Housekeeping: As is posted on the EMF Message Board page, this forum is for support, sharing opinions and experiences for those who have left RSE and have doubts and concerns about their tenure there. It is NOT a place for proselytizing for RSE, JZK Inc or Ramtha. Play nicely or your post will be sent to cyberspace time-out for all eternity. The disclaimer for EMF is located on this page http://enlightenmefree.com/disclaimer.html and all posters agree to the terms of the disclaimer. Be sure you've read it before posting.
You may also want to visit a complementary forum at FACTNet http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/779.html
If you wish to use a Spell Checker, you may wish to use this free one: http://www.jacuba.com/
This is a very interesting RAMBLING post.. as I was there during this groups days of going off to India when the channel became a Swammi..
The first point is, just like the Catholic Churches it is notice to DONATE MORE MONEY to the organization... using the standard principles that churches use... giving is receiving.
My thought was, what happened to the $100,000's of money that these people have already collected over the years. Personnally, I transferred well over $75,000.00+ over the years to this group and I was only one person.....
*****Remember that the Foundation for Meditative Studies is the first ever Non-Profit Status Organization of it's kind. Having been approved for our 501(c)(3) tax exempt status we are blessed to receive your offerings while you are able to deduct them accordingly to the laws provided to us by this great country. ****************************************
Secondly, the rambling about becomming a Swammi in India, I recall during that time many who were annoyed during that time, as before the trip to India, the channel had talked about NOT following a Guru or becomming a devotee... much dulaity there....
Thirdly... This Statement....
******I pray on this day that my own mistakes and the mistakes of others be forgiven and return us to each other like this precious picture above my writings, innocent with a fresh and excited look on our faces toward today and our lives ahead!
May our Inner Beliefs be as fresh and excited and convicted of our Lives in Wonder and Power, Health, Prosperity and Enlightenment! So be it!
I realize that forgiveness is a good thing..... but the previous statments in this post of Self GRANDISEMENT.... omitting any acknowledgment of the BEATING of DEVOTEES... sex, durgs ect... is a bit much to take......
Would it not be wonderful if we could just FORGIVE the people who MURDER others... by posting a note on our blog... I wounder how the families of those people who were murdered would feel... I wonder how the ones who were beaten at the Ranch feels about this.
A blanket statement seems a very SHALLOW WAY to move on.... Who does this post serve... herself only.
This post is dripping with ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME.... seems all the cult leaders are ALL about THEM.
This is a bit much to read over the Holiday.
There was no Janice in the mastery program when we went to India.
There was a Janice early on who quite before India. She was from Santa Barbara.
Are you that Janice or are you just someone else using the name "Janice"?
My Dearest Bodhi,
You dear one, are soooooooo Amazing... Great... Smart... Magnificant... it must be wonderful to be you today.
I Bow to your feet..... your are so very important and awesome.
Can you ever find it within you to FORGIVE me for being so beneith you...
Ok. I am a nobody... do not listen to me.
I know I am just one of those faceless... unimportant people you can not remember to remember... how dare I talk about your cult leader's past... India, Money, Sex, Drugs, Beating, Rock N Roll.... who am I to speak and and have an opinion about it.
Can you Please... Please forgive me for my ignorance?
I know I must be like a little fly you need to SWAT AWAY and put an end to those rambling musslings.... don't listen to him, he does not know anything.
Can you ever find it in your hear to at least THINK about forgiving me for bothering you... and writing about your cult today?
I am a nobody, please, do not pay any attention to this post... it is wrong... he was NEVER THERE... he does not know anything.
Please Please... Forgive me father, for I have sinned... a god.
Ok.. Father, You are right. I will shut up.
You have posted on here using so many names that it's hard to keep track.
I asked you a simple question and all I got was a huge "ego" reply and false accusation that had nothing to do with what I asked.
Why are you posting on the Ramtha site when there are other cult sites to post on, by the way.
You seem so incredibly angry over your $75,000 spent and you weren't in the mastery program long, if at all and you certainly didn't spend that kind of money on the program.
