Life and Death as a Process

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Obviously the Terri Schiavo case has raised many questions and in a political environment, they can never get the consideration they deserve. Where the essence of religion strives to experience human understanding, politics seeks resolution in accordance with the motives of the politician. Where the essential goal of religion is to awaken, politics seeks to keep one asleep and in line with the political cause under the illusion of progress.

Normally, in life, people work together on a project and the primary objective is completion of the project. On my path people sometimes get together on a project where the primary objective is the conscious experience of ourselves, as we are, in the process that leads towards the objective. In this way the experience of the process in contrast to the objective is the primary purpose. In normal life as we know it, the objective is the goal, while in all these spiritual efforts, the objective is self knowledge and the evolution of Man that this knowledge strives towards

Obviously, in modern life this is very much a minority attitude but in the essence of the older religions like Christianity and Buddhism, it is natural.

I could just see a modern psychologist for the first time exposed to Arjuna’s question in the Bhagavad Gita where he is in tears over the prospect of having to kill his cousins in the Battlefield of Kuruksetra and Sri Krsna advises him to do just that. That would go over like your proverbial lead balloon.

To try and make any sense out of the Terri Schiavo case in the context of the PROCESS of life it is necessary to be temporarily free of political considerations which have only political goals as their aim at the expense of understanding.

IMO it first must be admitted that different cultures value the process of life differently. Take for example the different attitudes towards the Buffalo in earlier days:

germantown.k12.il.us/indians/plains.html

The Indians honored the cyclical process of life itself so even though the buffalo was killed it was respected as part of the process. It was through awareness of the process that man could become more like Man.

So at some point the question becomes how to understand the cycle of life and human life in the context of meaning and purpose within the process itself and irrelevant of the immediate goal? They don’t teach this in college where grades are the primary objective. :slight_smile:

I don’t know if any would appreciate sinking their teeth into such a question where politics are irrelevant but if you do, here is an argument followed by a reply in the second link that raises some observations in the context of both Buddhism and Christianity on this whole question of euthanasia and deciding another’s death. Remember: no politics! This is not about horrible Republicans. It is about both the ability and possible value of understanding.

ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ADM/damien.htm

ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ADM/perrett.htm

2

well going back to tentatives starting ironic post that no one fully understood or answered.

do we keep people alive forever just because we can?

even the Native Americans(NA) knew that death was an important part of life, we are in a culture continually trying to deny the importance of death by killing the environment (like your buffalo example), or killing other people to instill our democracy.

(yes I know that’s political)

I think the NA would see Terri’s situation as they saw the buffalo on the plain. A waste of life.

3

scythekain

The posts ask two different questions. Tentative asks in the context of politics. I am asking in a context of life where politics does not exist. Politics wants to decide when to pull the plug in a secular societal context. Religion seeks to better “understand” the question from a human perspective and its needs and potential.

It’s not so easy to let your politics go for a moment is it? You are not alone.

4

well let’s look at the current situation where the religious right wants to intertwine itself with the neocon movement because of the promised bans on support for stem cell research (which would EXTEND LIFE) and the bans on homosexual marriage.

why you say that “religion seeks to better understand the human condition” - that is painting with to broad a brush religious or political, and really I would say the two are inseperable, if you want atheism is a religion in it’s own right.

I would say very few religions mainstream or otherwise truly strive to put to task what it TRULY means to be alive. and “politics” in the mainstream case and non-judicial sense tried and tried to reinsert the plug which is what the majority “religious” in this country wanted.

But, I think you are buying into the emotion on the wrong side. Think about it from Terri’s condition. She’s a shell. She’s living by means she can’t control. Life is about controlling your life.

That’s what we want to teach our children. (well what WE SHOULD TEACH.) but what Terri’s parents wanted was to continue to have control over her life.

She can’t even do that. Even christopher reeve in his quadraplegic condition still had control.

komotv.com/stories/36049.htm

Terri passed away earlier this morning, but that will hardly mean the end of this discussion.

I think the most pertinent quote from this article is this one, alot of people have said michael wanted to kill terri so he could start his own life… he had already done so and if he wanted he could have legally divorced her.

I think there’s been alot of bad information coming out of the parents side of the story.

so let’s ignore all of that and start over and define what it means to be alive.

here’s my opinion:

You have control over your life.
You are aware of your surroundings.
You can take action.

