Death Meditation

Imagine you are going to die tonight, will you regret or will you take joy in what you have achieved so far in your life? According to the traditional Tibetan wisdom, there is one thing for sure. That is, we are all going to die, and we cannot know when we are going to die. Some people are so unprepared to death so that when the time comes, they panic. I think this same kind of feeling is also true in other things we do in life. For example, my time at Yale is going to end soon, and I am wondering whether I will be prepared to leave this place or not.

I always feel like, we are always preparing, but at the end of a major period of life, we are still very unprepared. I am wondering, now reflecting on my past 23 years of life, have I really got something meaningful?

I think in order for us not to have regret when something comes to an end, the best thing to do is to constantly keep the ending in mind and by doing so try to motivate us to do meaningful things everyday and every moment. Or to put it more practically, live in the presence, the now, and be always vigilant in whatever we are doing. Or like my father always tells me, "focus on the process."

Buddhism

There are some common misconceptions about Buddhism, particularly its pessimistic view on life, its requirement to repress all desires, and its passive indifference to the world as an ideal Buddhist’s life. In this paper I will first present the critics’ arguments and their possible reasons. Then I will proceed to counter their arguments. At the end, I hope this paper will arrive at some conclusions that help people gain a better understanding of the Buddhist philosophy.

Critics of Buddhism claim that one fatal defect of Buddhism is that it gives people a pessimistic outlook on life. The first Noble Truth given by Buddha—the Noble Truth of Sorrow—says “Birth is sorrow, age is sorrow, disease is sorrow, death is sorrow; contact with the unpleasant is sorrow, separation from the pleasant is sorrow, every wish unfulfilled is sorrow” (De Bary 16). In essence, humans are born to suffer. Until we reach enlightenment and escape the cycle of life and death, we are suffering. Another ground for the pessimistic view of Buddhism is the idea of emptiness. For example, according Nagarjuna, one of the greatest thinkers of Buddhism, “there is no birth on the other side, nor on this side; nirvana too in its self-nature exists not. Thus, when surveyed by a knowledge which knows all things, empty are the created” (Radhakrishnan and Moore 339). If everything is empty, including the ideal blissful state of nirvana, then what is the purpose of life?

Many critics do not agree with such a pessimistic view of life. Of course we have times of sorrows, but there are also many things we can enjoy, such as a successful career and a family. Also, the world is not as empty as Buddhists propose; rather, it is substantive. Many philosophers in the Western tradition believe that substances are the foundations of the world; these substances or existences have inherent, independent and fixed characteristics. God is often regarded as the highest existence, and many people believe there are some higher existences beyond the realm of this human world, to which we can go after death.

My position is that Buddhism is not pessimistic. I will hence withhold the judgment as to whether a pessimistic view of life is realistic or not. Buddhist philosophy is not pessimistic in the sense that, indeed it teaches that life is full of sorrows, but it also teaches the ways out; these ways are the so-called Noble Eightfold Path. Also, Buddhism indeed teaches the idea of emptiness, but it does not deny any reality. All Buddhism denies is that reality is substantive.

What evidences point out that Buddhism in fact teaches the ways to avoid sufferings? For one, it claims that human beings are the only beings, among all sentient beings, that are capable of freeing themselves from sufferings (Roach, chapter 9). Animals know about pains too, but all they can do is to run away from approaching dangers. We as human beings have the ability to reason and to do things that can help us avoid future pains. The Noble Eightfold Path consists just such ways that can help us reach enlightenment; as Buddha said “it is enlightened, it brings clear vision, it makes for wisdom, and leads to peace, insight, enlightenment, and nirvana” (De Bary 16). Buddha foresaw that people would doubt whether the Path can really remove all pains. That is why the very first element of the Path is the right understanding of Buddha’s teaching. He warned people not to follow his teaching based on blind faith, or partial understanding; instead, he asked us to think for ourselves and hence to have a true understanding of his teachings. Only through such deep understanding can a person develop the right resolve to follow the Path. Therefore, it is true that Buddhism teaches that life is full of sorrows, but it also provides a very systematic way for people to follow so that they can free themselves.

