Their breathing becomes weaker, and this may contribute to the person being calmer.
This is often true, provided that the patient doesn't experience a sense of suffocation, which is extremely unpleasant and anxiety-provoking
Yes - my wife used to nurse old miners who suffered with lung disease - silicosis? - and I remember her telling me about how horrible it was for them struggling for breath.
Seneca suffered severe asthma attacks. Here's a paraphrase of his main letter about how he dealt with his attacks:Originally Posted by Paulclem
--------------------------
LXXVIII ON THE HEALING POWER OF THE MIND
After severe asthma attacks I felt like ending my life. My studies were my salvation. Philosophy helped me regain strength and attain peace of mind. It enabled me to endure any torture. The most worrying part of disease is the thought of bodily pain. Stop worrying! Suffering is endurable—extreme pain must come to an end. Nerves become numb. Gout and back pain provide intervals of rest, they dull the parts they torture. The first twinges cause distress, the pain ends in numbness. Violent toothache turns to delirium and stupor, a consolation for excessive pain. You cannot help ceasing to feel it if you feel it to excess.
The inexperienced are impatient when their bodies suffer; they have not accustomed themselves to being content in spirit. They are too in love with the body. The wise man divorces soul from body, and dwells with the soul. There is no bitterness in doing without that you have ceased to desire.
Endure the suffering that disease entails, regard it with scorn. Don’t make your troubles heavier by complaining. Pain is slight if opinion adds nothing to it. Think: "It is a trifling matter; keep a stout heart; it will soon cease." In thinking it slight, you make it slight. A man is as wretched as he has convinced himself to be. Don’t complain about past sufferings, they are over and gone. Don’t fear future suffering, it doesn’t concern you yet. Fight against suffering with all your might: if you once give way, you will be vanquished. What difference does it make whether illness is not or I am not? Soon enough one or the other will die; in either case, there is an end of pain. Turn the mind to philosophy and depart from pain.
Coughing-fits that vomit entrails, the highest fever, twisted limbs, the stake, the rack, the red-hot plates, the wound re-opener: many haven’t moaned amid these tortures, nor begged for release. Mock pain! Even paralyzed you can learn, investigate, and meditate. What more is necessary? Maintaining self-control allows disease to be endured. Virtue can exist on a sick bed. Wrestle bravely with disease.
Disease checks bodily pleasures, but does not kill them. It often excites them; the thirstier a man is, the more he enjoys a drink. The pleasures of the mind, which are higher and less uncertain, enable the sick man to scorn all blandishments of the senses. Gruel and water are all that’s needed. Know the limits of good and evil, then life will never weary you, nor death make you afraid. Yield not to adversity; trust not to prosperity; keep before your eyes the full scope of Fortune's power, as if she would do her worst, then that long expected comes more gently.
-----------------
The original has more power, of course, and many other letters dwell on this and similar topics:
http://www.stoics.com/seneca_epistles_book_1.html
There are no instructions on how to achieve this state though except an intellectualisation of the idea of separating pain from the mind.
Your attempts to intellectualise the process really don't cut it against the experiences of people like Nick. I really can't understand why you are trying to argue from the standpoint of reading philosophy with someone who clearly has a lot of experience with the dying.
Live within what's possible. You have no alternative.
Try reading the rest of the letters.
Seneca's letters were written towards an end of long life as a philosopher/statesmen with much experience of violent and painful death (we're talking Ancient Rome here!) He's also considered as a great philosopher, coming in a long line of greatest philosophers. Experiences of people like Nick don't cut it when compared to figures like this (I might be arguing for the Buddha against Nick in another thread, do you prefer Nick's experiences to the words of the Buddha? Or the Dalai Lama?)
People die whether they like it or not. What's there to be philosophical about it. Seneca has been highly misinterpreted about this. He's been turned into a voodoo man in the words of stupid philo-sophists.
Last edited by cafolini; 08-29-2013 at 04:41 PM.
Where's the tradition of practice that demonstrates it beyond an academic appreciation? He may well be a great philosopher - but are hospices running courses on Greek philosophy in order to assist death? No.
The Buddhist's attitude to Nick's experience would be to respect it because he's not only seen people go through the process, can explain it and assist in generating a calm and peaceful attitude, but he would also be in a good position to evaluate what is useful from an external position.
What about dying within what's possible?
I think the main problem with what you're saying Mal is that you haven't demonstrated any experience of the death process except in your reading of philosophers. Not only do you have to test out their validity personally, but also be sure that their method works. If it does - fine, but then there's the question of under what conditions? The likelihood is that most people - including beginner practitioners, are going to experience death in the same way that the people Nick sees do. Unless a person has a strong practice, then, depending upon conditions, it may well be better controlled by them.
Most of us will not be at that stage - though hopefully some. Imagine trying to practice as you are trying to catch your breath? If your practie involves breathing exercises, then it is ging to be difficult. Also, the suppression of breathing and awareness described by Nick earlier are not going to be conducive to much practice which requires focus. In the end we will need a practice and also the medical practitioners to help.
Seneca is not proposing any separation of mind and body or body and mind. He's proposing integration of the two. But you are proposing schizophrenia.
If Seneca were an inhabitant of the Orinoco basin, Venezuela, the Shaman will tell him if he will have death soon. Then he wpuld go to his little hut, sit down in a lonely corner and will himself to death. Or is mind controlled body, on the other hand, it should be possible to live forever by willing it. This is ridiculous.
Balthasar Gracian study Seneca very carefully and a lot of his wisdom came from it. There was only one philo-sophistic touch in Seneca. He thought it was possible for society to have a stupid social contract. He put a lot of hope into that, but Balthasar did not bite.