(short list for now)

5

Scyth

I see you can’t do it. :slight_smile: You cannot drop politics. In all fairness though I should have repeated what I said in my initial post about the essential goal of religion which has nothing to do with the political goals of religion that you now see.

Christianity doesn’t exist in public. What survives of Christianity is very private. What you see in culture is broken Christianity or Christendom which has lost its essence.

This is why I posted the articles. I’m trying to stay away from the normal points of view and political bickering and try and discuss this question from a higher perspective as did Damien Keown in the first link.

Try first to understand the reasoning behind the values of old Buddhism and Christianity. What does it mean to respect life from the deeply spiritual point of view? How do we reconcile the end with the process? This is not political. It is human

6

Nick,

You need to go back and read my original post. It was couched in political terms, but only to point out that life/death is beyond politics. That was the heavy irony. The whole Schiavo affair was caught up in political and religious wrangling, and the humanity of it was lost in the dust cloud. There are any number of possible answers to what is life - and they are all personal. I don’t have to read any book or listen to any preacher or politician to understand the celebration of both life and then death. And I know the difference. Too bad there were so many who couldn’t see the private nature of such understanding.

JT

7

Tentative

I agree that people will understand life differently. The question isn’t really what is life but more how we personally value it.

What is an ant? We don’t know but it is different to ask how to value it. Do we value it as it is, as much as a dog, a cow, a human being? How can we say if we don’t really know what they are? So for me what life is has a different importance then how to respect it. Can we begin to respect emotionally what we cannot comprehend logically? Maybe the emotional understanding is more accurate here since the emotions are alive while the thoughts are inorganic.

You speak of the private decision. In respect to Terri, no thinking person can just blindly accept it was her decision with all the reason for doubt. But the question of personal decision in general is a valid one and I would agree that those that desire to terminate their life should be allowed to do so.

The question here is how to decide and I am providing some information in respect to medical ethics to raise some questions. Without defining what life is, if a person understands the karmic implications of their life and death, these decisions can change.

Of course with modern secular religious interpretations, these ideas don’t come up. The question is sometimes felt even in modern times when brought up and it is natural, on a religion board, to bring it up.

So the question of indefinitely sustaining a corpse is different from how a person respects life itself and the meaning and purpose of their own existence in either a karmic or evolutionary perspective. Some people strive to “feel” these questions, to ponder them in the real meaning of the word, so as to more greatly feel their humanity.

While the questions of indefinite life support of a corpse and the karmic effects of voluntary suicide are related, they are not the same.

8

Nick, you’re mixing peas and carrots here. On the one hand, you wish to go beyond the political to intuitive understanding and in the next sentence revert to the political issues.

You’re right that I have no knowledge of what decision Terri Schaivo would have made. To that we must look to her next of kin - her husband- for the answer.

I think it’s interesting that the traditional conservative religious people will strongly support the ‘sanctity of marraige’ and then ignore it when convenient. I believe it’s a common statement in traditional wedding vows that a couple “cleave to one another, forsaking all others”. In plain language, they are responsible for and answerable only to each other. Forgive me for becoming soft and squishy, but my understanding is that the two become one and either speaks for the other.

In my way of thinking, her husband was the only ‘valid’ source of knowing her wishes. That others in the family didn’t agree is beside the point. By the marraige vows they witnessed and upheld, they should never have brought the dispute before the courts in the first place. If the truly religious people were actually committed to the ‘sancity’ of marraige, they wouldn’t have stuck their noses in the Schaivo’s business in the first place.

The defining of what is life will, in some measure, also be the definition of how we value life. This definition, if it is to have any credence with all Americans, will probably satisfy no one. That is the nature of finding those compromises among the extreme views.

So much for the political. Our personal understanding of life and death is just that - personal. There will of necessity be legal definitions for the medical and judicial institutions, but that will have nothing to do with our personal understanding, or the personal understanding between two people ‘united in holy matrimony’.

JT

9

I think it’s interesting that so many are outraged that she’s being allowed to die yet think nothing when fetuses are executed. Medically she’s veggie dip, presumably with no sentience at all, nor any future capacity for it, while an unborn baby has both.

Interestingly, though, they have parallels. Neither can speak to defend themself and in both cases the decision really comes down to what’s most convenient for the ones choosing life or death for them.