I think the fees charged were very reasonable for two weeks of teachings, vegetarian meals and in the beginning, even free housing. You would have paid more per day for any other kind of workshops.
You're probably counting your travel money which was your own choice; but charging around a hundred a day in those days for what you got was not exorbitant; and if you felt it was, you could have studied on tapes, or done local workshops. So why such resentment and anger on your part for your own choices.
There are certainly valid complaints that some can make but the cost is certainly not one of them.
And for your information, I have not done an retreats since the early 90's, butyou know that. You just wanted to attack. Too sad.
I have no regrets about spending the money.. there is an endless pot... and I have NEVER had any problem making it.
But, the organization has just sent out a blog with the REQUEST for a MONTHLY STABLE Donation, I simply find that very odd...
Why are you here Bodhi... on this blog.. to support your cult.
Go back to the Ashram... you have NEVER left them... only physically... there you can find total support for your Cult.
Also, your number are off..
We were paying 1500 to 2500 a week.. that was 4 in a room or a tent on the ranch.
Food.. very little food ... and you know yourself a lot of days fasting...
Justification... I am sure many can justify the amount paid for anyting.
I care not to debate you.
Please Move on.
Ok June, I am NOT your enemy, but I do like to look more evenly at all of these crazy things at the Ranch.
Obviously we all use crazy names.. this is a public board.. I care not to be harrassed at home by posting my personal information.
There must be a reason why everytime I post you attack me... and have so need to know me or not.
I continued longer than you... my last time at the Ashram was in 2000. ... and I do think it is a good thing to be truly honest within about these things.
I do not regret my early time with Mafu... and I do see the changing tides that roll in and out.
When I was there in 2000, I knew I was done.
But here again, on this blog there is a recapture of the the STATE of SWAMMI.... so perhaps Ammaji is the SWAMMI who beates her devotees and you can find the wisdom of looking the other way... for me... it is a thing of living in truth.
Perhaps the end justifies it and in some place it is ok to Beat Student Devotees... but I will be the FIRST to tell you... I have NOT ascended beyond being able to see the OK in those types of behavior.
In the USA normally a person like this would be in prison... rather than grandized for being a 501 (c) 3.
So, please, forgive me if I have not ASCENDED to see the wisdom of beating students one day and then talking about love the next.
It brings to mind the Man who beates his wife and then turns the next day to say how much he loves and adores her... it is all abit to confusing to accept.
If you can explain it is a very simply way perhaps I can JOIN your team of support... and I will admit I in my own IGNORANCE can not CLEARLY see the WISDOM of Sex, Drugs, Beting and Spirituality ALL in one big HAPPINESS and JOY Package.
I am not a hateful person by nature.. and the money is not an issue... I have dontated more than that over the past 3 years locally... so I have lost nothing finically by giving to Both Mafu and Ramtha.
I do put aside my crazy need to cut your head off.. for that is the emotion your post evoke within me... smile... and I am willing to listen.
Perhaps you are more enlightened and explain how you inside yourself can be at peace with the DUALITY.
Perhaps it is not a duality.. perhaps we should be beating our family and friends in the name of enlightenment. I just can't see it or support it right now.
If you can expain, I will humble myself and listen.
it sounds like you had a tough thx giving holiday.. perhaps too much time spent on 'memory lane', looking at your past with Mafu, her current blogs, and then, using the emf site (one focused on recovery and healing) to ramble & then lash out, demonstrating that you aren't really committed to 'moving on? How can you tell someone else to move on?
1. WHERE did you get the idea that people on this forum would be interested in a current Mafu blog?
2. WHY did you chose this site?
3. If the multiple WHO-you-are is true, then maybe your dark, emotional swinging might best be done in the company of trained professionals. I don't know Bodhi except thru his posts here, but he did not attack you. He certainly didn't deserve such a flaming, strange response.
4. WHAT do you think you are doing, to yourself? Being so dark, I mean. Medication (anti-depressants)are something to consider for moments like these. Going back to your past, ruminating on an EVENT more than 18 years ago...letting that monkey mind out of its cage during the holidays, alone? Really not such a good idea, statistics show. stuf happens.
