Theos-Talk Archives (July 1997 Message tl00098)

At 03:39 PM 7/7/97 -0400, Titus Roth wrote:
>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.

      Sure I agree with this important distinction.

>
>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.
>
     I think that all the philosophies unless verified with first hand
experience should always be taken with a certain amount of skepticism which
makes all of us fully alert to potential error or misunderstanding. I donot
know about truth being diluted. If truth is dynamic and not a fixed point,
then any amount of fluff cannot hide it for long, IMHO.

>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.
>

Each group sets up its own set of parameters which the group tries to live
by. But without endorsing anything, we can all follow live and let live
approach.

..........doss