Note: I don’t mean you, tenative. I have no idea where you fall on the spectrum, politically. That sentence merely reminded me of a thought I’d had since first hearing about this tempest-in-a-teakettle.

10

Hi Phaedrus,

The whole right-to-life issue make’s me want to vomit. I fall on the political spectrum in a fairly unlikely place: Right-to-life has no damn place in politics! That’s where I am. How we have managed to take something as intensely private as abortion or ‘pulling the plug’ and turn it into a public circus only point’s out our collective insanity.

I’m going to quibble with your assessment that life/death decisions are what ever is convenient for those making the choices. You have automatically assumed that defense is necessary, and that those who choose, act out of ulterior motives. You may be right in some circumstances, but I think it would be the exception rather than the rule.
Most of the choosers are going through a gut wrenching, soul searching private hell. It isn’t lost on them that they are making a life/death decision for a loved one. For most choosers it isn’t what is convenient, but what is right, because they are going to have to live with the decision made for the rest of their lives.

I can’t think of anything that demands more privacy than right-to-life. For me to question such a decision made by another is the most despicable behavior I can imagine.

I can tell you one thing. If I’m ever forced to become a chooser, anyone who tries to intrude in that private decision had better be good at ducking. :imp:

I know that your comments weren’t directed at me personally. :slight_smile:

JT

11

The only problem is that abortion is a decision the child has to die with for the rest of his/her brief life. The real issue, in my mind, is the same- someone is choosing whether another will live or die. [BTW< Terry Shaivo just died today, I read.] Why is there outrage when an adult who’s incapable of caring for herself or even higher brain function is “euthanized” yet apathy when it’s a child? That doens’t seem at all consistent.

I’m not sure what you mean by “defense”- do you mean self defense? I do believe a person has a right to kill in self defense. Certainly some abortions do fall under that catagory where delivery of a baby would likely prove fatal to the mother. But I’m simply bewildered that murdering the unborn could be viewed as any more ‘personal’ or ‘private’ than dragging someone out into an onion field, executing them and buring them in a shallow grave. I can see why the person performing the killing would want it to be ‘private’, but your right to do as you like ends where it harms another. At least that’s how it works outside the womb.

I’m sorry to hijack the thread and turn it towards abortion, but it’s fascinating that, to me anyway, this is eerily similar. Please understand that my opposition to abortion has nothing to do with religion- I’m an atheist (okay, I’m sometimes agnostic on Sundays :wink: ). But from strictly a secular humanist and scientific standpoint, I don’t see how a logical and intellegent person could not consider abortion a homicide. The law can say it’s justifiable homicide, but it’s killing another living person, it’s not simply a medical procedure.

I’ve known women who’ve had abortions, obviously. And it was torture for them. But think how bad it must have been to be aborted!

Edited to correct crappy grammar and spelling.

12

I agree with the courts decision to allow that woman to die. If that seems to be inconsisten, please read on.

I’m not a doctor, but the prevailing medical opinion was that she was in a PVS, with no hope of ever having any higher brain function. Again, no hope of recovery or ever living life. And importantly, the machine that was her body was only lingering on due to heroic artificial measures. Some functions were artificially being performed for her, but she couldn’t live independant of the technology and never would be able to.

The important distinction, in my mind, is that in common law, a person in that situation has a right to reject heroic measures. When that person is incapable of making their own decisions, the duty falls to the next of kin. If a person is married, the spouse is always presumed to trump the parents. Their smoke screens aside (eg claiming they knew her wishes better, assassinating his character, implying marital problems, etc) they simply don’t have the right to speak for her. The husband claimed to know her wished and I tend to believe him. But the law doesn’t require that I do.

Let me expand upon the last part. Parents always assume they know their children better, but this is often not the case. My ex-wife had very religious parents, and they honestly thought she was pure as the driven snow. In their eyes, they suspected I ‘deflowered’ her and were relieved when we married. Man, they were clueless. :confused:

For my own part, my parents are also very religious. They’re not ‘bible thumpers,’ spouting to all in earshot, but rather people of quiet conviction. Since the issue never came up, I never actually admitted to them that I’m an atheist til I was well into my thirties. Needless to say they were shocked! It lead to several debates, and to this day they can’t understand why I don’t believe.