And, finally, we **DON'T** use 'So Be It' on this blog. So, if you NEED to perform such rituals, go to a site that does. OR, even better, send your message 'of healing' to Mafu, who you really seem to be addressing.
God Bless You, child, & get some help - you need it.
You're the one who is off on the cost. The pricing was not per week in the original mastery program, or the later five day group. It was for the two weeks. You could not opt to attend the mastery program for one week.
You lash out at me because I asked you a simple question and then accuse me of belonging to a cult. It would be amusing if it weren't so sad.
I never thought of my time during or after those studies, of it as being a cult. I had no trouble leaving when I felt I had gotten what I needed nor did many of the friends I still have who have stopped their studies when it was time.
I'm grateful for all I learned and how those techniques and all the other wonderful information I was given has helped me in so many areas of my life.
Some of us used the wisdom to grow and others felt it was enough to pay and hope they'd somehow just assimilate the nice energies and not do the work. Some of those people are still there getting high on the energies and if that's what they want, they're getting their money's worth, I suppose.
We were told in the beginning that it was not a place to homestead - that the wisdom had to be taken into the world and lived and that an ashram was not a place to stay for most people. There was never any pressure to stay, never any wisdom that said this was the only way.
Often times the members of organizations make it a cult by their own lack of belief in themselves; and that's OK, because at some point they will wake up, leave and eventually realize that it was their choice. And I'm not including here true cults and there's enough info around showing some of the warning signs in those instances.
In fact, I often think that people who are so angry, are really angry with themselves more than anyone else, for staying longer than they knew they should.
I think healing has to happen with self as well if one wants a complete healing. I also think eventual forgiveness is a big part of one's healing in any relationship.
And I'm here for the purpose of this board.
India. ANYONE CAN BE A GURU IN INDIA. No training - just open an ashram. Sometimes people do it simply to "drop out" of society. These pseudo-Hindu faux groups appear to have little grasp of the Hindu philosophies.
I'd at least like to believe such self-proclaimed leaders have some understanding of the vedas and upanishads and gita - the triad of the Hindu scripts - before they go off taking on the titles of "guru" and "swami," so obviously derived from the east.
How about the Brihadaranyaka
"From delusion, lead me to Truth
From darknes, lead me to Light
From death, lead me to Immortality."
I feel those of us who have left RSE are on our way to TRUTH, away from DARKNESS. The immortality - when the being has "awakened."
All this "enlightenment" talk leads me to believe we're all watching "Stargate!"
Tat tvam asi. "Thou art That."
A good book, imo, by V. K. Subramanian, "The Upanishads and the Bible." Mine is from India, in English - but I find it to be an amazing book.
There is no need to argue over who is right or wrong. There is a need to help people from handing over their $$ and spirituality to faux "teachers."
If you really want to learn something in India, stay away from the "ashrams" and go out into the village streets - and see the beauty in the faces amidst the impoverished. Show compassion for the man, not bathed for how long - with insects crawling on him - trying to get a meal. (There is no "disability" or "social security" in India - these people are on their own and oftentimes the under education of the villagers leads families to disassociate with these beings.
More than stressing "enlightenment," the true teachers will discuss "freedom from rebirth."
Can these "faux" teachers discuss the meanings of these ancient texts, and how they compare to the Bible and other texts? The similarities are amazing - if people use their eyes to see and ears to hear.
I was astounded when at an RSE event, (my very last one), the person sitting next to me was so "up on Ramthat" and then began discussing her "chanting group." I asked what they chanted. "Aum Namo Shivay." She had no idea what it meant. "Aum Namo Shivaya" is the same as saying, "Namaste/Namaskar." The "nam" is the root sanskrit word - but it means the same "the Divine within me honors the Divine within you."
Think we can do that here? Honor one another and yes, we have to express our frustrations with what we've been through, but before we post, can we ask ourselves, who is this helping? Or am I attacking another poster?
Thou Art That.
Thank you each for your enlightenment and time today.
I appreaciate you words of wisdom.
I am sure you each feel justified... and correct in your assessments.
This thread has helped me to take a deeper look..
