Re: Hodson, Cayce, and independent verification
Feb 05, 2005 05:38 PM
by Murray Stentiford
Hi Paul
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:42 you wrote:
Glad to see your words again after so many years!
Likewise! I kept up membership of theos-l and theos-talk all through those
years but, because of various major things going on in life, refrained from
writing. Sometimes that was hard. :-)
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...
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.
Inevitably so. Our consciously-perceived thoughts have structural
foundations of embedded attitude and other thoughts, often in a chain going
back to earliest childhood.
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.
From what I've seen, his readings with an occult component
were not all for people versed in those subjects. So although this is
a possibility for those cases, it cannot hold for all of them.
Hence he "found what he was looking for" not in confirmation of
his personal beliefs but rather those of his counselees.
As an assertion, this is undermined by what I said just above. Did
you or anybody you know of, do research to clarify to what extent
his findings were already held in the mind of his clients?
Whether there was anything paranormal about this is an open
question.
And it needs to remain open. But a question that few seem to ask,
is whether a thought form was built up by Cayce's combined
readings, and to what extent that thought form was derived from
existing bodies of thought in fields like Atlantis, reincarnation,
karma etc etc. And whether, then, Cayce or whoever, was picking
up any of these thought forms - a paranormal process in any case.
Replace the term "thought form" by morphic field, in the
Sheldrake way, to get an interesting slant on all this.
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.
What evidence to you have for this with respect to Cayce? And
likewise, for Hodson? It is a serious issue, I agree - and Hodson
would agree and strove to minimise it.
In my observation of how he worked, Hodson was capable of seeing
another's mind laid open like a book, including past time tracks, if the
person gave permission for that to happen. That doesn't mean his
perception of it was perfect, or translated into language perfectly, but
he often also perceived his own consciousness system with its
different layers (etheric, astral, mental, as he referred to them) and
various contents of those layers.
It is easy for us to pose these questions, and important that we do so,
but it is part of our journey of discovery to remain open to the reality
that our own conceptions are limiting the questions we ask.
I'm not saying this to imply that you aren't - just as something we all
have to keep in mind.
Cheers
Murray
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
