Theos-Talk Archives (December 2006 Message tt00759)

Friends, 

Take a look at the TTM text below.  Carlos. 


PSEUDO-TOLERANCE AND REAL-TOLERANCE.


Tolerance is a widely used but generally misunderstood word, 
believed by most people to mean simply not hurting the feelings of 
others, maintaining the peace at all costs, the policy of "live and 
let live," etc. Some think a person intolerant when he points out to 
others holding different views any errors of statement or fact. 
Quite often it is not what is said, but the tone and feeling behind 
what is said, that arouses antagonism. If we look at the dictionary 
meaning of tolerance, we find it described as "liberality towards 
the opinions of others." This, however, does not call for what 
Robert Crosbie terms "indiscriminate acceptance of everything and 
everyone."

We have to distinguish between two types of tolerance. The first is 
the false and passive tolerance involving the emotions, described by 
Robert Crosbie as

the attitude of "namby-pambysm" [which] is but a pseudo-tolerance. 
Carried to its legitimate conclusion, this false idea 
of "brotherhood" would signify that sin, sorrow, suffering, error, 
all religions, and all philosophies are all right; that everyone is 
doing the best he can, and the best he knows how to do, and cannot 
do any different, and that all are steps of learning. 
The other type of tolerance is the active tolerance based on 
knowledge and does not call for a surrender of our convictions or an 
indiscriminate acceptance of everything. It means simply that no one 
is to be condemned because of his opinions. "This tolerance does not 
mean 'fraternizing' with everything and everyone that demands it," 
as Robert Crosbie points out.

H.P.B. in her Key to Theosophy describes what this real tolerance 
is, saying that we should "speak the truth at all costs," if a wrong 
act is going to injure or endanger others; but if it only hurts the 
one who commits it, then it is best to remain silent and leave the 
erring person to his Karma. She put this principle into action when 
she "spoke the truth at all costs" in 1888, 13 years after the 
founding of the Theosophical Society, by calling it a "dead failure" 
and a "sham" so far as devotion to its objects and the attainment of 
brotherhood were concerned. Would we term this "unbrotherly" 
or "intolerant"? There are times when facts have to be pointed out, 
however unpleasant they may be. H.P.B. was not unbrotherly in the 
moral or spiritual sense because she recognized the fact and 
declared it. If we view this from the emotional standpoint it would 
be called intolerant, but that which is true cannot be either 
uncharitable or intolerant.

H.P.B. further expands this idea and offers us lines of action by 
pointing out that there is a difference between condemning in words, 
which is uncharitable, and withdrawing in silent pity from the 
erring person, thus punishing him, but all the same giving him a 
chance to repent of his ways. It does not mean refusal of assistance 
when asked for.

There is a wide difference between speaking the truth with the right 
feeling, and condemnation. The truth may be spoken when we have 
perceived the principle involved, based on knowledge, as the correct 
basis of action, but this does not mean that we can sit in judgment 
on another. Rather, after having pointed out the truth, having 
judged the act and not the actor, we must leave the person to see 
the error of his ways. If, however, he refuses, then we have no 
choice but to "withdraw in silent pity," leaving him to his Karma.

Mr. Judge enlarges upon the idea of tolerance by showing that it 
involves both mind and heart. He explains the concept 
of "withdrawing" by showing that while we must practise detachment 
so far as our thoughts are concerned—"forgive, forgive and largely 
forget"—yet it does not mean that we can cast out of our heart those 
we have withdrawn from; it implies rather that head and heart must 
work together, the head becoming compassionate and not condemning, 
and the heart wise and not emotional. Mr. Judge aptly points out 
that "men are not made into steel by comfort."

We must, therefore, re-evaluate our ideas on tolerance. We have for 
too long accepted false ideas without seriously questioning what is 
involved. The practice of real tolerance goes to the root of our 
conduct and our relationship with others. To understand the 
difference between real tolerance and pseudo-tolerance is to have 
grasped the distinction between the impersonal and the personal.

There is also a wider aspect to this question that we need to look 
into. In the world today, especially in the field of modern 
medicine, many practices are followed, such as blood transfusion, 
the injection of foreign material into the body, family planning, 
etc., as also alcohol drinking and addiction to one thing or 
another, against all of which Theosophy takes a definite stand, for 
definite reasons. Are we afraid of being considered intolerant if we 
speak the truth in these matters? Robert Crosbie had the following 
to say on this very important subject:

It is the duty of esoteric students to unmask error and hypocrisy; 
to face lie with truth; not as personal criticisms but as facts 
against mis-statements....Theosophy is in the world for that 
purpose. We are not to be self-assertive nor flabby; knowing the 
truth, we speak it and care only for it and that it be as widely 
known as possible. 
H.P.B. waged a constant war against orthodoxy in religion, against 
materialism and bigotry in modern science, against injurious medical 
practices, etc. Did she stop pointing to the truth when others did 
not agree with her, when they ridiculed and maligned her and her 
Theosophical ideas? No. Had hers been an emotional and personal 
reaction, a pseudo-tolerant one, would she have spoken as fearlessly 
and forcefully as she did? Mr. Judge, too, did not stop working when 
troubles arose around him, but ever pointed to the correct 
Theosophical principles of action and went on with the work. Robert 
Crosbie did the same. We also must follow their example, bearing in 
mind that 

Truth agrees only with Truth. So if we firmly believe, and are 
convinced by fact and reason, that we are in possession of Truth, it 
would be a false tolerance which would withhold it in the face of 
error. Truth exists in the world for the purpose of destroying 
error. Error is dogmatic and does not court close investigation. 
Truth courts all and every possible investigation, and, calm in its 
certitude, examines everything upon its merits...tests it by the 
standard of Truth. 


(From "The Theosophical Movement", a monthly magazine published in 
India by ULT Associates -- April 2003)