Does the dichotomy still exist?

     When reading Laidlaw’s article, “A life worth leaving: fasting to death as telos of a Jain religious life” I was drawn to this idea that the practice of fasting could hold two such seemingly conflicting views. On one hand, fasting is celebrated within the Jain for enhancing life. These practices are actually thought to make the body harder and stronger and less prone to illness. However, on the other hand, fasting is celebrated as a practice that actually ends life. It is members of society that died in this manner that are highly respected and regarded. Can these two viewpoints actually co-exist in harmony within one society? And for that matter, should this dichotomy exist in one culture? But when we look closer, can it really be said that these views are actually conflicting? If we look at connecting theme behind both of these views, we find that both views rest in an encouragement of strength and power. Fasting for a short time leaves the body strengthened in life, and fasting for extended periods of time leaves the body strong in death. Does this connecting string cause for a more unified perception of fasting amongst the Jain? Or does the dichotomy still exist?