Theos-Talk Archives (September 1996 Message tl00171)

Responding to MK Ramadoss

[Murray]
> I can see a whole bundle of potential lines of discussion radiating out
>from JRC's piece ....
>
> It would be extremely interesting to have more information like this on
>the processes going on during clairvoyance etc. In helping Geoffrey Hodson
>with some of his investigations into atoms, music and devas, it was clear
>that there was a major condensation of the "primary" information to just
>get it into his brain, then another transformation and limitation to get
>it into words.
>
[Ramadoss]
>Did you have the good fortune of working with Geoffrey Hodson? He is one
>of the few true occultists who had done a lot of work and is held in very
>high esteem by TS members all over the world. If you had worked with him,
>it would be very invaluable to write down your experiences/observations.
>Just a thought.

Yes, I helped him in various projects from about 1977 to 1980, and I
consider it to have been good fortune indeed.

It's interesting how you can read about clairvoyance, and the many things it
comes up with, and feel keenly interested in them and that they have the
ring of truth, but when you are actually confronted with it, it can be a bit
of a shock to the system and stir up questions and doubts you didn't know
you had. I certainly had to rearrange some of my inner furniture, at the
time, making a kind of transition from theoretical knowledge to something
with more of a prospect of being real.

Makes you wonder how it would be if you found *yourself* opening up inwardly
in new and sudden ways. There'd be quite an elemental backlash from within
your psyche, I'd say.

This reaction was nothing new to Hodson, though. One day after we had done
several sessions and I was asking him some questions, he looked at me with a
kindly expression, patted my shoulder, and said that sooner or later, all
his collaborators on the physical plane had a crisis of confidence in him or
in clairvoyance itself.

There's nothing wrong with questions, of course. In fact I believe that you
need to question as clearly and penetratingly as you can; to keep the
intellect sharp and ready, and the basis of your conceptual world clear and
flexible - all in balance with your physical, emotional and intuitional
life, preferably. I felt that Hodson embodied this state of balance and fine
functioning at all levels, to a high degree, right to the end of his long
life. He was always prepared to question his own observations, and question
them again.

I remember him saying one day that "In this game, you need to be more of a
materialist than the materialists!", ie that you needed to check the
evidence scrupulously, believe nothing blindly, be open minded (tho' the
kind of materialist G. had in mind is probably anything but) and question
everything. I would add, too, be prepared to be surprised at every step.

In fact, because of the constant sense of freshness of discovery and sheer
immensity of the inner universe that came with Hodson's observations, I
decided that one of the important criteria for determining the accuracy and
worth of superphysically-gained information, is the element of surprise,
like if you didn't find something surprising every few minutes, start
getting suspicious!

I am taking some steps at the moment, to resume the rather on-again
off-again project of producing notes of this work, and hope that it can be
brought to a conclusion in the reasonably close future. It is encouraging to
hear you and others express interest in this work.

Murray
Member TI and the TS in NZ