999)

Hi Paul & Murray,
Just some thoughts…….
>From my understanding there can be many different occult rationale for
what psychics `see' in their readings.

It could be memories the reader is telepathically picking up from the
subject as I think could be the case with the TV psychic John Edwards,
rather than it actually being a deceased friend or relative. He is a
classic passive medium.

According to HPB unless a person is an Adept they will not see clearly
in the astral light.
That to me does not therefore say some people may "see" more or less
clearly than others.
I am sure CWL did have some level of clairvoyance as have many others
including Geoffrey Hodson.

The drawings in Hodgson's book `The Kingdom of the gods' of "devas"
seem to be quite anthropomorphic with human type features, fairies
with wings and gnomes sporting little jackets and boots ect.

My understanding is that nature spirits are vortices of energy and any
form we may see on them would be purely projection, perhaps.
People see these pictures or hear these descriptions and then perhaps
start `imagining' that they see them in that form.

Past life readings is another area that can have different occult
rationale, this could be tapping into astral shells and then risking
the danger of becoming a passive medium.

All I am suggesting here is as `would be' occultists we need to look
at all the many different explanations, rationale and also possible
dangers in sensitising ourselves to these psychic realms, with all
there hazards and dangers.

My understanding is that theosophy tries to develop the spiritual
nature and then by default the more subtle psychic senses will develop
more safely by themselves.

If we try and develop our psychic senses and start really focusing on
that realm, we may end up over energising it and end up in the nut
house as has happened many times to people unfortunately.

It is a very seductive realm and we need to be careful not to get
trapped there.

I remember hearing many people at the TS say `if only we had a CWL or
another Geoffrey Hodson' the trouble has been that people with these
abilities who have become known as being psychics develop a kind of
following and people tend to then put them up on a pedestal as being
some kind of authority and people get caught in the glamour of the
astral world and then rather than look for their own intuitions within
seek some external authority.

I think this is why HPB and the Adepts always discouraged blind belief
and hero worship.

However that's not to say the findings of the psychics are
interesting to examine.

Cheers

Perry


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@y...>
wrote:
> 
> Dear Murray,
> 
> Glad to see your words again after so many years! You wrote:
> 
> 
> > 
> > In any case, Hodson was no kid in this matter; he was totally 
> aware of the tendency for the brain-mind to put pre-existing images 
> around the primary hyper-sensory input, and I recall taking part in 
> a 3-way discussion that Hodson had with his doctor and research 
> assistant, David Lyness, about the role of the brain-mind in 
> clairvoyance, about this very phenomenon.
> > 
> 
> We can go a step further back than that and say that the questions 
> one seeks to answer via clairvoyance are rooted in assumptions of 
> which the investigator may not be conscious. What you say below 
> here of Hodson:
> 
> > In short, the dominant impressions I got of Hodson were:
> > 
> > 1 Well aware of his own limitations and not claiming 
> infallibility.
> > 2 Relentless integrity, well beyond the point where most 
> would be satisfied.
> > 3 Total dedication to finding, as best as possible, the 
> truth of a matter.
> > 4 Willingness to admit being wrong and having another go.
> > 5 A great funneling or reduction of the primary information 
> in its path first into the brain, then into language.
> > 6 Caution in stating his findings, because experience had 
> shown him how the theosophical mob can both put a person with 
> extended abilities up on a pedestal, and pull them down - both far 
> from the truth.
> 
> reminds me very much of impressions of Edgar Cayce from those who 
> knew him-- Harmon Bro in particular who wrote a biography of him.
> When I was first becoming interested in Cayce and Theosophy 
> simultaneously, I had the idea that his clairvoyant investigations 
> of past civilizations etc. were "independent confirmation" of the 
> Theosophical doctrines on such topics, to the extent that they 
> coincided. After all, the conscious Cayce was not an adherent of 
> such doctrines, and was rather a traditional evangelical Christian 
> who had little interest in them-- so he couldn't be "contaminated" 
> with literary influences, right? WRONG-- even though he himself 
> wasn't a believer in (or student of) Theosophical doctrines when 
> they started to come out in the readings, those readings were for 
> people who were occultists. Hence he "found what he was looking 
> for" not in confirmation of his personal beliefs but rather those of 
> his counselees. Whether there was anything paranormal about this is 
> an open question.
> 
> I've never heard anything about Hodson that suggests conscious 
> deception, unlike CWL. But like Cayce, even with the best of 
> conscious intentions he could certainly be self-deceived and subject 
> to ideological influences.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Paul
> 
> > Reminds me of some of the discussions on this list.
> > 
> > I certainly revised my ideas about him, on spending time with him. 
> It's 
> > inevitable.
> > 
> > Murray