No death, no fear?

[vaneramos]

When I expressed distress about the imminent loss of Mom, a friend gave me a book to read, No Fear, No Death by Thich Nhat Hanh. Essentially it presents the Buddhist argument that being and non-being do not exist, nor do birth and death—that these are only ideas. I perused a few chapters, but couldn't get into it. It doesn't make sense.

The statement that Buddha's teaching is not a religion, because it does not support dogma, I don't accept. The teaching that birth and death do not exist, is dogma without evidence. So is the idea that ingestion of drugs or toxins poisons our descendants. (And here I am confused, because if my grandchildren will never really exist or not exist, as the author claims, why should my diet matter?) The effort to dispel dogma I appreciate, but as far as I know, these teachings arise from the universal source: fear of death. To assuage this common fear, every religion pursues a different form of denial.

I see no evidence that life and death are unreal. The parts of the book I read presented no real arguments, just metaphors. For example, in a room with no television or radio, you might believe that TV and radio do not exist, because the conditions for their manifestation cannot be met. And so, goes the argument, someone who died is only absent because the conditions allowing us to perceive her have ceased; really she is still with us.

This is a sweet metaphor. I like metaphors, but they usually contain elements of untruth, and this one is no exception. We have plenty of evidence that radio and television waves exist everywhere, but no evidence to support a conscious reality that transcends death. I am open to the discovery of new evidence, and resist the temptation to discount other people's beliefs, but mine must arise from what I understand.

The suggestion that misery is some kind of moral failure: this is also a dogma. I would rather accept suffering as part of life than waste time trying to escape it. I would rather accept death than deny it. I can't convince myself to stop fearing loss, but I observe that nature carries on regardless. For the time being, I will continue to experience joy mingled with sorrow, new adventures among the the loss of things I cherish, until whatever time my participation ends. In facing fear, I let the emotions roll over, but they do not defeat.

When Mom dies, I hope to take comfort not in the idea of her continued existence, but in memory of my time with her. Memory as a metaphor for continuation of people and things I love, is one I can accept. It's simple and transparent enough, while still subject to creative involvement. Memory is a branch of the imagination. It encourages me to call her more often, so perhaps I won't be left empty-hearted when time comes for letting go.

Comments

[eloquentwthrage.livejournal.com]

Buddhism escapes me as well.

If it were just us humans saddened and freaked out by the death of someone close to us, I'd say that perhaps we invented grief. But animals of intelligence quite inferior to our own grieve. They're certainly not passing the idea of grief from generation to generation; it is innate, those feelings of loss. Perhaps it's even genetic, but that still doesn't discount it.

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

That is a fascinating point I hadn't considered before. It has given me a lot to think about.

[artricia.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't get the whole death does not exist thing either. I was really into Zen in a time in my life when I got by on denial. For me, they went hand in hand. I can't get into it anymore. I like the kind of acceptance you talk about, as well as the idea that whatever you believe has to arise from you and make sense to you; they're the only things that work for me.

[that-dang-otter.livejournal.com]

I guess that I'm a sort of super-agnostic, because I suspect that our understanding of time is so narrow and compromised that we don't know what terms like "after" really mean.

It's hard to look at the universe and see it as anything other than extremely, extremely peculiar. I figure that when it comes to matters metaphysical, all bets are off. Nobody has any freaking clue why this all came about.

[bearfinch.livejournal.com]

I see no evidence that life and death are unreal.

Agreed. From what I understand (and I have read a few similar books on Buddhism), the idea of non-existence was originally taught as a way to think about life, kind of a way to put in perspective your desires and anxieties and such. It's like the Christian saying "all is vanity, and chasing after wind."

[missprune.livejournal.com]

Well as you know from past communications between us, the only evidence that really persuades is one's own experience. But if I had not had my own experiences, I think reading NDE accounts would get me thinking that consciousness isn't limited to a functioning body! I agree that the "no individual really exists" is the tenet of Buddhism that I find silly as well as discouraging...

[bigredpaul.livejournal.com]

I believe, and I believe that it will eventually be shown via science (as is starting to already happen), is that our body generates our consciousness, and that when we die, we cease to be. The matter of our body will no longer continue its particular organization that gave rise to "us," and will instead re-organize itself in the usual cycle of life.

The beauty in believing this, as I'm sure you're already aware, is that every moment becomes infinitely more precious. We no longer need to fear death, but instead put all our energies in maximizing being as present as possible during life. Our immortality lies in the effect we have had on the lives of those around us - like rippling water, we move those around us, sometimes in ways that we cannot know.

All we can do is love those around us, and accept their love with as much grace and gratitude as we can muster. The rest will take care of itself.

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

Paul, you have stated what I believe, nicely and succinctly. I wonder if you can recommend any authoritative reading along these lines.

The problem, as I'm sure you understand, is that one's emotions don't always line up neatly with what one believes. Although the philosophy about living in the present moment has been a cornerstone of my existence (and recovery from depression) in recent years, I still feel squeamish at times about the brevity of life and the difficulty of grief. As another commenter pointed out, humans did not invent grief; other animals also demonstrate it, without the ability to pass it on from one generation to the next. So it is clearly a natural part of life.

In Mom's case, she told me that no description of heaven appeals to her, so no religion holds the answer. She is not a scientific thinker, but highly literate. I don't think she is certain what will happen when she dies, but expresses peace about it anyway. The hard part for her seems to be in facing the final parting with loved ones. Mom has always been emotional about saying goodbye, so I doubt that any belief will make it easier for her. I can't hold myself aloof from her sorrow.

But this does not overshadow our ability to enjoy one another's company as much as we can, and I'm thankful that during her battle with cancer we have grown closer again. Here your final statement is especially relevant.