Theos-Talk Archives (September 1996 Message tl00286)

Chuck,

>Amen.
>I hope this gets through.  A number of my responses to this list have been
>bounced for some unknown reason.

I was quite shocked that you could say Amen to anything I wrote. You'll
start altering my belief system if you keep this up. Who knows, you could
end up being responsible for a case of cognitive dissonance, and that would
be very messy on both sides of the equation.

I can't tell of course which of your messages I haven't received, but I've
responded to just about every one that I have got from you on theos-l on
Hodson etc over the last few days. Maybe delays due to my getting theos-l in
digest form are the problem.


>One thing I think that I have failed to make clear is that I do not
>worship at the hallowed hall of SCIENCE.  I don't worship the word and
>therefore I don't see any need to try to make things fit into it.

It looked very much as if you were trying to make things fit into your
definition of science at times, there. I agree that it's healthy not to
worship the word etc, though, of course.

Science is a public quest and will hopefully continue to evolve.


>But the word does have certain meanings and some of the attempts
>Theosophists have used in the last hundred years to try to jam things into
>it have done terrible violence to both.

I agree. There have been too many cases where TS people have said "Look
here, science supports Theosophy!" where the claim has turned out to be
premature and damaging.


>There is no reason why we cannot take information and say that the
>classical scientific method does not apply to it.  That does not
>necessarily make the information untrue, or the method of gaining it
>invalid, it merely makes it different.

Good to hear you say it.


>It may be that the best way to pursue these matters is to go off on our
>own and say to hell with science and the scientific community.  It won't
>make visions of angels any easier to believe,

It's better to ask "What does this mean and what is going on here?" than to
settle into belief, whether it's for or against.


>One of the problems with Geoffrey Hodson may be that a good satirist never
>heard of him while he was in his prime, but then humor is not a common
>thing in Theosophy, ....

GH used to say, and I've seen it in one of his books somewhere, that a sense
of humour was essential to anyone attempting to tread the spiritual way.
I've seen his in action, and it certainly didn't exclude himself. On the
other hand, he and his wife Sandra did take the work they were doing
seriously, and I guess that the business of going public with that which was
far from most of the public's world-view (or the TS's view, for that
matter), was stressful for them both, tho' they sure didn't shrink from
doing it.


>Hodson probably could have benefited from someone who would have given him
>a good kick in the rear every now and then just to remind him that he was
>still human.

Some of us may need the boot in the backside, but Hodson sure as hell didn't
need reminding he was human, in all my dealings with him.

He and Sandra ran a healing practice, alongside their writing and speaking
projects, with letters flowing in to them from all over the world, asking
for help in varied and often far-advanced cases of physical disease,
obsession and damage due to drug excess.

I felt that he actually became more down-to-earth and compassionate in later
life than in earlier years, perhaps as a result of being intimately involved
with so much suffering. They nearly always had the front door of their house
open, with an implicit welcome to those who wanted or needed to come for any
reason. I found this, especially coupled with their work load, pretty
impressive.

Murray