My point is that children often shield their parents from things that would bring disappointment or disapproval. Terry may have very well stated to her husband that she wouldn’t want to live on like that, even if she could never say it to her parents for fear of offending them. I certainly shared confidences with my ex-wife that would make my parents hair fall out!

13

All I said was that there is enough conflicting information to raise doubt as far as Michael Schiavo is concerned but this has nothing to do with the larger issue which is the objective of this thread and partially described in the linked articles.

This is not about customs and traditions of Christendom or politics but of the living ideas and concerns that relate to the essence of all the great teachings in respect to the meaning, purpose, and consequences of life and death on earth.

The question is whether or not the karmic and evolutionary concerns of these ancient traditions described in the linked article as well as the reply have any relevance to anyone?

Regardless of political concerns over euthanasia or abortion, are there non-secular, objective, essential religious concerns, as to why they are discouraged? From Luke 20: 25

Not so easy to juggle but necessary to do if one desires to get beyond atqcment to politics in the search for meaning and purpose. If not, just stay with politics, secular platitudes, and beer.

14

Well, assuming sentience, you may be right. The dilemma is, we just don’t know when sentience begins. Even that is beside the point. The argument says that, outside legal definitions, ‘life’ begins at the moment of conception. My understanding is that just a little over half the folks don’t agree with that notion.

I don’t believe we will ever come to a consensus on what life is or when it begins. And that throws us back upon ourselves.

I will come down on the side of benign intentions. I refuse to believe that a decision to abort is made casually or out of selfish motives. Whether it is terminating a pregnancy or ‘murdering’ a fetus isn’t something I can choose for anyone else. When science can tell us the exact moment a fetus is conscious of I/me, then I’ll change my mind. Until then…

JT

15

A scientific definition of when life begins will do no good at all. Not so long as religions and cultural norms disagree. As far as the bible quotes, Nick_A, I guess I’ll have to quote a greater authority; Eedie Brickel- “Philosophy is just talk on the cereal box, religion is the smile on a dog.” I don’t much care what the bible says about it, no offense.

What I’m saying is this case is not unique at all. You may question the husbands motivation all you like, but not even the woman’s family disputes that he loves/loved her. By all accounts, even up til the end he sat by her side for many hours per day. It’s insulting and ignorant to pick up this story from CNN, follow it for two weeks, then assert you know her will better than her own spouse. The fact is it just doesn’t matter what you or I think of it. That’s why we have laws.

BTW, to “refuse to believe that a decision to abort is made casually or out of selfish motives” seems a little naive to me, no offense. Sure, it may be a torturous decision for the women we think of as decent, but you have to realize for others it’s simply another means of birth control.

16

This idea bombed. It is impossible IMO to consider the in depth questions of euthanasia, abortion and the like strictly from the point of view of our politics concerning one case. This would be like trying to understand the value of compassion and forgiveness just after someone kills your mother.

So everyone prefers to argue the case rather than to reveal and discuss the deeper issues. I’ll try it myself superficially and then, at the risk of a bad pun, let it die.

Mr. Keown in the Journal of Medical Ethics states at the beginning:

Why? What is so important about life?

Buddhism stresses the eternal suffering on the wheel of samsara and the effect of karma to keep us on it. Our karma is maintained by not only our actions but ability to see life for what it is. :

So our karma is based upon what we “are” (moral status) as well as what we do.

If the freedom from karma is the ultimate good and karma is determined by the attachment to our acquired perceptions of life, then the “sanctity” of life must be important and it is no wonder than that Buddhism forbids “its intentional destruction.” Its destruction eliminates the possibility for release from ones karmic condition which is the true reality.

Christendom in general, according to Keown, takes the similar view that the end does not justify the means.

This of course reflects Jesus endless debates with the Pharisees about the need to see the deed and the motive behind it as separate issues.

Without getting into this now, the “sanctity of life” issue centers around "

. In the context of Christian re-birth, this gift allows freedom from “dust to dust” and the different degrees of inner karmic (sinful) consequences.

Society is secular and has no need for such speculation. Its concern is for how you blend in. Reactions like euthanasia, abortion, or anything similar, can then be considered by the individual in the context of their own being as well as its effects on another’s exclusive of societies dictates.

