--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Is this an important topic to you, personally? If so, why not state > > why and engage readers in a diologue. If not, why make a post? Other > > than to make a point i suppose. If thats the case, why not state your > > point upfront? > > Good point. Rereading it this am, think it was a little too much of > the vino last night. Was an a-hole comment. Sorry.
No problem. Actually your question implied some questions and angles of inquiry that are interesting and perhaps even valuable to ponder: If we could extend our lives greatly, would we do it? Is it a "good" thing from a perspective of social, cosmic dynamics and karmic mechanisms? If we could extend the body's life in good health indefinately, not just longer, would we do it. Same sub questions as above. What is role of aging and illness in resolving karmas? What is the role of the balanced book-ends of life (ater life): 20 years childhood, (re)learing from a (fresher) slate, 40 years of career family focus (or sadhana focus) and 20 years of shutting down -- letting go, in retirement / old age / memory loss and physical disabilities? If one lives a healthy life to 200, then this balanced ratio of 20:40:20 learning / application / debriefing is greatly altered to something like 20: 179:1 . Is that a good thing? Assuming we need or wish (aka service/mission) to retake human form, is the cycle of reincarnation "efficient? Per the above 80 year life model, its only 50% efficient -- in terms of life's work focus. One of the goals of Ayur ved is to extend life so that there is more time for "life's work" -- presumably sadhanic / moksha-focussed, but could be service / dharmic focussed, or simply arthta and kama striving fulfillment. The ideal or at least basic AV life is 120 years of healthy life, as I understand it. Jyotish too operates from this assumption. That would create a ratio of 20:80:20 or perhaps 20:95:5 -- given health is maintained to the end. Thus about 85% efficient. (Though ideal vedic life is divided into wuarters: student, career, forest and sanyassi. ) Is there a social value / disvalue to having 4-6 or even 8 generations alive at once? I only knew one of my four grandparents and always felt a bit shorted by such. Much less not knowing any great-grandparents. I think older generations can provide a lot of perspective and life-wisdom to younger generations. If my ancestors going back to 1800 were alive today, it would be awesome in some ways. Though family gatherings, Thanksgiving dinners could be quite the scene. All such can be considered from a social and cosmic evolutionary perspective, regardless of whether one is jivan-mukti (body liberated -- not necessarily fully liberated from rebirth cycles on astral and causal realms). ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