On the other hand, Buddhism does not advocate the idea of absolute emptiness. Nargarjuna indeed showed systematically and logically through a reductio ad absurdum, in his Treatise on the Middle Doctrine, that any claim to reality can be reduced to absurdness and inconsistency. He, however, did not deny that there is any such thing as existence. All Nagarjuna tried to refute is the substantial existences of all things—that everything has an independent and fixed nature. The true meaning of emptiness is that all entities are produced only in the sense of being coordinated, which is drastically different from the notion of absolute emptiness.

Regarding to the idea that nirvana does not exist, and cannot be differentiated from samsara (cycles of birth and death), Nagarjuna attempted to remove the fixed conception that there is an absolute blissful state. If we believe in the absolute existence of nirvana, then we might be prone to clinging to the idea of reaching that state; clinging to an idea that has itself no permanent nature is a source of suffering. Also, our language is too limited in describing nirvana, so any description of it will categorize it through fixed concepts which, in reality, do not exist. As nirvana is beyond the description of language, Nagarjuna described it by saying what it is not—not an absolute existence, it is without inherent and independent characteristics.

Besides the claim that is pessimistic, critics of Buddhism also claim that, as a Buddhist, one must renounce all genuine desires. The second Noble Truth—the Noble Truth of the Arising of Sorrow—tells us that sorrow “arises from craving, which leads to rebirth, which brings delight and passion, and seeks pleasure now here, no there.” Furthermore, the third Noble Truth says the stopping of sorrow is the “complete stopping of that craving, so that no passion remains, leaving it, being emancipated from it, being released from it, giving no place to it” (De Barry 16). Based on a literal reading of the Noble Truths, it seems that enlightenment can only come from renunciation of all desires.

It is true that we should get rid of cravings, but Buddha did not ask us to remove all desires. First of all, the mere act of renunciation is an extreme position that Buddha rejected. When he first set out to look for the answers to human sufferings, he tried to renounce all desires but almost died from starvation. Afterwards, he rejected such an extreme way of achieving enlightenment; as he said, “there are two ways not to be served by a wanderer…The pursuit of desires….and the pursuit of pain and hardship” (De Bary 16). Renouncing all desires would amount to the latter. Furthermore, if stopping cravings means that we should repress all desires, then how do we account for the Buddha’s will to save people? Did he speak against what he was doing? If so, then is even the determination to free fellow humans from pains not allowed? Clearly, Buddha wanted to see no sufferings in the world. So it is unlikely that we cannot want anything.

Rather, what Buddha meant by “desire” is “an attachment to impermanent worldly things.” “Develop the state of mind of consciousness of the corruption of the body, for thus passion will grow less; and of the consciousness of the fleeting nature of all things, for thus the pride of selfhood will grow less” (De Bary 27). In this manner, “no craving” really means “realize the impermanent nature of things.” By realizing the impermanence of worldly phenomena, we can resist the tendency to cling onto things. Once we no longer cling onto things, then, as they fade away, we learn to avoid anxiety, worries, and fears.

Critics of Buddhism may then say: if realizing the impermanence of all phenomena is freedom, then we must take a pessimistic view of life. To put it another way, one might say “if I don’t get what I want, I should not care.” Such a view is logical because, after all, no matter whether I get what I want or not, it will disappear eventually. If, on the other hand, I get what I want, I should not take joy, because I will eventually lose it. To avoid future misery, I should repress my joy now.

Buddhism, however, does not advocate such care-free sentiment. As previously discussed, Buddhist philosophy is not pessimistic, and, more importantly, simply not caring about the problem does not help a person solve the problem of human sufferings. Such a stance of not caring and not thinking would lead to ignorance of why pains arise, which, according to Buddha, is also a cause of sufferings (De Bary 19). In addition, not caring is not the right understanding of Buddha’s teachings. When pains come, he is not saying, “don’t care about it when you feel pain.” Instead, he is saying, “When the pain comes to you, you have a perfect understanding of the causes of the pain (if you have followed the Eightfold Path and understand my teachings perfectly), which is caused by the cravings that upset our minds, and have a peaceful and well-founded piece of mind, when you try to end the pain.”

As I’ve argued, Buddhism is not pessimistic and does not require the renunciation of all wanting. If one were to believe that Buddhism teaches pessimistic view of life and all desires must be repressed, they might reach the conclusion that the ideal of a Buddhist is a passive indifference to the world. Such a person will think, “I should not take any active role in life or help other people because it shows that I cling onto something.” As attachment will upset the mind, it is better not to attach to anything, and the best way is not to care about the surrounding world.

In response to such criticism, one has to realize that, in fact, compassion towards others is an important component of any Buddhist’s life. Commenting on the right mindfulness, the 7^th element of the Eightfold Path, Buddha said, “Develop the state of mind of friendliness…as you do so, ill-will will grow less; and of compassion, for thus vexation will grow less; and of joy, for thus aversion will grow less; and of equanimity, for thus repugnance will grow less” (De Bary 27). Compassion will free people from vexations that hamper their path to enlightenment. Compassion is also central in Buddhism because it is profoundly related to the wisdom that realizes the dependent nature of all things and how everything does not have a fixed nature. It is the realization that, if everybody in the society benefits, then I will benefit, and, if helping myself is good, then so is helping others (Roach, chapter 9).

Some critics would argue that compassion really does not matter, if one follows Buddhist teachings. First of all, it is agreeable that we want to avoid sufferings. Nonetheless, it is possible that everybody else in the society will benefit from my actions but I myself will suffer. Secondly, Buddhists believe in the operation of karma. Then, one can argue, if a person suffers, it is because of his bad karma, and if he is feeling happy, it is also because of his past karma. It seems, therefore, that I don’t have any responsibility towards other people.

In response to such an argument: it is indeed true that it is possible that other people benefit while I suffer. This thinking, however, does not follow logically from Buddha’s teachings. Such thinking reduces to doing goods just for the sake of one’s own benefits, (i.e., I will not do it because I will suffer, or I will do it simply because it will benefit me). If so, then one is making a judgment regarding what is mine and what is not mine. This individual makes a supposition that everything within the boundary of my skin is mine, and everything outside is not. Because of this, he will only do things that will benefit this body, “his” body. This idea is another type of attachment to things, in this case, the body, that have no permanent nature, and assigning a fixed nature to something that is not fixed. This is why Buddha told us, with regards to anything, that we should think “This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my soul.” Similarly, the idea that we don’t need to help other people because each of us experiences our own karma is making a distinction between what is mine and what is not mine.

Furthermore, Buddha never intended to make the knowledge of karma an excuse not to help other people. It is true that Buddha said in his final words that we should not “look for refuges to anything besides [ourselves]” (De Bary 29). Our compassion indeed cannot save other people completely—they need to save themselves eventually. Nonetheless, if one thinks about it another way, if there are no beings with wisdom, such as Buddha and other Enlightened Ones, then who can offer guides to those who are suffering? How can they get out of sufferings by themselves? It is similar to expecting a child to do calculus without teaching him how to do addition, multiplication, subtraction and division. To get a sense of this same emotion, we can also imagine the following situation: when we need help from a person, he refuses and walks away coldly. If a person really wants to see that no beings suffer in the future, including him, then he must plant a seed of compassion, intending to save all beings in the universe.

In conclusion, Buddhism is not pessimistic. Indeed life is full of sorrows, but there is a way out. We, as humans, among all beings, have the rare gift of being able to reach enlightenment. The progress does not require repression of all feelings of want. We can want things, but we have to realize the fleeting nature of all things. Lastly, the Buddhist philosophy is not a passive indifference to the world. If a person wants to learn how to save himself from sufferings, a key component is to learn compassion towards all beings. It is similar to the proverb: if a person wants to get more, he needs to learn how to give first.

References:

De Bary, William Theodore. The Buddhist Tradition: In India, China, and Japan. NY: Vintage Books, 1969

Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli, Charles A. Moore. A Source Book in Indian Philosophy. NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1967.

Roach, Michael. The Garden: A Parable. New York: Doubleday, 2000.