Many people are just secular in nature with only societal concerns. Others sense there is more to it and begin to be aware of the larger picture expressed as the “wheel of samsara” for example. Society has the obligation to perpetuate its existence and values in which undesired life can be an “inconvenience” worth destroying. The spiritual person has to reveal to those with the ability to understand the meaning and purpose of “inconvenience” and its effect on what is more truly us and independent of society.

These are just some of the questions raised in regards to euthanasia.

IMO a person that has begun to smell the coffee has to consider not just the secular politics but the “good” of such core values within ancient knowledge. How do we respect life, our life, another’s life, and human life in general? Is there something to consider in the current situation beyond how horrible Republicans are? Not at this time it appears. Maybe in the future during less defensive calmer times it may be but the older I get, the more I doubt it and believe the “good” of these questions will be voluntarily restricted to those having become more open to the “good” beyond the secular. The modern psycho/spiritual organizations will probably reflect the same divergence. There will be some composed of strictly secular values, others composed of “wishful thinking” and imagination, and a small minority comprised of a variety of people willing to put their defenses and fears aside to objectively explore what exists beyond the differing and limited preconceptions comprising their earthly expertise in order to become open to the larger truths at the core of their expertise. Their influence on the young of similar mind-set, may serve as a tempering influence on medical ethics itself and of helping those open to karmic understanding. who knows? Well when all else fails, there’s always good scotch as partial compensation.

17

I see now that abortion is in the mix.

fantabulous.

Really there’s only one way to look at this I believe tentative hit in on the head. It’s a private and personal matter and any two people agreeing on right to die issues are going to disagree on abortion issues.

I think this is where your misreading the situation phaedrus, most of the people outraged are against abortion.

I see it as this. if it means a baby is gonna be born in a toilet and drowned upon birth I think abortion is more humane than that, but I think in order to cut back on abortions we first need to remove the stigmata of sexual activity that religion has constrained upon us.

Most teenagers today because of “no child left behind” are taught that sex is bad sex is evil. condoms don’t work. so they have sex without condoms get pregnant and as teenagers who are not ready for the responsibility of a child are left with a decision. abort-hide the pregnancy then dump the kid. We’ve made the children having sex feel dirty, so when they do become pregnant they try to hide it.

Nick you say to leave politics out of it. Sorry can’t do it. Not when such a controlling ruler is in charge screwing everything up.

The republican party: Making private matters public.

18

scyth

The thing is that if someone wished to seriously discuss the Gita with Gandhi and its implications within unconscious societal life, he could have done so. In this way he was capable of giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.

In modern times the secularization of religion has made them largely synonomous. God and Caesar are two sides of the same coin, good or bad, and on the same level as opposed to two different coins entirely. It has come to be seen that if you have the “right” politics, then God is on your side cheering you on while the other side claims that the only meaningful reality is secular ethics.

Yes, this is what happens. We always feel that if this or that is done or this or that person is in charge, everything will turn for the better.

But from all I’ve come to know, it seems that all of what happens is not the result of what anyone is doing but the natural expression of human “being”. since we are what we are, life will continue to be as it is. Life will continue moving in circles conforming to the lawful cycles of life established as nature’s way because we are what we are.

The only thing missing here is “A time for Republicans”.

This is the way it is. Everything turns in cycles giving the illusion of progress and such an idea is the biggest insult to society that continues because of such a belief.

So if pondering the larger perspective in the matters of euthanasia, abortion, and the like has become no longer fashionable I will now adopt the expression first uttered by Jeremy H. Crompton while in the most bitter struggle with what he defined as social injustice. Apparently he finally came to the emotional state where he had experienced what psychology defines as the “last straw.” He sat up straight in his chair and looked upon his friends with the icy stare of one who has just seen the Devil himself and said what would be passed on from generation to generation: “Shoot da Bastards!”

19

All I can say is get over it or be a long time pissed. :wink: After 8 years of Clinton, the shoe is now on the other foot, and I think it’s hilarious listening to all the bitching. :smiley:

20

I say “Shoot da Bastards” and be done with it already. Once the smoke has cleared we have to appoint a genuine “Expert” in these matters of right and wrong/good and bad and finally rid ourselves of these unfortunates who have no reason to live other than to make the good people miserable and stand in the way of world peace.

We need a leader who is not afraid to say it like it is as previously expressed by King George: