Ecological Perspective On Death

FRI., MAY 13, 1988, 6:15 AM
FARM, STUDY

One of the perspectives you try to have learners comprehend and recognize is what you called an ecological one. As defined and described it is not one that includes Me, the continuation of conscious life, nor everlasting life. Yet you suspect that I have something positive to say about this view. And since you will be commencing this teaching opportunity next week you shall hear, o son, My reflections on this.

In ecological perspective the human is not seen as being particularly special, but rather as one form of life among many. There is a web of life, continuously being destroyed and reformed. Each form of life depends on other forms, and if one tries to become too dominant the rhythm changes, and, finally, equilibrium is reestablished.

Now you know that this is not the main theme (or even a dominant sub-theme) in My Holy Scriptures. The “stand out” stories involve Me manipulating earth life for the benefit of humans, and, particularly, for certain people – Jews, and then Christians. And yet these Scriptural stories could be interpreted in more ecological ways. I established a people, and I acted in their behalf, but always, underlying, was the reality of a functioning earth, of which they were but an insignificant part.

Each created form of life has a certain span of obvious life, and then dies. When I, as Jesus, was nailed to a cross, My body died. Then, I was the exception. The story tells that the body that was Mine was not to deteriorate naturally, but was transformed and not left behind. This was clearly not ecological, but it also clearly was an exception. Earth bodies are left behind, and should be allowed to decay and to contribute to continuing plant life.

Though I look with favor on humans who respect the body of a loved one who dies, and who want, out of this respect and of love, to treat this body with honor, I am not in favor of costly coffins and all that is done in the typical American funeral. I would rather see evidence of a respect for all of life and acceptance of the nature of “recycling” with death. I don’t recommend using the dead body for human food directly (though the sacrificial nature of this should be respected), but I see no good reason to preserve the body once the spirit has departed.

So you see that I want a bit of this perspective in a balanced view of death and continuing life. The life of the spirit is eternal and everlasting. Spirit comes into a developing body, but often not until close to the time of birth. It remains in that body as an integrated person lives an earth life. There may be instances, as in severe illness or injury, when the spirit leaves the body temporarily and then returns. But at death the spirit goes on to other realms, and the body is then just a remnant and should be become part of the life of the earth.

Cremation can be quite ecological, as when a body is burned on a funeral pyre. As the wood burns so does the flesh, leaving only fragments of bone. It also can be quite technological, with tremendous heat produced suddenly, which is more than a burning process. Cremation means that no plot of earth must be reserved for a deteriorating body, but it also means that fuel, renewable or non-, is used. Circumstances must decide which is the better conservation.

I approve of the way in which Peter’s body was buried… and of your continuing to tell that story to those who may only consider technological means. Continue to keep that small “park” beautiful in a natural way. The cross needs some attention, for it, too, could (and will) deteriorate.