>Who's to say that an "early" death is not in fact a gift for the living?

Everyone who's experienced it?

Not everyone.

My mother's death was in many ways her last gift to me. I would not have traded her for what I have gained. But neither would I erase the experience of loss, as painful and traumatic as it was. I am a much better person, a much stronger person, a much more compassionate person.

No harm meant but your post just sounds like a coping mechanism.

I could see why you'd think that, but I'm pretty sure it's not.

Nothing is purely negative, and I think it's important to keep that in mind. Especially when one's attitude and reactions can amplify or diminish the good parts.

If you want to look for coping mechanisms in this discussion, consider all the denial around the inevitability of death.

> I would not have traded her for what I have gained.

It sounds like you and bcgraham are in agreement, just meaning different things by the word "gift".

> Who's to say that an "early" death is not in fact a gift for the living?

You've got to be kidding. (A very dark kind of humor, I guess)

my daughter died unexpectedly just over a year ago. i don't like to talk about this but feel i need to say something in support of the "gift comment":

my wife and i often talk of her life and death as a gift to us and as her two brothers. we see imprints of her in the bonds between us that were galvanized following her death. it's not something that words can convey, i've tried and failed many times, but her gift is an unparalleled understanding of life and a strength that has the potential to be far more powerful than the grief/pain/torment of losing her.

it's more than just a coping mechanism.

Not kidding at all.

Inevitable death awaits while we throw ourselves into the business of living. When a loved one dies, that breaks you down, melts the ice block of arrogant I-know-what's-up thinking.

That is absolutely a gift to the living, and his wife and kids are getting that gift deeply, in their bones -- I've heard it called, eating Buddha's rice.

I look my 5-year-old daughter in her innocent pretty face and wonder what she'll think if Daddy "goes" early (which I very well might, she almost lost me at 3 months). I envision her someday saying "Do I remember Daddy? A little, he was very nice and I loved him..."

I find your sentiment downright cruel. Excuse me while I go cry and refrain from punching a wall.

ETA: Fallout from death may be construed as a "gift" insofar as some good may come from something bad, but that doesn't make the death itself a gift. Discovering that the wall desperately needed repair anyway doesn't make punching it, out of anticipatory grief, good.

Inevitable death is not a "gift", it's a lesson. Santa Claus doesn't off you and your family as a "gift" for Christmas.

I've experienced the deaths of several close loved ones. Death wasn't a gift to them or others. It was a reminder of the importance of living life. It's life that's the gift, not death.

Two words.

Fuck you. Fuck your sanctimonious fatalism.

Okay, maybe a few more than two words.

The day I turned twelve, we found my father dead on the kitchen floor. He'd had a cerebral aneurism in the night, before going to bed. No warning signs, he was in fine shape. I sank into a deep, deep depression for about twenty years; I feel like I lost a vast chunk of time to that. I did very little beyond going through the motions of life and not quite being gloomy enough to kill myself.

It may be different if you know the end is coming. I don't know.

But I would much rather have had a father as I tried to make sense of who I'd be during my teen and early adult years than this so-called "gift".

Fuck you, and fuck Buddha's rice.

I don't know if you got help for your depression, but if you didn't that's a shame. Losing a father at 12 is terrible, but you had a father for 12 years. Some people never know their fathers. Presumably yours was a loving father; some people have horribly abusive fathers.

However your foul-mouthed response to another person's point of view is uncalled for. You'll probably say "F You" to me also, but if that's the case let me say I think you need some help getting over your self-pity and bitterness about the cards life dealt you. We all lose our parents at one point or another. I lost my mom to ALS. We knew the end was coming, and it was a long, slow, agonizing time. A cerebral aneurism, in comparison, could almost seem like a gift. Or at least a preferable way to go.

This is not language I'd normally use here. But virtualwhy's advocacy of such a fatalistic viewpoint, and characterization of a parent's death as a "gift", touched a nerve.

Fuck fatalism, fuck acceptance of the inevitable. I'm an agnostic, I don't think there's anything else beyond this life, and having it ripped away that suddenly and unexpectedly is a raw deal, not a gift. I don't know if it'd be preferable to a long, agonizing death; I haven't experienced one of those in my family. Maybe you do end up being fatalistic if you have to live through one of those. I dunno.

It's been almost thirty years. I'm largely over it.

Well, that the most horrible thing I've read in a long time.

So we'll have to agree to disagree that fucking death is a gift.

It's actually not an uncommon perspective.

Yes. I guess it's a psychological mechanism to cope with the horror, like Stockholm syndrome.

Not for me. Death is an essential part of life. All composite things decay. Truly understanding and accepting death was and is, for me, vital to fully embracing life.

That doesn't mean I'm on death's side, or going to go rob banks for death. Life's pretty swell. But my life is much better, and each moment of it sweeter, in a way that came from experiencing traumatic, irreversible loss.

I'll grant that's weird. But, then, we're made out of meat. The whole thing's weird.

For some it's not a horror. It's grief, and to me grief are welcome. It confirms and strengthen our feelings and emotional bonds. Without death there could be no life, and without grief there could be no love.

You should stop belittling other peoples viewpoints, just because it does not align with your own.

You are of course entitled to your own personal philosophy, as am I. That doesn't mean I have to silence my disagreement.

And in fact I find that "viewpoint" totally incomprehensible. I can asure you, I loved my mother much, much before cancer killed her at 52. That was not a gift, that was her body malfunctioning and our ignorance about how to fix it.

I have no need for death or grief to love or to value life, thank you very much.

And I don't keep my mouth shut about this because I worry about the real consequences of that philosophy. At any other moment of human history acceptance of death was perhaps the only sane thing to do, because there was no alternative. But we have now a scientific civilization and we should be fighting it, instead of rationalizing it.

That's a false dichotomy. We can fight to extend life at the same time we accept death as inevitable.

I have a friend who's a very dedicated doctor, and a very dedicated Buddhist. So much so that they're arranging a version of the charnel ground [1] meditation. But rather than sit in an actual charnel ground, my friend has requested photos from the research facilities that study human decomposition.

To the average American, that sounds hopelessly morbid. But people practicing it see it as necessary to fully understanding death. And thereby, to understand and appreciate life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charnel_ground

>You are of course entitled to your own personal philosophy, as am I. That doesn't mean I have to silence my disagreement.

I don't think you are being asked to be silent, I think this is a question of attachment to life yielding suffering through anger.

What cannot be changed must be accepted, and to you calm acceptance looks like complacency--to the extent that you insist that _no_ one could be free from your horror at death, and anyone who claims otherwise is subject to 'Stockholm Syndrome.'

I seem to hear you saying "Well excuse _me_ for being attached to life." I am of the opinion that attachment to life is readily apparent; of course we are attached to life, that is was it _means_ to live.

It's just... death is just a thing. It is. And it is an experience like any other. To appreciate its unique aspects is part of life. Even should we conquer death, we cannot change the fact that death has happened.

...Now, is it insensitive to be talking about death like this in a topic about someone's death? Maybe. But I am confused, somehow, at a violent reaction to a very contemplative perspective on death.

> Without death there could be no life, and without grief there could be no love.

I really just don't know what you mean by that. I imagine a world in which no-one dies and someone asking, 'What's life?' and people still quite meaningfully pointing to living things and going 'Well, it's that.' Just as I can imagine that people who haven't grieved can still love.

Grief and death perhaps serves as a proof of love and life, I suppose. If they weren't there what would you lose? But I don't see how they're meant to have IFF relationships.

Yes, you can imagine a different existence, but life is what it is. You might imagine a different existence, but that doesn't change the facts, or the hand we're dealt.

I actually worry about abolishing death, because then what are we? What would define the human existence? Would love be the same, without the fear of loss?

You said it quite well in your last paragraph actually. :)

> You might imagine a different existence, but that doesn't change the facts, or the hand we're dealt.

Yeah why bother with fixing >20% infant mortality, or eradicating polio, or dying from infections we now easily cure with antibiotics. We should had accepted that as part of life and keep dying more, more painfully and earlier.

TLDR; Fixing disease is not preventing death.

I don't think he's talking about improving the length of life, but instead not looking for the fountain of life, or anything else that would create those who live forever.

If we all lived forever, then there would be no children, or parents really. If we really lived forever, not drastically longer lives, Earth wouldn't be able to sustain any sort of birthrate.

So yes, we need to attempt to push death off for as long as possible, that's also part of living. Think about a world without babies, or puppies. Just middle aged people who don't die... It would be very different and no one can say good or bad, because humans are really bad at those kind of simulations. We are overly optimistic.

Stop trying to twist my words. I'm not against science, medicine or improving the human condition. Please read my comments and try again.

Some call it deathism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:B0gger/Deathism

There is at least one major world religion with death as its central event.

> Inevitable death awaits while we throw ourselves into the business of living.

Everyone eventually dies. This is a meaningless sentence.

> When a loved one dies, that breaks you down, melts the ice block of arrogant I-know-what's-up thinking.

And it does a whole lot more than just that, and the cost is way too high for such a minor lesson.

> That is absolutely a gift to the living

Are you crazy? A gift? A gift is something the recipient wants. No one wants the lesson you are offering (even assuming it's something valuable, which I'm not convinced is even true).

I don't feel you have much right to call to the dirt someone else's coping mechanism. Some cry for death, some laugh, and some seek meaning.

I'm calling his advice to other people.

Apparently I am crazy, fair enough, won't argue with that.

I'm not offering anything, when I say gift I'm certainly not talking about a person doing the giving.

"the cost is way too high for such a minor lesson", a minor lesson like death?

> a minor lesson like death?

I meant the lesson about "arrogant I-know-what's-up thinking".

Death is way too high a price to learn such a thing.

I think you'll find a lot of folks that will think that, while what you say may be true, this is not a good trade. I'd rather somebody be a d-bag and still have their dad than treat me well and not have their dad any more. I think there are viable alternatives to learning more about your humanity than losing a loved one.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying I don't think it's worth losing somebody you love dearly.

To each his own, I guess.

I understand why people are objecting to your comment here, and I don't have any quarrel with them.

But this was exactly my experience of deep loss.

> When a loved one dies, that breaks you down, melts the ice block of arrogant I-know-what's-up thinking.

If you honestly didn't think you knew - or at the very least had a good idea - what was up, ever, then you'd be a complete social wreck; someone gibbering in the corner about how you couldn't tell the difference between a family member who wanted to kill you or hug you.

The world behaves according to rules, people do too, and we make predictions based upon our guesses as to those rules. Generally we're reasonably correct with those guesses. That's how the vast majority of the population behaves with varying levels of understanding and faith in those rules and guesses.

It's not arrogant to think you know what's up. Of course, sometimes you'll be wrong, and you probably shouldn't profess absolute certainty in your predictions, but growing up should have taught you that fairly effectively without the need for anyone to die.

> When a loved one dies, that breaks you down, melts the ice block of arrogant I-know-what's-up thinking.

If you think the solution to that way of thinking is for someone to die, that's like thinking the only way to learn about the dangers of a hot stove is to burn your hand on it.

... well, yeah? How can one know not to get burned without getting burned?

I mean, I don't disagree (though I think you're mischaracterizing his post--he didn't say it was a problem in need of a solution, he was merely saying that death has that effect), but it seems like your example is counter to your point.

> How can one know not to get burned without getting burned?

Maybe, someone, let's say, a parent or guardian, telling you that touching a hot stove will burn you, and you taking this seriously.

The tone of his post seemed to me to indicate that he was generally insensitive, and only the death of a loved one could snap him out of it. If he had enough empathy, he would have learned more early on that he should be more aware and respectful of others' feelings.

> ... well, yeah? How can one know not to get burned without getting burned?

Well, I've never been shot either but I still think I'd rather not ^^;

I'm pretty confident that you have never lost anybody close.

I struggled for a long time with the suicide of someone close to me.

It dawned on me years later that for all of us affected (ripped apart) by his death (age 24) that we were given a gift: suffering.

Looking back, I left my comfortable box -- dropped out of college, shaved my head and entered a monastery -- trying to make sense of it.

That broke me, several family members, and his closest friends in a way that a so called natural death might not do since it was his choice and our guilt.

How is suffering a gift? A gift is something you want, and sometimes even defined as something you want, but don't need.

> That broke me

That's sad. But perhaps if you had had a more natural reaction, that the death was a bad, sad, thing. And not a good thing, you would not feel broken.

If somebody gives you a kit with which you can something you need, is it still a gift? I say yes.

Mindless suffering is indeed something of no value. But mindful suffering for me has been extraordinarily valuable.

For example, I recently did my first triathlon. The training had plenty of suffering. The race was, in some ways, miserable. But because I embraced the suffering, I've grown a lot. Not just physically, but also mentally.

Losing people close to me worked similarly. The suffering was enormous. But so was the growth.

I wonder how this line of reasoning would go over at a murder trial.

Do you actually wonder that?

No, I actually don't.

I know it would be absurd and there is a good reason we punish people who give the "gift of death" with no regards to some bizarre learning experience for the victims.

Ok. So if you already knew that, what's your point?

Pointing out the absurdity of your statements through the wonderful tools of rhetoric.

Oh. Well then, it didn't work for me. Better luck next time.

There's no need to define something that cannot be defined.

Broken, suicide does that to the living.

>But perhaps if you had had a more natural reaction, that the death was a bad, sad, thing.

This is the assumption I'm struggling with reading these reactions to virtualwhys. There is a sentiment that death is an enemy, a veritable monster; but more to the point, there is a sentiment that anyone who does not believe this is deranged and must be attacked.

You _did_ "call to the dirt" virtualwhys coping mechanism, because you explicitly called his reaction unnatural. Can't you see that he is grieving, too? It is a quieter, more subtle thing; neither maudlin nor overwrought, and he has quietly stepped back from the emotionally charged reactions.

But if you look, other people are stepping forward and relating their own experiences of loss in similar terms.

Personally, I find the "death is bad" to be an outgrowth of our attachment to life; an impossible attachment.

At the very least virtualwhys has received double the insensitivity of the perceived insensitivity of his initial post. You're stomping all over his experience with a friend's suicide: you _know_ that, right?

I wouldn't ask you to feel differently, but I would ask you to understand that not everyone views death the same way you do.

The way I understood what he wrote is:

"Since people will eventually die, it's better not to grow attached, even more, I should welcome the death since it will inevitably happen, and not only that, the death will actually benefit me."

> You're stomping all over his experience with a friend's suicide: you _know_ that, right?

It's one thing to process death and grieving by looking for the good in it.

It's another to tell people it's a good thing, and that life is suffering so welcome death - and your death will help other people.

It's like he's telling people "don't bother living", there's no point to it.

There is no point to life but life itself.

Let's say you're right. Does that change the fact that you're telling him how to grieve?

Is that really so bad to do that?

After all he was told by his monastery how to grieve, and he's telling everyone else here how to grieve (although he did apologize if his views bothered someone).

If you simply relate what you are doing OK, but once you want people to follow your views you must also be willing to accept some opinions back, and it's OK if you disagree. (And obviously actually changing is entirely the choice of the person.)

Plus, keep in mind that he is hardly the only person reading this.

But, all that said, and reading your reply https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5896351 I do get your point about what I am doing. It's just I VERY strongly disagree with what he said, and I couldn't just leave it unremarked.

A bit late to say this, but: fair enough. Though I do not think it fair to say his monastery "told him" how to grieve; active learning is not being ordered, and in general is quite the opposite.

i lost my daughter 1 year, 3 months, 29 days, 13hrs ago.

i understand what he's saying.

to frame it in a slightly different way: there's a gift of understanding that has the potential to be far more powerful than the pain/grief/torment of the death.

I don't think you meant it that way, but you dishonor their suffering by using the word gift associated with watching a loved one slowly die. To a highly empathic person, this event is nearly equivalent to the death of self altogether.

What's the benefit of being broken down? Not thinking "I know what's up" can also be achieved simply by thinking, no need to die for it.

The difference is that when you get broken down you are much more likely to affect real and lasting change in your life.

I _want_ to do what this guy is doing ( http://www.ted.com/talks/marcin_jakubowski.html ), yet I am still living in the city, writing iPhone apps, rather than living on a farm building machinery. Why? Because I'm still just "thinking about it": I haven't reached a broken-down moment.

It really takes quite a powerful kick to get people to make real changes.

You want somebody you love to die so you can fulfill your dream of building farm machines from scratch? OK... To each their own I guess :-)

What if somebody you loves dies and suddenly you find that spending time with that person would have meant much more to you than iPhone apps or farm machines?

Apologies to anyone offended by my views, this struck an unintended chord for some of you, was just expressing myself in the moment based on my own experience of the death of a loved one.

I hope you've noticed that a number of people came forward to relate a similar perspective on death.

I really respect your decision to bow out of the emotionally charged conflict in the thread.

...However, I am not inclined to be so wise. If you're reading this, please try to understand my position even if you feel affronted by it; bare in mind also that there is some of my own emotion in this and I recognize I'm venting a bit.

For some people, emotions are a very public thing. They are shared with anyone and everyone nearby.

For some people, they are a quiet, contemplative thing. They are felt and shared only with those close to them.

What happens in public settings is that people that feel quietly are shunted out. They aren't heard, they don't express themselves because, by their nature, they don't have to.

Attachment to death seems immature to me. It seems like we have to trumpet again how awful death is, say the things that everyone knows.

Because that's the other thing about emotionally loud people: they have to make sure everyone's feeling the same things, that we're all on the same page.

virtualwhys experience with a close friend's suicide was criticized: he was told he was __grieving wrong__. The appalling rudeness of this is overlooked because virtualwhys, a quiet person, emotionally, stepped out rather than continue to feel like he was stepping on other people's emotions. Quietly emotional people respect other peoples' feelings.

Meanwhile, a lot of _other_ people are quietly relating their own grief in similar terms as virtualwhys.

Look, death is an experience. You can't change it. Even if we cure everything someday, that won't change the fact that we've lived and died. Wringing your hands about death is only additional suffering.

Because that's the beautiful thing about accepting death: you can make it more about life than loss. It is an experience of the vital things, the core things, the deep bonds and strong connections.

Aaron will die, with his family around him, still looking to the future and full of life. That is very profoundly beautiful. It is a gift. More to the point, it just _is_. It cannot be changed, but it can be appreciated.

Here's where I fall on virtualwhys side: to me, any other understanding of grief seems to be pretending you could possibly have control. Death forces us to see that we have no control--and when that is pointed out, _some_ of us can't handle it.

Yeah, that last part is a bit rude, and I apologize... somewhat.

Having had a bit of exposure and interest in Zen, I have come to appreciate some Buddhist perspectives towards life (and death), so I am saddened to see that perspective offending some. I am struck with the thought "How can I bring them closer to understanding this perspective?".

So I thought I'd post a lecture from Alan Watts, on death, as observed from a western perspective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzZTK4SWwpg

Watts studied Zen in the 50's and tried to bring it back to the states in the 60's and 70's.

> life is suffering

That's horrible. Life is not suffering, life is joy and happiness. Does Buddhism really believe such a terrible thing?

I'm not an expert, but I think the translation to the english word suffering isn't perfect. It comes with a lot of heavy connotations. I've always thought struggle is a better word. Some people have negative reactions to struggle, but others use them to grow and become stronger. Again I'm not a buddhist adherent, but I think the general idea is that life is a constant struggle and it's how you view and react to that struggle that will define your life. Reaching peace and eternal happiness comes from accepting that struggle and growing with it.

Or something like that.

If that's what he meant, then we can agree, and I was too harsh in what I wrote.

virtualwhys: If this really is what you meant, then please, start using a different word.

Buddha said life is "dukkha", a word that his listeners would have recognized as sounding like a wheel with the axle slightly out of true: "Duka-duka-duka"...

He indeed meant that life is suffering. English speakers today translate the word as "suffering", "pain", "disappointment", or perhaps "striving" (a sentiment you will find echoed in Ecclesiastes).

Buddha also spoke about the cause of suffering, and suggested that if you can escape from the cause, you can escape from the suffering.

I personally disagree with this advice: Why would I want to escape from love, hate, pain, joy, and everything else? But I don't disagree with the basic teaching. Everyone has a cross to bear.

I've struggled a lot with truly understanding what it means to strike attachment from one's life. When you take it to its logical conclusion, it seems absurd (being unattached to your wife? To your children?).

I think of it like this: when the untrained mind is enjoying something, there are two aspects to that experience: the appreciation of the beauty or pleasure you derive from it, but also the attachment, the clutching or grasping and anxiety which would follow that thing being taken away.

I think "no attachment" is advocating that you get yourself in a mental state where you can have one without the other: to appreciate something while it lasts but not clutch to it or get hung up on it when it passes.

My understanding of it isn't that life isn't literally suffering, but that anything can cause you suffering (or pleasure).

Let's say you don't own a car, and take the bus to work. Then someone gives you a car, you are happy! A week later someone steals your car. You are back to riding the bus. Your first day back on the public transport is probably filled with quite a bit of suffering even though it is no different that the bus ride you took a week ago.

It's also possible to be too attached to joy for fear that if it ceases it will cause you pain. To goal is to be happy despite external events.

That's actually a different one, and I believe not one that the phrase "life is suffering" means.

I'm not a Buddhist or an expert in Buddhism by any mean. But being born and raised in an South East Asian that is strongly culturally tied with Buddhism, I believe the phrase "life is suffering" isn't too far away from what I normally heard and read. Of course, different Buddhism sect will have different idea on the whole "what life is", but interestingly, I recalled reincarnation being considered not as a gift, but actually a curse. You should strive to live your life free of all the meaningless greeds, emotions and bad deeds so that you won't be reborn, and hence relieve from life's suffering.

Of course, I realize the whole thing might sounds bizarre with a lot of Westerners, as so does many of Buddhism's teaching (emotions is bad etc). But keeps in mind, personal happiness is specifically a Western ideal, one that has been spreading more and more to the East, but still incompatible with many of the old traditional ideals here (Note: I'm not saying either way is better or worse, I'm still trying to figure that out).

Death is not the gift.

The time we get with our loved ones is the gift.

That's really where you get to experience the emotions that make you happy to be alive. Joy, love, hope, desire, anger, frustration, etc. I'll say that a NEAR death experience tends to be more of a gift, it happened to my brother and changed him drastically. Not all for the better, but much of it was good.

I think the idea of calling death a gift is bullshit. Yes, you can learn and grow from the death of a loved one, but that isn't a gift, it's the absence of their presence (the real gift) that makes you realize what you had.

To me, life without the lows and highs, is boring. That is because lows make people realize how special the high points are. But I know other people who would be content without either.

Please remind me to not invite you to my birthday party.

> Who's to say that an "early" death is not in fact a gift for the living?

Gifts are generally things given willingly. I think you might want to rephrase.

In some sense everything is a "gift" because all the lessons we learn lead us to some ultimate spiritual goal. That said, I don't think "gift" is the best word and prefer "lesson" instead.

Would you apply the word "gift" to any horrible genocide/natural disaster that has happened? Perhaps you would, but for most people, "Lesson" will resonate better.

This struck a chord. Maybe lesson is the better word, but gift rings true for me in my experience.

I wouldn't call suffering a lesson, it just is; that is the gift, the whole thing.