"All tremble at the rod,
all fear death.
Treating others like oneself,
neither kill nor incite to kill.All tremble at the rod,
all love life.
Treating others like oneself,
neither kill nor incite to kill."Dhammapada, Verses 129 and 130
With that quote I found newborn clarity. I constantly entertained the question: if all beings are going to die, why is it wrong to kill? (Be careful to read that as a rhetorical question...it is not my case) The Buddha gave me an answer, and that answer is coherent with The Second Noble Truth in Buddhism: the causes of suffering are craving for sense pleasures, craving for becoming or continued existence and craving for non-existence [1]. All beings who were born will also die, but (virtually) none of them want to[2], hence they will suffer if someone tries to kill them. That's the way it is. Relating to others from compassion and the understanding that they don't want to die is very important[3]. On another note, the aspect of craving for non-existence is sometimes interpreted as the craving to get rid of (something), hence conducts such as killing (any living being) are also discouraged in Buddhism.
From another point of view, I also think it's important to conquer the fear of death, and I believe that a great part of that fear comes from not understanding well what is dying; for example, thinking in lines with the popular notion that death is a black and eternal abyss. I forecast your reading: here I will strongly question that notion. You might be close to entering a land that is subtle and hard to navigate, I suggest that you take a mindful breath and then we move forward.
In a podcast (spanish) that I published a few months ago I commented about the mistake in which most physicalists[4] fall. In short, physicalists take evidence from the exterior point of view to draw conclusions about the interior point of view. With a very clear language, Ken Wilber defines the interior as that which lacks simple location[5]. For example: where's your cellphone? There it is, on a table or any other place (location), it was easily answered. Now, where are emotions? Where is, say, happines? You can probably see that those questions don't have an easy anwer. So, to wrap it up, everything that doesn't have a clear or simple place of abiding is the interior, which exists, yes, but it doesn't have a simple location. Off course, there are correlates between the exterior and the interior, for example: if I take a certain pill, I will experiment certain interior states; if I'm going through certain interior states, certain brain region will light up in a scan, which will then be seen; and so on. Nontheless, there's a correlate which has not yet been established[6], and which I frankly doubt, among others[7], that will ever be: consciousness itself. Here, by "consciousness" I mean subjetivity, that inner screen in which everything appears and then disappears; it's the screen in which precisely all images, sounds, aromas, tastes, bodily sensations and mental objects (thoughts and emotions) appear. Until now, it has not been able to establish an exterior or material correlate of the most interior phenomena of consciousness or subjectivity itself. The difficulty to establish that correlate is known as The Hard Problem of Consciousness (a problem which, following Bernardo Kastrup, is impossible to solve).
The physicalist view, which I believe to be flawed, is: assuming that consciousness is caused by the physical body of a sentient being - in spite of it not having been proved empirically, because of the (currently?)[8] unsolvable Hard Problem of Consciousness -, then once the body disintegrates or dies, consciousness disappears...and then there's nothingness, a black screen (?), for the rest of eternity. However, there's a very strong - and obvious! - reason why that cannot be true: if there are other conscious beings, my own death (or any particular individual's death) cannot cause the consciousness in them to turn off[9].
The idea that death implies that black screen/nothingness is the idea or view with which (most) animals live, among them a great number of the human mammalian species. Imagine a life in which you follow most impulses and desires that arise in you, without restraint, that's the life most non-human animals live, and I believe that the last ground of that (interior) way of living is the assumption of being the only being with subjectivity or consciousness, which implicitly leads to many ill actions: for example, it leads to overconsumption - attached to that individual desire - without thinking about the implications that could have on the lived experience of other beings; or, in more gross and explicit ways, it leads to abuse another person just because his/her wish to live in peace stood in the way of "my" desire. The last corner of that (interior) way of life is with the issue of death: thinking that death is equal to deep sleep/nothingness/"black screeen" for the rest of eternity. If deep sleep's black screen has been interrupted all these years you've been alive, why do you assume it will extend ad infinitum at death?