Much like drawing poison from an infection….
Painful.. but sometimes necessary when so close to the heart.
I will step gently here..
My response is mostly for Bodhi,
Would you care to address the abuse of the Mafu organization mentioned by Janice?
“initiations” in the name of God…?
Accepting abuse in the name of enlightenment is perhaps one of the most disturbing elements of destructive cults, particularly the religious ones.
The Ramtha and Mafu camps are of this same lineage.
Their “end justifies the means” indoctrinations eventually nullify our ability to think for ourselves, and our effective action for good in this world, If the infection "indoctrinations" completely overrides our conscience we then become an unwitting instrument perpetuating and encouraging the very suffering we sought “enlightenment”.. to alleviate our lives from.
The challenge of awakening from the “Ramtha/Mafu” betrayal..
"For at least those of us that took the "teachings wholeheartedly"..
Is that we had become an instrument of the very darkness we trustingly sought the light from.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I can only share what my experience was when I was there in the mid 80's to the early 90's. Since I haven't been to Oregon in years, I don't know what is transpiring there. Most of my old friends no longer go to the ashram, nor have they been there for years, like me. I have a dear friend who is an ex, long term resident, and she tells me some things that haven't been public on this and other forums. I won't repeat third hand information, but all I can say is that if it is true, it would shed light on those couple of events that were referred to.
It's not for me to judge anything when I don't have the full story, nor even if I have the full story. None of us are perfected beings and I have enough weeds in my own garden to pull without complaining about the weeds in my neighbors yard. :-)
I can't address rumors, second and third hand information; because I don't know what, if anything really went on there in recent years.
I agree with Janice/Adrianna/ and her many names (pretty please pick one for this forum)that if they're asking for donations, it is something that I would not every care to participate in. It's not that I have anything against people tithing to their churches; but when an organization charges for retreats and darshans, it seems to me to be lacking in integrity to also ask for donations.
Hi David... thank you for the word... Consequentialism
I have referenced a web site belod from Stanford.edu... very interesting stuff...
Perhaps I simply have a PREFERANCE to not be BEATEN in the journey of living my life and seeking pleasure rather than pain... and perhaps, it has nothing to do with PAIN when being beaten, but the core basic instint that as a human, we all tend to PREFER Pleasure rather than Pain.
It does open a door of looking deeper at the subject.
Your very short REFERENCE to Consequentialism has opened up a votex of information and deeper looking at the subject.
By the way, unlike Bodhi, I actcually KNOW SOMEONE who was beaten, so it is not just a 3rd party rumor for me... however, I was not there to WITNESS the event so it could be a lie too. It requires a deeper look.
I am sure different points of view do filter our positions that we tend to support and/or defend.
The whole subject; for me, requires a deeply look at it all.
Perhaps in my La La Land, I would hope that during our journey to understand and expand we would let the more animal nature of our selfs go, and yes, I do realize that everyone walking the planet today has their own weeds in the garded to clean up.
It does open another big subject of holding our teachers to a higher standand than the animal nature within the human. Not sure if that is a judgement or just a desire or a standard that the human mind projects as a place to start when we select a teacher.
But hey, if there is no standard base line for behavior then Jim Jones was simply dealing with the weeding out of his garden that stood before him.. and I would suggest that in that state of mind.. we would be judging him for his unperfect nature... and hey, a few people died along the way, well no one is perfect.
This subject when taken all the way can become a very dangerous path.
and the question becomes in that mode of thought no one standard should be desired or expected when we are giving money to a teacher. All is allowed, after all, we all have weeds in the garden.
A bit crazy thinking.
Again David, thank you so much for my NEW BUZZ Word... Consequentialism
3. What is Good? Hedonistic vs. Pluralistic Consequentialisms
From the start, the hedonism in classic utilitarianism was treated with contempt. Some contemporaries of Bentham and Mill argued that hedonism lowers the value of human life to the level of animals, because it implies that, as Bentham said, a simple game (such as push-pin) is as good as poetry if the game creates as much pleasure. Quantitative hedonists sometimes respond that great poetry almost always creates more pleasure than trivial games (or sex and drugs and rock-and-roll), because the pleasures of poetry are more certain, durable, fecund, and so on.
Mill used a different strategy to avoid calling push-pin as good as poetry. He distinguished higher and lower qualities of pleasures according to the preferences of people who have experienced both kinds (Mill 1861, 56; compare Hutcheson 1755, 421-23). This qualitative hedonism has been subjected to much criticism, including charges that it is incoherent and does not count as hedonism (Moore 1903, 80-81; cf. Feldman 1997, 106-24).
Even if qualitative hedonism is coherent and is a kind of hedonism, it still might not seem plausible. Some critics argue that not all pleasures are valuable, since, for example, there is no value in the pleasures of a sadist while whipping a victim. Other opponents object that not only pleasures are intrinsically valuable, because other things are valuable independently of whether they lead to pleasure or avoid pain. For example, my love for my wife does not seem to become less valuable when I get less pleasure from her because she contracts some horrible disease. Similarly, freedom seems valuable even when it creates anxiety, and even when it is freedom to do something (such as leave one's country) that one does not want to do. Again, many people value knowledge of other galaxies regardless of whether this knowledge will create pleasure or avoid pain.
These points against hedonism are often supplemented with the story of the experience machine found in Nozick (1974, 42-45; cf. the movie, The Matrix). People on this machine believe they are surrounded by friends, winning Olympic gold medals and Nobel prizes, having sex with their favorite lovers, or doing whatever gives them the greatest balance of pleasure over pain. Although they have no real friends or lovers and actually accomplish nothing, people on the experience machine get just as much pleasure as if their beliefs were true. Moreover, they feel no (or little) pain. Assuming that the machine is reliable, it would seem irrational not to hook oneself up to this machine if pleasure and pain were all that mattered, as hedonists claim. Since it does not seem irrational to refuse to hook oneself up to this machine, hedonism seems inadequate. The reason is that hedonism overlooks the value of real friendship, knowledge, freedom, and achievements, all of which are lacking for deluded people on the experience machine.
Some hedonists claim that this objection rests on a misinterpretation of hedonism. If hedonists see pleasure and pain as sensations, then a machine might be able to reproduce those sensations. However, we can also say that a mother is pleased that her daughter gets good grades. Such propositional pleasure occurs only when the state of affairs in which the person takes pleasure exists (that is, when the daughter actually gets good grades). But the relevant states of affairs would not really exist if one were hooked up to the experience machine. Hence, hedonists who value propositional pleasure rather than sensational pleasure can deny that more pleasure is achieved by hooking oneself up to such an experience machine (Feldman 1997, 79-105; see also Tannsjo 1998 and Feldman 2004 for more on hedonism).
A related position rests on the claim that what is good is desire satisfaction or the fulfillment of preferences; and what is bad is the frustration of desires or preferences. What is desired or preferred is usually not a sensation but is, rather, a state of affairs, such as having a friend or accomplishing a goal. If a person desires or prefers to have true friends and true accomplishments and not to be deluded, then hooking this person up to the experience machine need not maximize desire satisfaction. Utilitarians who adopt this theory of value can then claim that an agent morally ought to do an act if and only if that act maximizes desire satisfaction or preference fulfillment, regardless of whether the act causes sensations of pleasure. This position is usually described as preference utilitarianism.
Preference utilitarianism is often criticized on the grounds that some preferences are misinformed, crazy, horrendous, or trivial. I might prefer to drink the liquid in a glass because I think that it is beer, though it really is acid. Or I might prefer to die merely because I am clinically depressed. Or I might prefer to torture children. Or I might prefer to spend my life learning to write as small as possible. In all such cases, opponents of preference utilitarianism can deny that what I prefer is really good. Preference utilitarians can respond by limiting the preferences that make something good, such as by referring to informed desires that do not disappear after therapy (Brandt 1979). However, it is not clear that such qualifications can solve all of the problems for a preference theory of value without making the theory circular by depending on substantive assumptions about which preferences are for good things.
