soul moving on

March 23, 2005

Hi, guys. Yvonne here, in the United States. I have a question I hope

guys might be able to answer:

At what point does the soul move on from a dying person to the next

life? Is is when the heart stops beating? Or when the person is brain-

dead? Or when?

I ask because there is a big controversy about this right now here in

the US. There is a woman in Florida who suffered serious brain damage

15 years ago. She is not quite brain-dead but almost. She can breathe

on her own but not much more. She has been kept alive for 15 years by

a feeding tube in her arm.

Her husband wants to let her die. He says that she is

essentially already dead for any practical purposes, and that they

should remove the feeding tube. The woman's parents disagree. They

say that removing the tube would be murder. They are Roman Catholics

and believe in keeping people alive regardless of how brain-dead they

are.

This grew into a huge battle in the courts. The courts agreed

with the husband, but politicians including President Bush have been

trying to intervene on the side of the parents. Big nasty political

fight over this poor woman, and she can't express any opinion on the

matter.

Anyhow, what is a Hindu perspective? Is this woman already dead

or not? Has her soul moved on? My Auntie Usha suggested a horrifying

answer, that maybe her soul is trapped between this world and the

next, unable to leave this one completely, but partly already in the

next. I hope that's not true. Poor woman deserves better than that.

But what do you guys think?

Yvonne

March 23, 2005

This is an information, IMHO, that can be given only by a person who has died.

Since I am not dead I am not in a position to answer yet.

Yvonne <aw621 wrote:

Hi, guys. Yvonne here, in the United States. I have a question I hope guys might

be able to answer:

At what point does the soul move on from a dying person to the next life? Is is

when the heart stops beating? Or when the person is brain-dead? Or when?

I ask because there is a big controversy about this right now here in the US.

There is a woman in Florida who suffered serious brain damage 15 years ago. She

is not quite brain-dead but almost. She can breathe on her own but not much

more. She has been kept alive for 15 years by a feeding tube in her arm.

*******************************************************

March 23, 2005

These questions are going on all over the net. Someone pointed out that a few

rat brain neurons have been isolated and held in a petri dish and trained to

respond to stimulus. Is there no life there? Where does life begin and where

does it end?

March 23, 2005

I guess in this case, it would end if they dumped out the contents

of the petri dish and quit paying attention to it. Like in the other

case, pulling the feeding tube.

Leastways, I think it's about time the US started another move to

amend the constitution over this feeding tube thing. I'm sure it was

just an oversight that our forefathers didn't think to include a

provision about this in there.

, "Eve__69" <eve__69@h...>

wrote:

>

> These questions are going on all over the net. Someone pointed out

that a few rat brain neurons have been isolated and held in a petri

dish and trained to respond to stimulus. Is there no life there?

Where does life begin and where does it end?

March 23, 2005

Hi Eve_69:

You asked, "Is there no life there? Where does life begin and where

does it end?" Yvonne asked, "What is a Hindu perspective? Is this

woman already dead or not? Has her soul moved on?"

I will briefly explain the Hindu perspective as I understand it. I

trust that those with more or better knowledge will correct me if

I'm off target.

The thing is (in answer to Eve's questions), There *is* life. In

fact, there is nothing else anywhere in the Cosmos. The Cosmos is a

single entity that science would call the universal quantum field,

and that we call Devi. As Devi, its nature is a constant state of

creation and destruction, amimated by Conciousness and motivated by

Love.

Every object in the Universe may be understood as a kind of "spike"

or peak in this Cosmic field. Nothing is dead. Nothing is inanimate.

Gas, rocks, plants, animals, people -- all are manifestations of

Devi, and are therefore very much "made of" life. Everything is

simply existing at its own level of sentience -- i.e its own level

of more (or less) obstructed access to Pure Consciousness. (The

object of sadhana is ultimately, in fact, nothing more than a

systematic attempt to fully access and expand into this Pure

Consciousness. The process of sadhana, in its various forms,

steadily increases our level of sentience.

SO: What has happened to this poor woman whom everyone is

discussing? But accidental injury, the physical container of her

soul has become a less effective vehicle of sentience. The

term "persistent vegetative state" is accurate in that sense: Her

sentience level is more like that of a plant now, rather than that

of a human being. But she is as alive as ever.

In this case the devil is in the details, isn't it? It's undisputed

that this woman could go on living for many years. She does not need

a machine to keep her heart and brain working at a level that

supports existence. However at her impaired level of sentience, she

cannot eat or drink without help. The question is whether or not

this help should be withheld. As Shaktas, we value all life at

whatever level. It seems to me we should not purposely deny help to

any life that needs help. But here we cross from the broad belief

system to the way an individual human mind applies that belief

system -- so the rest of this is just my opinion, and you can feel

free to stop reading now if my opinion is of no particular interest

to you! *lol*

I think this woman will be "dead" only when all brain activity

ceases. In the meantime, she is not suffering in some "limbo" of

half-dead souls or whatever, as Yvonne queried about. She is simply

existing at a lower level of sentience, like the pot of flowers in

the window, if you will.

So what should you do: Push the flower pot out the window and let it

smash on the sidewalk below (assuming the plant would be the only

being harmed), killing it immediately? Stop watering and feeding it,

and let the plant and let it die slowly? Or keep watering and

feeding it indefinitely, 'til it dies of its own accord?

