From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Witches and death
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:53:32 GMT
Organization: why should i swing it like this when i can swing it like that, because in fact on me it might not attract ...

In article <10JNsB1w165w@hogbbs.scol.pa.us> 
wce@hogbbs.scol.pa.us (Bill Eichman) writes:
>pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>> being. When the student is ready the teacher will appear. Don't be so quick
>> to discount your own ability to teach, and to learn. Do the right thing is
>> a personal decision, it is the individual who must judge. Absorb what you
>> can of the world and reflect it into the reality of yourself. What did
>> Arjuna or Yudhi or even Krishna do that we can not do?
>Ahh, Paul, you make it sound so easy....

It is and it isn't, but what else is there to do? What is the purpose of
Homo sapiens sapiens, thinking man from the mother continent of Africa? I make
it look easy because it is easy to me, you see what that means? I act as I and
I can do that fairly easily because ... (I am that I am)

>And it is easy, once you have the right experiences and understanding.

That's what life IS, right?

>But if someone comes up to you and says "I'm dying", afteer you've told 
>them to live authentically, to do the right thing, what then?

Hmm, this is not something to be made light of, so, certainly E. Kublar Ross's
On Death and Dying and the Tibetan Book of the Dead are useful references, but
what you have here is at least two people, one who knows that they are dying
and one who does not know yet. What is the right thing? Only these two
people can know that. Talk about it, with respect of course. The concept of
Namaste or Aloha might help, they mean I honor the diety in you or I see my
reflection in you. There is much to learn from life, and death. In the end, the
right thing is transcendent of word, and quite likely everything else.

>If your child says, "Dad, what happens to people when they die?", what 
>then?

You will hear this question many times, so you have many chances to work on
it with your child, which you should. Don't forget that children have insite
that adults do not, both parties have something to learn and to teach. The
answer is transcendent of word, so a different approach has to be taken.
Certainly, from my experience, most children can understand that life is not
alive without death. Death is not evil or bad, it is part of life. Life feeds
on life and creates death, the stuff that new life is made of. That is a fire
of sorts and one does have the option of feeding the fire or quenching the 
fire. The Jains of India are the best fire quenchers in my opinion, they eat
only things that are already dead, like fruits and fallen leaves and such and
they cover their mouth with gause to avoid eating insects and walk softly to
avoid crushing soil animals and so on. The Buddha was the best fire feeder in
my opinion, buddha achieved enlightenment which is normally the ticket out
of town, you vanish in a puff of light, *POOF*, but buddha came back to play
with the children, to participate in the sorrows of the world, why? It's been
said that the buddha's reincarnations are all around but they are not seen
as such because the buddha knows how to live the life of the human being so
well. This is what buddha did with the knowledge gained at enlightenment, it
means something, but what? But that is life, back to death. As I said, life
feeds on life and creates death, the stuff that new life is made of. Adults
seem to lose track of this fact, perhaps an aspect of denial. Children seldom
fear death the way adults do, that tells you something right there. Talk to
a teenager about death, but do it from the standpoint of trying to learn 
another way to see, don't think that you know better because in this case it
is quite likely that you do not. Fear blocks the ability to see clearly and
fear of death is a BIG one, the one that all must face as they age and
approach the meaning of life. Personally, one of my favorite answers is, what
happens to people when they live?

>"Do the right thing" is an ideal, and it's a good ideal. But you have to 
>build a bridge between the ideal and the real, before the ideal can be 
>used by we ordinary people.

And who is not ordinary, everyday people, everyday? Didn't I <clear the land>
and didn't I <plant the corn> and didn't I <work the fields> and didn't my 
people <live as human beings> and <die as human beings>? Let me try another 
approach. There is the transcendent, a simple word with complex meaning. 
Enlightenment is knowledge of the transcendent, but the transcendent is 
transcendent of knowledge of course, so what is it that one "knows" at 
enlightenment? And how does one get to this state? What is the bridge? That is
life, of course. Did you expect anything else?

>What is the right thing to do, with regards to death?

You'll know when you get there. What is the right thing to do with regards to
life? What is the right way to make love? What is the right way to dance? What
is the right way to dance the dance of the dance? You know that. I know you
know you know you know.

>> Hmm, go with the flow is a very different thing. That can get you in trouble.
>> Go with the flow is an authentic individual leading an inauthentic life.
>Who decides? Who decides that 'go with the flow' is inauthentic, while 
>'do the right thing' is real?

The individual, but only for the individual.

>These are all just words and myths, with which we program ourselves.

Yes, but that is what the human being does, tells stories, dances the dance.
Program is a word of the computer being, the human being is not a program and
does not self-program, the human being just is, I am that I am, teller of
the story, dancer of the dance, live like a human being and die like a human
being, live when it is a good day to live and die when it is a good day to
die.

>But how we act when someone we love dies-- to me, that seems more 
>universal, and more real.

How do we act?
Newsgroups: alt.pagan