Theos-Talk Archives (July 1997 Message tl00097)

ramadoss@eden.com wrote:

> If anyone's views or actions, is likely to cause cruelty or injustice to
> anyone, then I will under no circumstances will support it and will do what
> I can to stop it.

> Any action or view I see helping our fellow humans and other living
> creatures, I will support at all times.

> Any complicated analysis or justification is too complex for my simple mind
> and intelligence. KISS principle appeals to me.

Good principles.  Complicated analysis is not necessary if one has developed
good perception and intuition.

Just for clarification, my point is that there's a difference between
tolerance and endorsement.

It's fine if a group of people want to join together and devote themselves to
Elizabeth Claire Prophet.  That doesn't directly cause cruelty or injustice.
But including her ideas in a group focused on theosophy might go against the
group's purposes by diluting truth with fluff.

It may sound judgmental to call Prophet's stuff fluff.  But hey, we all fall
into a bit of fluff at some point in our lives.  That is our right.  Perhaps
the experience teaches us something.  Sooner or later, though, we want to have
something more.  And we want that something available in the most
unadulterated form humanly possible. I would rather work in groups devoted
to making that something available - as far as human fallibility allows.

Well, I've wandered from the original topic. To recap, I think there is some
legitimate kind of exclusiveness. Theosophical groups should be able to reject
some things from inclusion into their objectives. How responsibly they do
it depends on their collective virtue. Garbage in. Garbage out. Gold in.
Gold out.