I know that the various levels of discussion about this woman are

obscuring this issue: It has become a political question (are you a

conservative if you keep her alive? a liberal if you let her die?);

an economic question (is it worth the money to keep her in the

hospital?); a medical triage question (wouldn't the resources being

used to keep her alive be better spent on a patient with a better

chance of recovery?); a statistical question ("what are the odds

she'll ever come out of it?); a legal question (who has the legal

right to decide if she lives or dies, parents or hubby?).

But for me the solution is in the plant-on-the-windowsill example.

My personal answer is, I'd keep watering and feeding it. Maybe I'm a

fool, but my mind says, "You are removing food and water from a

being who can not eat and drink by herself!" To me, it is almost

better to euthanize her. Why let her starve slowly? If she's to die,

kill her and get it over with, like any execution. Give her a lethal

injection, and let it be over in 20 seconds. Otherwise, you are

being a sort of coward -- choosing to omit decision when definitive

action is called for. It is simply not right to starve and dehydrate

her to death.

DB

March 23, 2005

Here is a link to an article in Hinduism Today that addresses some of the

Hindu perspectives on the afterlife. If you magnify the font size, it will

enable you to read the article:

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/sample_pages/death.pdf

Jai Ma!

Mark Johns

>"devi_bhakta" <devi_bhakta

>

> Re: soul moving on

>Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:28:22 -0000

>

>Hi Eve_69:

>

>You asked, "Is there no life there? Where does life begin and where

>does it end?" Yvonne asked, "What is a Hindu perspective? Is this

>woman already dead or not? Has her soul moved on?"

>

>I will briefly explain the Hindu perspective as I understand it. I

>trust that those with more or better knowledge will correct me if

>I'm off target.

>

>The thing is (in answer to Eve's questions), There *is* life. In

>fact, there is nothing else anywhere in the Cosmos. The Cosmos is a

>single entity that science would call the universal quantum field,

>and that we call Devi. As Devi, its nature is a constant state of

>creation and destruction, amimated by Conciousness and motivated by

>Love.

>

>Every object in the Universe may be understood as a kind of "spike"

>or peak in this Cosmic field. Nothing is dead. Nothing is inanimate.

>Gas, rocks, plants, animals, people -- all are manifestations of

>Devi, and are therefore very much "made of" life. Everything is

>simply existing at its own level of sentience -- i.e its own level

>of more (or less) obstructed access to Pure Consciousness. (The

>object of sadhana is ultimately, in fact, nothing more than a

>systematic attempt to fully access and expand into this Pure

>Consciousness. The process of sadhana, in its various forms,

>steadily increases our level of sentience.

>

>SO: What has happened to this poor woman whom everyone is

>discussing? But accidental injury, the physical container of her

>soul has become a less effective vehicle of sentience. The

>term "persistent vegetative state" is accurate in that sense: Her

>sentience level is more like that of a plant now, rather than that

>of a human being. But she is as alive as ever.

>

>In this case the devil is in the details, isn't it? It's undisputed

>that this woman could go on living for many years. She does not need

>a machine to keep her heart and brain working at a level that

>supports existence. However at her impaired level of sentience, she

>cannot eat or drink without help. The question is whether or not

>this help should be withheld. As Shaktas, we value all life at

>whatever level. It seems to me we should not purposely deny help to

>any life that needs help. But here we cross from the broad belief

>system to the way an individual human mind applies that belief

>system -- so the rest of this is just my opinion, and you can feel

>free to stop reading now if my opinion is of no particular interest

>to you! *lol*

>

>I think this woman will be "dead" only when all brain activity

>ceases. In the meantime, she is not suffering in some "limbo" of

>half-dead souls or whatever, as Yvonne queried about. She is simply

>existing at a lower level of sentience, like the pot of flowers in

>the window, if you will.

>

>So what should you do: Push the flower pot out the window and let it

>smash on the sidewalk below (assuming the plant would be the only

>being harmed), killing it immediately? Stop watering and feeding it,

>and let the plant and let it die slowly? Or keep watering and

>feeding it indefinitely, 'til it dies of its own accord?

>

>I know that the various levels of discussion about this woman are

>obscuring this issue: It has become a political question (are you a

>conservative if you keep her alive? a liberal if you let her die?);

>an economic question (is it worth the money to keep her in the

>hospital?); a medical triage question (wouldn't the resources being

>used to keep her alive be better spent on a patient with a better

>chance of recovery?); a statistical question ("what are the odds

>she'll ever come out of it?); a legal question (who has the legal

>right to decide if she lives or dies, parents or hubby?).

>

>But for me the solution is in the plant-on-the-windowsill example.

>My personal answer is, I'd keep watering and feeding it. Maybe I'm a

>fool, but my mind says, "You are removing food and water from a

>being who can not eat and drink by herself!" To me, it is almost

>better to euthanize her. Why let her starve slowly? If she's to die,

>kill her and get it over with, like any execution. Give her a lethal

>injection, and let it be over in 20 seconds. Otherwise, you are

>being a sort of coward -- choosing to omit decision when definitive

>action is called for. It is simply not right to starve and dehydrate

>her to death.

>

>DB

>

Here is a link to an article in Hinduism Today that addresses some of the

Hindu perspective on the afterlife. If you magnify the font size, it will