Death, my Beloved Betrothed

Somewhere I wrote a poem or two about this and I intend to find that and post it - but what do you all think about death?

Here is something I just read in a question and answer thing someone did with the Dalai Lama...

Q: In your opinion, is death a biological and medical event, or is it simply personal and spiritual? Is a right that we do everything in our power to save or at least prolong for a few years the life and human being? Or conversely, is it un-fair to impose the risk that death will occur in a highly technical medical context, where the patient is cut off from family and friends? Do you think death is good or bad? And finally, do the efforts of western medicine to thwart death seemed questionable to you? If, on the contrary, death belongs the dying and they close friends and family, at what point should the physician withdraw? Under what conditions must we inform the patient that death can no longer be avoided?

A: First of all, we should realise that death is truly part of life and that it is neither would not bad in itself. In the Tibetan book of the dead, it says "what we called death is merely a concept." In other words, death represents the end of the gross consciousness and its support, the gross body. This happens at the gross level of the mind. But neither death nor birth exist at the subtle level of consciousness that we call "clear light. "Of course, generally speaking, death is something we dread. However, death, which we want nothing to do with, is unavoidable. This is why it is important that during our lifetime we become familiar with the idea of death, so that it will not be a real shock to us at the moment it comes. We do not meditate regularly on death in order to die more quickly; on the contrary, like everyone, we wish to live a long time. However, since death is inevitable, we believe that if we begin to prepare for it and an earlier point in time, on the day of our death it will be easier to accept it.

I think that there is no general rule with regard to the intensive care often given to patients in order to prolong their lives. It is a complex problem, and in examining it we must take numerous elements into account, according to each set of circumstances, each particular case. For example, if we prolong the life of person who is critically ill but whose mind remains very lucid, we are giving him or her the opportunity to continue to think in the way only a human being can think. We must also consider whether the person will benefit from prolonged life or whether, on the contrary, he will experience great physical and mental suffering, physical pain, or extreme fear. If the person is in a deep coma, that is yet another problem. The wishes of the patients family must also be taken into account, as well as the immense financial problems that prolonged care can create. I think the most important thing is to try and to our best to ensure that dying person may depart quietly, with serenity and in a peace. There is also a distinction to be made between those dying people who practise a religion and those who do not. Whatever the case, whether one is religious or not, I believe it is better to die in peace.

Hi Mayflow, a bit of quiet wandering and I found you...

I personally think senior care has developed as it has from a political point of view in that over the last 100-150 years, we have been encouraged in many ways to have a household where all adults must work, and work hard, both from everything being so expensive to the expansion of women in the workforce and out of the homes. Neither education or government encourage us to bear children or the consider caring for our elders. Very lucrative from a political point of view 100 years ago before we inudated the system with so many seniors and children both needing subsidy and care outside the home as a result of this shift. For many years it was also lucrative for the drug companies...mind you for the last 20 years or so the capital needed to afford this way of living that the people now expect is overwhelming and has been funded with no-good fiat paper money versus gold standard. Hence the finacial ruin.
I agree with you, I want to be at home, in peace, the way my family has for hundreds of years...on the hill, in our house, in the view of the window with sun shining on me warmly...We will shift again...we always do. No fear, I don't actually believe in death, only change...I wish everyone could be relieved of the fear like us...wishful thinking, maybe not everyone can handle the knowledge...

Thank-you Mayflow

Prettybirds wrote:

I personally think senior care has developed as it has from a political point of view in that over the last 100-150 years, we have been encouraged in many ways to have a household where all adults must work, and work hard, both from everything being so expensive to the expansion of women in the workforce and out of the homes. Neither education or government encourage us to bear children or the consider caring for our elders. Very lucrative from a political point of view 100 years ago before we inudated the system with so many seniors and children both needing subsidy and care outside the home as a result of this shift. For many years it was also lucrative for the drug companies...mind you for the last 20 years or so the capital needed to afford this way of living that the people now expect is overwhelming and has been funded with no-good fiat paper money versus gold standard. .

I agree with you that many public policy decisions are made on political rather than rational or scientific bases. Do you consider the trend toward both parents working outside the home, and to families having fewer children to be bad, good, or neutral? It seems to me that women always bear the brunt of traditions, customs, or policies that rest upon children and elderly being cared for at home. I call it "mothers solving the world's problems for free" because there is rarely any financial or material compensation or accounting of this effort. It is entirely unrecognized in the nation's economy, yet its value is immense. I agreed with Hillary Clinton when she wrote, "it takes a village", not only to raise a child, but to care for an elder. It seems this way, the benefits to all are greater, and the burdens are shared.

i am soooo glad for the thoughts now emerging on this thread and in this forum.

i had to read through a lot of stuff on other forums to come to a more comprehensive evaluation of living conditions, education, and the generally adopted stances on a life's value. \!!

i shall share thoughts now with much more ease, since in a current societal climate of "rationality" i was constantly told (directly and indirectly) what i seem to want was going back to the stone age. boahh.

thanks to you, i shall look forward to team up with you: after all, our world was promised to me as a global village, and that was very modern, not stone-age.

lavender orchid wrote:

i shall share thoughts now with much more ease, since in a current societal climate of "rationality" i was constantly told (directly and indirectly) what i seem to want was going back to the stone age. boahh.

How deep did this rationality go? Rational pursuit of an irrational goal is still misguided.

Romana wrote:

lavender orchid wrote:

i shall share thoughts now with much more ease, since in a current societal climate of "rationality" i was constantly told (directly and indirectly) what i seem to want was going back to the stone age. boahh.

How deep did this rationality go? Rational pursuit of an irrational goal is still misguided.

yes. who has "power" (authority vs. energy ) to define what is what, since all it appears to establish is a permanent strife about access to material ressources as if one needs to prove one's worthiness by partaking in a lottery game before one can even remotely gather the wits to know otherwise.

what goal, btw.?

.[/quote]
I agree with you that many public policy decisions are made on political rather than rational or scientific bases. Do you consider the trend toward both parents working outside the home, and to families having fewer children to be bad, good, or neutral? It seems to me that women always bear the brunt of traditions, customs, or policies that rest upon children and elderly being cared for at home. I call it "mothers solving the world's problems for free" because there is rarely any financial or material compensation or accounting of this effort. It is entirely unrecognized in the nation's economy, yet its value is immense. I agreed with Hillary Clinton when she wrote, "it takes a village", not only to raise a child, but to care for an elder. It seems this way, the benefits to all are greater, and the burdens are shared.[/quote]


Hi Romana, I think in a funny sort of way. I think, to be honest, the degradation of women is nothing more, nothing less, than a mirror image of our fear of testosterone. Over all, I see a big fear/dislike amongst women for a man's ability to literally move a mountain, in reflection to this, is man's fear of woman's ability to organize it. This situation reeks of competitiveness. Thousands of years of it.
There is something else I see. In growing numbers of people, there is the possibility of more and more balanced, less fearful, less competitive souls. Look around the world, it is shifting.

It does take a village of equal participation to raise a child, take care of an elder, look around the world through a set of glasses that show you how many villages are being built now as compared to 100 years ago. Big difference. Instead of little pockets of good dispersed across a land of greed, it is now looking much more appealing then ever in so far as the little pockets are on their way to being the greed dispersed across a land of good. Social good is on the climb. Political revolution/evolution, social/personal welfare, expectations of personal growth are changing, people who have for 100/1000 of years lived in subjugation are revolting and demanding more, most importantly, in a time when the world, now, can see. There are less and less places to hide atrocity. The curtains are falling.

Birds

Prettybirds wrote:

.

I agree with you that many public policy decisions are made on political rather than rational or scientific bases. Do you consider the trend toward both parents working outside the home, and to families having fewer children to be bad, good, or neutral? It seems to me that women always bear the brunt of traditions, customs, or policies that rest upon children and elderly being cared for at home. I call it "mothers solving the world's problems for free" because there is rarely any financial or material compensation or accounting of this effort. It is entirely unrecognized in the nation's economy, yet its value is immense. I agreed with Hillary Clinton when she wrote, "it takes a village", not only to raise a child, but to care for an elder. It seems this way, the benefits to all are greater, and the burdens are shared.[/quote]

decisions must be made according to the talents and skills each of us does have. selection cannot go on starting from almost conception. that is my take on things and \!! a lifetime of consideration on this topic as well as personal experience makes me say this \!! today. all development is deeply personal before it can be viewed with big public eyes and imposed on by policies, however scientifically guided.
mature adults must make such decisions, not permanently immature grown children, imho.
our lives and that of future generations must be worth more than fashionable lifestyles on probation today.

a mother must be comfortable that her child is given the needed care. needs a lot of allrounders of any age around.
here, the hurdles set up by government policies, are the academic training of professional educators and of course, pay structures. no village, but fancy images for the well-to-do.

freedom, btw., needs much less "organisation" than trust. which latter appears very hard to come by. trust is a matter of maturity achieved.

Hi Romana, I think in a funny sort of way. I think, to be honest, the degradation of women is nothing more, nothing less, than a mirror image of our fear of testosterone. Over all, I see a big fear/dislike amongst women for a man's ability to literally move a mountain, in reflection to this, is man's fear of woman's ability to organize it. This situation reeks of competitiveness. Thousands of years of it.
There is something else I see. In growing numbers of people, there is the possibility of more and more balanced, less fearful, less competitive souls. Look around the world, it is shifting.

It does take a village of equal participation to raise a child, take care of an elder, look around the world through a set of glasses that show you how many villages are being built now as compared to 100 years ago. Big difference. Instead of little pockets of good dispersed across a land of greed, it is now looking much more appealing then ever in so far as the little pockets are on their way to being the greed dispersed across a land of good. Social good is on the climb. Political revolution/evolution, social/personal welfare, expectations of personal growth are changing, people who have for 100/1000 of years lived in subjugation are revolting and demanding more, most importantly, in a time when the world, now, can see. There are less and less places to hide atrocity. The curtains are falling.

Birds[/quote]

Sometimes, that mother's comfort, her knowing, has to be a conscious choice.

Not having a village of my own though has made me determined to build my own, and many others. Like many others. The beauty in bad....even is all I could build is a stick cabin on squatted ground, the villager's around flowers and critters.

Prettybirds wrote:

Sometimes, that mother's comfort, her knowing, has to be a conscious choice.

Not having a village of my own though has made me determined to build my own, and many others. Like many others. The beauty in bad....even is all I could build is a stick cabin on squatted ground, the villager's around flowers and critters.

conscious, sure. conscientious, that's what inner knowing makes that choice.

For all the people out there who learn to build from blueprints of repression, the lesson's learned allow the few who are lucky enough to gain proper building materials, to rebuild for all. Some find emotional tools, others find natural resources, to some its social policy. Sometimes, it is just a pie for new neighbor, some volunteer work. We are conditioned from birth to concentrate on the negative. A biological and social happenstance. It takes great patience to see the world through new more positive eyes. Something we all need to do, the power of thought and perception....

Prettybirds wrote:

For all the people out there who learn to build from blueprints of repression, the lesson's learned allow the few who are lucky enough to gain proper building materials, to rebuild for all. Some find emotional tools, others find natural resources, to some its social policy. Sometimes, it is just a pie for new neighbor, some volunteer work. We are conditioned from birth to concentrate on the negative. A biological and social happenstance. It takes great patience to see the world through new more positive eyes. Something we all need to do, the power of thought and perception....

your optimism is hard to beat, Pretty, and therefore i "allow" myself to be contaminated by it..

these blueprints are a menace. i had barely overcome them, only to run into them again... this time not as direct repression, but as indirect resentment.

conclusion: unlearning these patterns begins with asking why certain teachings (spiritual food) were written the way they come now.
or, whether certain words spoken to us, can be changed to a more digestable message (warning: this needs practice, often better kept apart from the speaker)...
but generally speaking, toughness should not be imposed by intimidation, but must remain a flexible tool within one's volition range.

the reward / punishment patterns "guiding" all social structuring in "modern" societies are up for thorough revision, not revisionism, however.

I am an eternal optimist. Like a little treasure, when left to my own devices, a happy polished gem of tolerance. A love of beauty that overshadows every thing as soon as my eyes rest on a green field, a swooping Hawk...a furious storm...

uh uh...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpr9miPOs1c

Wow, that is beautiful, meaningful...I couldn't of found a way to say it better. I'm goose bumpy.

We got a little off topic eh May?

Prettybirds wrote:

Hi Romana, I think in a funny sort of way. I think, to be honest, the degradation of women is nothing more, nothing less, than a mirror image of our fear of testosterone. Over all, I see a big fear/dislike amongst women for a man's ability to literally move a mountain, in reflection to this, is man's fear of woman's ability to organize it. This situation reeks of competitiveness. Thousands of years of it.
There is something else I see. In growing numbers of people, there is the possibility of more and more balanced, less fearful, less competitive souls. Look around the world, it is shifting.

If there is inherent gender competitiveness, I wonder whether it actually began with men. Women have always braved the dangers of childbirth. What had men to compare -- the dangers of the hunt, perhaps? Somehow a male "warrior culture" emerged, glorifying risk of one's life in battle. This willingness to give one's life in taking life seems a feeble attempt to match the courage of women in giving it.

I see not so much competition as divisiveness and limitation. When we speak of "man's ability to . . . " or "woman's ability to . . . " we deny those men or women who are not like this, or who are like their supposed opposite. Better for us to see each person first and foremost as an individual, with all the gifts and limitations they actually have.

prettybirds wrote:

Instead of little pockets of good dispersed across a land of greed, it is now looking much more appealing then ever in so far as the little pockets are on their way to being the greed dispersed across a land of good. Social good is on the climb. Political revolution/evolution, social/personal welfare, expectations of personal growth are changing, people who have for 100/1000 of years lived in subjugation are revolting and demanding more, most importantly, in a time when the world, now, can see. There are less and less places to hide atrocity. The curtains are falling.

I do not share your optimism here. Greed is still widespread, and trust increasingly dangerous and scarce. What appear to be significant gains on paper are often not realized in implementation. Yes, overt atrocity is harder to hide but not always easier to correct, and much has simply been driven underground. For example, while most if not all nations decry slavery as immoral and inhuman, plenty of people continue to live in conditions of slavery. We cannot focus on the positive to the exclusion of addressing the many grave concerns that remain.

Hi Romana, I talk about this periodically with a little native lady around here. We have many disagreements over what started the competition in the first place. We go all the way back to matriarchal times and chase this question around. Its funny she gets really mad at me because I feel it is not just a mans problem but woman's as well. I have to wonder how much of a woman's natural tendency to be bossy is at the root of this. I've met women who are considered crones/wise old women. Not many of them are kind and most of them power trip quite well.
I think that old beliefs mistakenly put women on a pedestal and that fact has cause massive amounts of insecurity within men. When a man feels insecure, whether he knows it for what it is or not, you get anger.

I honestly believe that at matriarchal times, it went to woman's head, ego kicked in, and here we are. If matriarchal times were as balanced as a lot of people wish to perceive it, well, we would still be living it. You should see her bristle when I say this... . I think we have been locked in this stalemate for too long.

I try to look at men as father's when I am looking for deeper understanding. Not just fathers of children, but fathers of their ideals, dreams, and creations. Men had to cope with not being able to love a child like a mother could. 1000 of years a man wasn't able to do that...repression of a highest order, man, even 20 years ago the child would end up with a heroine addict mother over the stable father. Do you see how many good single father's there are out there now? I know of many. Man's oppression is just as great as ours, just, with men, predominantly you get anger, with women you get sadness. Although those feelings are interchangeable between the sexes...after all, we really aren't that different contrary to this current trend of thought.

The competition is over who is more important to life on earth. The problem can be seen through 1000s of years of creating Gods and Goddess to battle our self imposed inequality.
We are not so different, this social need to have a huge chasm between the sexes is a response to an age old feeling of inferiority, on both parts. You can see the truth in this by watching, good single fathers.

I have never viewed a woman's ability to bear children as a superior anything above man's ability to create with his hands. They are equal, beautiful and ultimately our balance if we would allow it.

From one extreme in matriarchal times to the other extreme in patriarchal times. You can see it plain as day in religion as it evolved over the centuries. The types and gender's of the many Gods and Goddess created over the years, in my opinion, mostly to allow an appeasing of a human feeling of insecurity, fear. About the opposite sex, the weather, animals, water....

Birds

As for this greed versus kindness stuff. You know what I would like to see..I want to see statistics.

How many people now, with today's populations, are living hungry as compared with 100 and 200 years ago. Not just world wide, because not all countries are equal in social standing, I would want it country by country, around the world.

I would want graphs of a definable poverty line over the last 200 years.

Graphs that display financial contributions to the poor for 200 years.

Statistics that show how many people now receive education compared over the 200 years.

Honestly, we should have stats like this before we get to far into this discussion and I don't know where to get them. Do you?




Birds

is this one good enough for starters?

http://www.hungerreport.org/2010/

http://www.wfp.org/

Prettybirds wrote:

As for this greed versus kindness stuff. You know what I would like to see..I want to see statistics.

How many people now, with today's populations, are living hungry as compared with 100 and 200 years ago. Not just world wide, because not all countries are equal in social standing, I would want it country by country, around the world.

I would want graphs of a definable poverty line over the last 200 years.

Graphs that display financial contributions to the poor for 200 years.

Statistics that show how many people now receive education compared over the 200 years.

Honestly, we should have stats like this before we get to far into this discussion and I don't know where to get them. Do you?

To some extent, we will never be able to get them since it would be comparing apples and oranges, at least if we want to go back further than a few hundred years, which we must do to have adequate perspective. What, for instance, constituted "an education" 1000 years ago? At one time, learning the oral tradition at the feet of one's elders, and the practical applications thereof by helping and mimicing them, was the norm. No schools, no books, no degrees, but learning just the same. Similarly, are we to apply today's American definition of poverty to Europe of the middle ages, or China 1500 BCE, or the Middle East in the days of Jesus? The lack of trackable financial contributions to the poor in distant ages might indicate that the poor were taken care of informally, by the "village", rather than that they were not taken care of at all. Wiith globalization, indeed even the formation of nation-states, has come a push to standardize over larger and larger areas what was once done (or not done) locally. I am in no way against social programs applied broadly, even globally. I am simply pointing out that, while the mobility of modern life make that almost a necessity, it is only in relatively recent times that such efforts have been even possible.

My personal data is only anecdotal, but I have lived in several parts of the U.S. at least, and everywhere see a decrease in neighborliness, trust, and simple courtesy; and an increase in crime and threats to personal safety. People don't know those around them any more, and assume that "the system" will take care of those in need. Unfortunately, the system is not that good (yet), and those who fall through the cracks go too often unnoticed.

Hello ladies,

Here is a couple of links...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Social_class
http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp

So, in the US for instance, this is the graph I want to build...

US pop.,
1800 - 5 million
1900 - 76 million
2000 - 281 million

Social standing,
1800 - ?
1900 - ?
2000 - Academic class models -roughly 45-55 percent (140 million +-) of people struggle to maintain do not add up to poverty numbers which are way less sitting at 33-36 million of which 23-24 million require food bank help. This leaves 245 million people maintaining just fine. To me these numbers are not staggering, if considered against a backdrop of charitable donation, why, how, can there possibly be any struggle to help out such a small percentage of the population.

Birds

I think the bulk of western mistrust in this day and age comes from a political negativity, fear producing media blitz meant to use fear as a means of ensuring compliance within its patrons. We are inundated with negativity and inferiority every corner we turn as citizens. Programed if you will to feel overwhelmed continually, whether from threat or from prosperity ie: market fraud. We either go to war, except taxes, funnel hard earned savings into mindless ventures. But, we are waking up, reality is much nicer then media wants us to think. I won't watch the news.
Even earlier than today's culture, British streets were mean places for hundreds of years. Much meaner than ours.
In terms of poverty, to me it is simply, who is hungry and who has a roof. Indoor plumbing, any luxury defined over the centuries does not count.

Birds

Romana wrote:

Prettybirds wrote:

As for this greed versus kindness stuff. You know what I would like to see..I want to see statistics.

How many people now, with today's populations, are living hungry as compared with 100 and 200 years ago. Not just world wide, because not all countries are equal in social standing, I would want it country by country, around the world.

I would want graphs of a definable poverty line over the last 200 years.

Graphs that display financial contributions to the poor for 200 years.

Statistics that show how many people now receive education compared over the 200 years.

Honestly, we should have stats like this before we get to far into this discussion and I don't know where to get them. Do you?

To some extent, we will never be able to get them since it would be comparing apples and oranges, at least if we want to go back further than a few hundred years, which we must do to have adequate perspective. What, for instance, constituted "an education" 1000 years ago? At one time, learning the oral tradition at the feet of one's elders, and the practical applications thereof by helping and mimicing them, was the norm. No schools, no books, no degrees, but learning just the same. Similarly, are we to apply today's American definition of poverty to Europe of the middle ages, or China 1500 BCE, or the Middle East in the days of Jesus? The lack of trackable financial contributions to the poor in distant ages might indicate that the poor were taken care of informally, by the "village", rather than that they were not taken care of at all. Wiith globalization, indeed even the formation of nation-states, has come a push to standardize over larger and larger areas what was once done (or not done) locally. I am in no way against social programs applied broadly, even globally. I am simply pointing out that, while the mobility of modern life make that almost a necessity, it is only in relatively recent times that such efforts have been even possible.

My personal data is only anecdotal, but I have lived in several parts of the U.S. at least, and everywhere see a decrease in neighborliness, trust, and simple courtesy; and an increase in crime and threats to personal safety. People don't know those around them any more, and assume that "the system" will take care of those in need. Unfortunately, the system is not that good (yet), and those who fall through the cracks go too often unnoticed.

a chain is as good as its weakest link.
a system should no longer be considered equal to a community.
any community depends on the commitment of all its members and, ideally, can support all talents and skills. a climate of trust and social justice must provide equal opportunities.

\!!

sure.......... simplify our lives!