Many consequentialists deny that all values can be reduced to any single ground, such as pleasure or desire satisfaction, so they instead adopt a pluralistic theory of value. Moore's ideal utilitarianism, for example, takes into account the values of beauty and truth (or knowledge) in addition to pleasure (Moore 1903, 83-85, 194; 1912). Other consequentialists add the intrinsic values of friendship or love, freedom or ability, life, virtue, and so on.
If the recognized values all concern individual welfare, then the theory of value can be called welfarist (Sen 1979). When a welfarist theory of value is combined with the other elements of classic utilitarianism, the resulting theory can be called welfarist consequentialism.
One non-welfarist theory of value is perfectionism, which claims that certain states make a person's life good without necessarily being good for the person in any way that increases that person's welfare (Hurka 1993, esp. 17). If this theory of value is combined with other elements of classic utilitarianism, the resulting theory can be called perfectionist consequentialism or, in deference to its Aristotelian roots, eudaemonistic consequentialism.
Similarly, some consequentialists hold that an act is right if and only if it maximizes some function of both happiness and capabilities (Sen 1985, Nussbaum 2000). Disabilities are then seen as bad regardless of whether they are accompanied by pain or loss of pleasure.
Or one could hold that an act is right if it maximizes respect for (or minimizes violations of) certain specified moral rights. Such theories are sometimes described as a utilitarianism of rights. This approach could be built into total consequentialism with rights weighed against happiness and other values or, alternatively, the disvalue of rights violations could be lexically ranked prior to any other kind of loss or harm (cf. Rawls 1971, 42). Such a lexical ranking within a consequentialist moral theory would yield the result that nobody is ever justified in violating rights for the sake of happiness or any value other than rights, although it would still allow some rights violations in order to avoid or prevent other rights violations.
When consequentialists incorporate a variety of values, they need to rank or weigh each value against the others. This is often difficult. Some consequentialists even hold that certain values are incommensurable or incomparable in that no comparison of their values is possible (Griffin 1986 and Chang 1997). This position allows consequentialists to recognize the possibility of irresolvable moral dilemmas (Sinnott-Armstrong 1988, 81; Railton 2003, 249-91).
Pluralism about values also enables consequentialists to handle many of the problems that plague hedonistic utilitarianism. For example, opponents often charge that classical utilitarians cannot explain our obligations to keep promises and not to lie when no pain is caused or pleasure is lost. Whether or not hedonists can meet this challenge, pluralists can hold that knowledge is intrinsically good and/or that false belief is intrinsically bad. Then, if deception causes false beliefs, deception is instrumentally bad, and agents ought not to lie without a good reason, even when lying causes no pain or loss of pleasure. Since lying is an attempt to deceive, to lie is to attempt to do what is morally wrong (in the absence of defeating factors). Similarly, if a promise to do an act is an attempt to make an audience believe that the promiser will do the act, then to break a promise is for a promiser to make false a belief that the promiser created. Although there is more tale to tell, the disvalue of false belief can be part of a consequentialist story about why it is morally wrong to break promises.
When such pluralist versions of consequentialism are not welfarist, some philosophers would not call them utilitarian. However, this usage is not uniform, since even non-welfarist views are sometimes called utilitarian. Whatever you call them, the important point is that consequentialism and the other elements of classical utilitarianism are compatible with many different theories about which things are good or valuable.
Instead of turning pluralist, some consequentialists foreswear the aggregation of values. Classic utilitarianism added up the values within each part of the consequences to determine which total set of consequences has the most value in it. One could, instead, aggregate goods for each individual but not aggregate goods of separate individuals (Roberts 2002). Or one could give up aggregation altogether and just rank total sets of consequences or total worlds created by acts without breaking those worlds down into valuable parts. One motive for this move is Moore's principle of organic unity (Moore 1903, 27-36). For example, even if punishment of a criminal causes pain, a consequentialist can hold that a world with both the crime and the punishment is better than a world with the crime but not the punishment. Similarly, a world might seem better when people do not get pleasures that they do not deserve. Cases like these lead some consequentialists to deny that moral rightness is any function of the values of particular effects of acts. Instead, they compare the whole world (or total set of consequences) that results from an action with the whole world that results from not doing that action. If the former is better, then the action is morally right (J.J.C. Smart 1973, 32; Feldman 1997, 17-35). This approach can be called holistic consequentialism or world utilitarianism.
Another way to incorporate relations among values is to consider distribution. Compare one outcome where most people are destitute but a few lucky people have extremely large amounts of goods with another outcome that contains slightly less total goods but where every person has nearly the same amount of goods. Egalitarian critics of classical utilitarianism argue that the latter outcome is better, so more than the total amount of good matters. Traditional hedonistic utilitarians who prefer the latter outcome often try to justify egalitarian distributions of goods by appealing to a principle of diminishing marginal utility. Other consequentialists, however, incorporate a more robust commitment to equality. Early on, Sidgwick (1907, 417) responded to such objections by allowing distribution to break ties between other values. More recently, some consequentialists have added some notion of fairness (Broome 1991, 192-200) or desert (Feldman 1997, 154-74) to their test of which outcome is best. (See also Kagan 1998, 48-59.) Such consequentialists do not just add up values; they look at patterns.
A related issue arises from population change. Imagine that a government considers whether to provide free contraceptives to curb a rise in population. Without free contraceptives, overcrowding will bring hunger, disease, and pain, so each person will be worse off. Still, each new person will have enough pleasure and other goods that the total net utility will increase with the population. Classic utilitarianism focuses on total utility, so it seems to imply that this government should not provide free contraceptives. That seems implausible to many utilitarians. To avoid this result, some utilitarians claim that an act is morally wrong if and only if its consequences contain more pain (or other disvalues) than an alternative, regardless of positive values. This negative utilitarianism implies that the government should provide contraceptives, since that program reduces pain (and other disvalues), even though it also decreases total net pleasure (or good). Unfortunately, negative utilitarianism also seems to imply that the government should painlessly kill everyone it can, since dead people feel no pain (and have no false beliefs, diseases, or disabilities – though killing them does cause loss of ability) (cf. R.N. Smart 1958). A better response is average utilitarianism, which says that the best consequences are those with the highest average utility (cf. Rawls 1971, 161-75). The average utility would be higher with the contraceptive program than without it, so average utilitarianism yields the more plausible result—that the government should adopt the contraceptive program. Critics sometimes charge that the average utility could also be increased by killing the worst off, but this claim is not at all clear, because such killing would put everyone in danger (since, after the worst off are killed, another group becomes the worst off, and then they might be killed next). Still, average utilitarianism faces problems of its own (such as “the mere addition paradox” in Parfit 1984, chap. 19). In any case, all maximizing consequentialists, whether or not they are pluralists, must decide whether moral rightness depends on total good or on average good.
A final challenge to consequentialists' accounts of value derives from Geach 1956 and has been pressed recently by Thomson 2001. Thomson argues that “A is a good X” (such as a good poison) does not entail “A is good”, so the term “good” is an attributive adjective and cannot legitimately be used without qualification. On this view, it is senseless to call something good unless this means that it is good for someone or in some respect or for some use or at some activity or as an instance of some kind. Consequentialists are supposed to violate this restriction when they say that the total or average consequences or the world as a whole is good without any such qualification. However, consequentialists can respond either that the term “good” has predicative uses in addition to its attributive uses or that when they call a world or total set of consequences good, they are calling it good for consequences or for a world (Sinnott-Armstrong 2003a). If so, the fact that “good” is often used attributively creates no problem for consequentialists.
Bodhi and Janice’s posts, on one level, remind me of the story of the 5 blind men and the elephant. Each of you has a clear and well articulated perspective – and each is only holding one part of the elephant. It simultaneously reminds me of the diversity of experience represented here with JZK Inc.’s Ramtha. Were I to speak only of the Ramtha of the early to mid-80s I could sound exactly like Bodhi – in those years Ramtha was about love, about you never have to come to my audience again, about God which moves through/as you – about the “power of”/harmony with the Divine, about how his words would be true 100 years from now, how stupid was belonging to “groups” and doing disciplines.. Were I to speak only of the Ramtha from ’89 to ’91 I would speak of hours of the discipline of c&e, about the specialness of Elohim Group, and how we were welcome to leave at any time which meant we were not passionate enough and courageous enough and smart enough to take advantage of this unique opportunity. Were I to speak only of the Ramtha of 2000 something when the wine ceremonies began – I would speak of drunken orgies, beatings, verbal abuse and sexually explicit rantings of the Enlightened One vomiting literally and figuratively on stage. ……. One of the gifts of this message board is the opportunity to see the whole elephant. One of the clear evidences that something ain’t right in Ramthaland is the 180 degree turnaround of Ramtha’s “Truth” and the repeated patterns of manipulative behavior over the last 30 years – but this can only be recognized from taking off the blinders, stepping back and seeing the whole picture.
Bodhi – the value of your experience does not necessarily therefore contradict or invalidate the facts of Janice’s experience. And just because I learned and grew and had stunning experiences during my years of attending Ramtha events does not necessarily therefore contradict or invalidate the fact that it’s always been a scam and always been manipulative/abusive.
I didn't invalidate her experience. Actually, I don't believe she has shared her experiences here other than money she has spent and that was the only thing I addressed.
As you said, we all have our experiences whether it's with an individual or an organization and all we can address is what we experienced. We can't speak for others, nor judge their choices to stay or leave any situation.
As I mentioned, I can't address anything I was not part of or privy to and I'm not interested in second hand, third hand, rumors particularly since it is no longer part of my experience. I rarely watch the news for the same reason. For me, it's best to focus on creativity, joy, and my spiritual practices. I'd rather pray for peace, than disturb my own by ragging on those who don't want peace.
Everyone has their old karmas to be satisfied and the new ones they're creating that they will have to deal with at some point.
We all have enough of our own stuff to deal with, our own refining to do and I think that's enough - at least it is for me.
We can certainly be compassionate and loving and sharing in a way that can promote healing and helping others recognize the brilliance that they are. And that's where I prefer to put my focus.
I remember someone once saying a pile of manure is God and so is a rose; but which one would you rather smell? I always loved that and for me it's good to remember what I prefer to put in my consciousness on a daily basis. Like everyone else, I don't always remember to lift myself to the level of thought and action I know is available for me; but hopefully I remember more to do that not to do it.
Bodhi & June,
Just to clarify..
Are you one and the same?
Yes David, since Janice outed my real name, I guess some part of me decided to use it even if I did it unintentionally. I had just finished posting a bunch of emails and signing my real name and just continued here without thinking. So true that there are no accidents or coincidences. LOL
I will continue to post under the name Bodhi, that I have been posting here all along.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing... look the other say... and LABLE everything will be RESOLVED with KARM.
Very Sad to live that way.
administrators hello no soliciting?you leave a thread with a link to another channaler?i just read the karma thread.a ****load of another channalers mindset.yes i mind reading crap like this here.all others and administrators have a wonderfull day.
That was MY personal writing in response to THIS Link where the FINAL WORD Was KARMA.
Not another CHANNEL...just me.
Smile. Sorry you do not like my post.
Please ask the ADMINISTRATOR to totally DELETE this WHOLE THREAD.
Janice, June, Bohdi, Adrianna, god...whomever you all are....
I just walked in and all this dirty laundry and finger pointing is a bit much.
Is there not some way to play a bit nicer together?
To me, some posts seem as angry as those who are IN RSE, and those who have decided to NOT move along in terms of staying angry.
Yes,there are places in one's recovery of being angry, but must it be continually fed here?
I hope not.
There are more gracious ways to exchange ideas and concepts without such bashing.
Unless of course, you want to LIVE like that.
I for one, Have chosen NOT to, now that I have the eyes too see.....
We have ask for this post to be REMOVEd.
The monitor chooses not too..
Please move on.
I think the moderator's do not see vitriol in these threads....
so suffice it to say that maybe one count to ten or wait a few days for emotions to blow over when posting.
This just goes to prove how much brainwashing goes on in these types of groups and the ramifications in the aftermath.