1] I see this is a visit to the living room after   to much koorkha curry. Indeed you ask a question   so difficult, the answer after Douglas Adams can only   be: 42. Last year, on another forum, in a very different context, I had occasion to remark, with what I thought

   What I conclude from these observations is that we are programmed   to procreate. And make sure our offsprings survive. I dare not ask why,   for I don't know the answer to that. Correct me if I misrepresent you, but you are suggesting that the urge to live is a biological instinct, and so we are quite the animals that we are. I am inclined to agree, in so far as we really can't do anything but live. Any moral coloring or value judgement we place on this whole business, however, is quite artificial. So living is no more 'important' than death. Actually, we cannot even make such a statement, as we don't know anything about death except, in some sense, as the end of 'living'. We cannot compare two things if we don't know anything about one of them. So we cannot say that one is better than the other. But, it is time for me to leave this thread. I will, in conclusion, quote from the Buddha because he was a very practical man and, if anything, knew when to leave. Birth and Death are only concepts created out of ignorance. To transcend the thoughts of birth-and-death and beginning-and-end is to transcend the endless round. Bhikkus, that is all I wish to say today. Practice looking deeply into all things. We will speak again about this subject another day . Dev P.S:  I am not a Buddhist.

   There once was a guy who was on this paradise of a place. He   enjoyed living with all the animals there. He was at peace. He was also   the only homo sapien. One fine morning, he found that he was missing a few   ribs. And some flesh. Next thing he knew, all hell broke lose!!! C'mon Sateesh, don't be so harsh on women! Dev

In article <2kqp6r$ This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , devku This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it (Devakumar Sreevijayan) writes: | external forces? If so what happens? In pseudo-mathematical language, | if death is the dual of living, what is the dual of death? Those who | believe in reincarnation would readily say that the dual of death is | living. So living is a reflexive space. Hmmmm... | The correct mathmatical _frame_work for a pseudo-mathematical theory of death is as follows: Consider a fibre bundle L

In article <2kiv41$ This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , Devkumar Sreevijayan writes: | Living. I am afraid I do not understand why. Why is living so important? Seriously, though, I wonder the same thing myself. Few people make a difference to more than their family-and-friends circle, and if they had never existed, would it matter? I doubt it. And even those who are important ... Susan. All of the above may be true in their respective perspectives, but, essentially, what it all boils down to is religion. Really. If you kill ... david I disagree.  Let me explain why:  it has to do more with Society or social pressures than religion or the lack of it.  In some societies, suicide is an  acceptable form of ending one's life (call it martyrdom or what you want to make of it).  Some religions openly advocate it (to serve their own ends, to put it cynically). Individuals are what make up a Society.  And a Society's goals are its own preservation!  And if the individuals are going around knocking themselves out (on their own), it threatens to undermine the existence of that Society.   Which is why most Societies consider suicide as verboten and even go to extraordinarly measures to not countenance it.   So, does it matter if some (most?!) individuals never existed?   Maybe not to you and I.  But to a culture or Society, every individual is a foot soldier in its campaign to preserve itself.  And to it, it does matter! Which is why Dr. Kervorkian is so much in the news.  What he supports, while it is what some individuals want, is exactly what Society fears! And usually, the fears and aspirations of a society are mirrored in the pulpits of its churches.  Which also explains why religions figures are the most outspoken about euthanasia/suicide/homosexuality/.... This tension between individual (which may/may not lead to anarchy and social desires (which seeks stability, often at the cost of ignoring individual liberties) is what I think it all boils down to -s p.s.  to close the thread on Kerala and hygiene:  in my next visit to Kerala, I have on my agenda a visit to the Aluva KSRTC restrooms

This tension between individual (which may/may not lead to anarchy and social desires (which seeks stability, often at the cost of ignoring individual liberties) is what I think it all boils down to   You evoke some clear points, but what you speak of are exclusively   concerned with a cause of suicide, ie society vs. the individual.   This conflict is there as the average individual can readily _link_   it with his own material existence. The extraordinary person in this   respect is the ascetic. Most ackers (assuming the computer is a   representative of the material), are of the average type. Therefore,   many of your deductions hold as valid. However, emotional factors are   much more powerful, usually  stemming from some aspect of the family in   which case, society has little or no effect. When the President of a   country dies, not everyone is going to run to a cliff and recite the Our   Father, etc. You seem to linger a bit too much in this area.   Realistically, not many people will care what their society holds to be   acceptable when they are thinking of killing themselves. All of that will   be left behind, never to be returned to again. It is what is at future   that should be in question.   Despite all this, my previous posting wasn't at all concerned with the   causes of suicide. It was instead to try to present possible happenings   in the religious realm of things. Once a person decides to kill himself,   he has already reached that unenviable position of pondering the _meta_-   physical after effects AND whether they are existent. These may not even be   considered by many people as their reasons to be in that position in the   first place may be so strong, but for myself, having one's soul trapped in a   coffin for eternity would be considered the worst punishment (or does it   happen to everyone?) any person can be subjected to. But then again, who   am I to say? For all I know, a blessed coffin may even be a palace of   treasures in physical disguise!