I leave three questions which I think are deeply valuable:
I find ther's a lot of safety in a balanced view. If you understand that the physical body's death is not the end, good; hopefully you can also understand that most do believe it to be the end, and they live their lives as if so. Be kind and compassionate towards them, as the Dhammapada pointed out. At the same time, it's good to know it's not the end, and there it's important to follow another principle: what you do will determine what will happen after death, and that is so from virtually all current paradigms.
Until now, I have not found greater safety for life, present or future, than acting from goodwill and equanimity, and the following words from the Buddha [10]synthethize the power that has:
(...) "Then that noble disciple is rid of desire, rid of ill will, unconfused, aware, and mindful. They meditate spreading a heart full of love (goodwill) to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of love (goodwill) to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.
They meditate spreading a heart full of compassion to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of compassion to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.
They meditate spreading a heart full of rejoicing...
They meditate spreading a heart full of equanimity...
When that noble disciple has a mind that’s free of enmity and ill will, uncorrupted and purified,they’ve won four consolations in this very life.
‘If it turns out there is another world, and good and bad deeds have a result, then—when the body breaks up, after death—I’ll be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.’ This is the first consolation they’ve won.
‘If it turns out there is no other world, and good and bad deeds don’t have a result, then in this very life I’ll keep myself free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy.’ This is the second consolation they’ve won.
‘If it turns out that bad things happen to people who do bad things, then since I have no bad intentions,and since I’m not doing anything bad, how can suffering touch me?’ This is the third consolation they’ve won.
‘If it turns out that bad things don’t happen to people who do bad things, then I still see myself pure on both sides.’ This is the fourth consolation they’ve won.
When that noble disciple has a mind that’s free of enmity and ill will, uncorrupted and purified,they’ve won these four consolations in this very life.”
It's worth to note on my front, comming from Buddhism and spirituality, that what EA's do is basically meditate on goodwill and equanimity constantly: that is, they point their minds towards doing good (goodwill) with what actually does good (equanimity). And also that it off course requires wisdom. If my will is nowhere close creating good, then it's not good.
I rejoice in the efforts done in this community, and will be reading your comments very thoughtfully.
According to Buddhism, the other two types of craving that lead to suffering are: craving for sense pleasures and craving for nonexistence. It's worth noting that the Buddha also laid down a rule against suicide, which in my view is consistent with craving for nonexistence leading to suffering. To look into the original formulation fof the Four Noble Truths, refer to the Dhammacakkappavattanasutta or The Discourse on Rolling Forth the Wheel of Dhamma.
Ajahn Suchart, an authority in Theravada Buddhism, understands that conquering the fear of death is a trait of a Stream-Enterer or Sotapanna, one class of enlightened being, pressumably because those beings are said to never ever be reborn again in a low realm (hell or the non-human animal kingdom). It's worth noting that most beings are (unfortunately) not enlightened.
This off course leads aside the situations where a being has a deep craving for nonexistence, i.e. effectively wants to commit suicide, which is a rare situation (estimated of 1% of deaths). It's also worth noting that assisting suicide should hence be a lesser criminal offense than homicide, but I stand in line with it not being the first solution to take, for the reasons stated on this article.
That is, people such as Richard Dawkins who believe that matter is fundamental and consciousness arises from it.
As stated in A brief history of everything and maybe elsewhere in his work.
Refer to the so called Hard Problem of Consciousness
Like Federico Faggin or Bernardo Kastrup.
My view is that the endeavours of finding an external cause to the innermost experience of consciousness will not be fruitful. Though I remain open to see what researchers come up with.
Some might catch a glimpse of the problem that idealism - the metaphysical view in which consciousness is fundamental and the physical world is secondary - has: why am I not registering other beings' inner experience? Fascinating question, right? Bernardo Kastrup and Tom Campbell, among many others, give interesting hints to close in on this question. On the other side, there's also scientific evidence that telepathy is real. I believe we are in the midst of a metaphysical paradigm change.
I linked and quoted the Kalama Sutta, which I think is also a very great reference for Buddhist epistemology and also avoiding unnecesary conflict discussing religion or spiritual ideas.
