Theos-Talk Archives (May 1997 Message tl00481)

On Wed, 28 May 1997 09:28:55 -0400 (EDT) "K. Paul Johnson"
<pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu> writes:
>But Tom, if not going to the meetings of a spiritual group
>whose practices or beliefs I disapprove/disagree with amounts to
>imposing my
>values on them... we're all imposing our values on everybody
>all the time!  (Except for whatever group we *do* belong to and
>participate in.)

Yes, it is hard to describe a non-action as imposing one's values on
others, even though, indirectly, that is what I consider it, to a
degree, but I was referring more to a more active expression of
disapproval of what others do, and then claiming to also have the virtue
of not imposing one's morality.  That is what seems strange to me.  It
seems to imply the very opposite of one of the fundamental ideas of
theosophy, also.  If all of humanity is one interconnected whole, then
only to some extent can certain actions be wrong for some people and
right for others.  If smoking is wrong for me, it is probably generally
wrong for others, also, the possibility of exceptions notwithstanding.
Different lodges probably are in different enough situations from each
other so that it may be right for some to charge and wrong for others to
charge, but there are also common factors that they all share which would
suggest that, regarding those factors at least, such as that they all
have bills to pay and that they all want to reach as many people as
possible, either all should charge or none should.  As always, it is a
case of a mixture of opposites, a certain balance between the two being
optimal.