What's possible is what is such.
Harper Lee's book, To Kill a Mockngbird is one of the greatest pieces of literature in the world because it deals with was possible as it evolves, and she place her hopes within that frame. And so did Seneca in his way. No separation of mind and body or body and mind.
I have no idea what you mean with this.
I've known a few people "about to die" and that very small sample didn't show any stages of grief. So there, I've had some experience. But I certainly don't think that makes me an expert on death whose views can be counted the equal of the greatest minds in antiquity.
Philosophers of the Ancient World, and those who followed them closely, were heavily concerned with the process of dying. CICERO says "that to study philosophy is nothing but to prepare one's self to die," summing up the main concern of the ancients. Of course most modern philosophers are not concerned with that, they are likely to be specialists in areas that are nothing to do with learning how to live or die, and in those cases it would indeed be a waste of time studying those philosophers. But my interest is most definitely in the ancient philosophers, and their followers, who were focused on learning how to live & die. These philosophers, who you disparage so easily (have you read any of them at length?), also, of course, experienced the death of people, just like the rest of us. So they have both expert experience and life experience, and 2000 years of literary & philosophical criticism saying they are "the greatest". Who else would I turn to for advice? Who could be better? I also count the Buddha, J Christ, Shakespeare, and Tolstoy as having input in this area, input that is far more useful than some medic posting on a forum... when I want to know about racing at Le Mans I want to hear from the ace drivers, not any old mechanics.
No saw bones is going to control my death process... I might get him to supply a few drugs for the pain, or do an operation, just as I might get a mechanic to fix the engine of my car, but I know I'm a better drive than my mechanic, so I'm doing the driving.Not only do you have to test out their validity personally, but also be sure that their method works. If it does - fine, but then there's the question of under what conditions? The likelihood is that most people - including beginner practitioners, are going to experience death in the same way that the people Nick sees do. Unless a person has a strong practice, then, depending upon conditions, it may well be better controlled by them.
Actually I see no reason to believe that a doctor will be any better at managing *any* person's overall death process than the person themselves. Obviously they will be good at the more mechanical aspects... alleviating pain, setting up drips,... and any person would be stupid to ignore their advice in these matters. But I don't think anyone should give overall control of the death process to anyone else... and, perhaps, especially to doctors, they already have enough of a God complex
Actually, I'm starting to suspect that any person would be better than the average doctor at managing the mental side of the dying process. That Kubler-Ross stuff seems very dodgy to me, the mental equivalent of blood letting. (Does you wife use it in the NHS or is it a US thing?) The average person might be better dying with common sense rather than Kubler-Ross.
These are interesting points. I guess you're coming from a Buddhist perspective here? I guess the practice of anapanasati would indeed be difficult during an asthma attack, but accounts of "the progress of insight" assume the advanced practitioner (arahant?) will pay attention to more than the breath, he will pay attention to everything that happens in the moment and "let go" of everything the moment it occurs. Hence the arahant would not suffer at all during the dying process. So I guess the arahant *would* still focus on the breath, however "catchy" it is. He would also focus on adverse mental formations as soon as they begin to arise and dissipate then through insight.Most of us will not be at that stage - though hopefully some. Imagine trying to practice as you are trying to catch your breath? If your practie involves breathing exercises, then it is ging to be difficult. Also, the suppression of breathing and awareness described by Nick earlier are not going to be conducive to much practice which requires focus. In the end we will need a practice and also the medical practitioners to help.
I have great doubts of having the abilities of an arahant when I enter the dying process, and (indeed) even doubt arahants actually exist. So, although appreciating the Buddhist model, I'm not limiting myself to that, I'm also exploring the techniques of Seneca, Epicurus, Socrates,...
Last edited by mal4mac; 08-30-2013 at 04:31 AM.
I think this is right. The whole thrust in Seneca is to accept "Fate", and part of that is fully accepting the limitations of the body. Also, he doesn't think of the mind as being some kind of soul that is separate from the body.
Is that early Seneca? His letters were written near the end of his life, after his final exile, and I think he's given up hope of a social contract there... at least he doesn't mention politics much, and is very much for the philosopher getting out of the political rat-race.Balthasar Gracian study Seneca very carefully and a lot of his wisdom came from it. There was only one philo-sophistic touch in Seneca. He thought it was possible for society to have a stupid social contract. He put a lot of hope into that...
Who is Balthasar Gracian?
Death is the only truth we know;everything else is a point of view .
The more enlightened ones might be using techniques like "Cognitive Behavioural Therapy" or "Rational Emotive Therapy" that actually have some basis in science. But where do these techniques come from? The originator of these techniques, Albert Ellis, based them on a reading of the Ancient Stoics, especially Epictetus, but also Seneca and Marcus Aurelius.
I'm not sure that would be the Buddha's attitude, he didn't respect those "expert" Brahmins much. It certainly wouldn't be the attitude of Socrates. The Socratic dialectic is my preferred "practice" du jour... and that means questioning "so called" experts until you reveal that they are not experts, that they are not wise, unless you *do* reveal they are wise (no evidence of that yet...)The Buddhist's attitude to Nick's experience would be to respect it because he's not only seen people go through the process, can explain it and assist in generating a calm and peaceful attitude, but he would also be in a good position to evaluate what is useful from an external position.
He's seen lots of people die. So what? I've seen lots of cars, but can't make them go if they break.
I've seen no evidence that he can explain the process in a coherent manner, maybe he could recommend a book?
I guess he can hand out drugs, which is no small thing, but, beyond that, I see no evidence that average common sense isn't just as useful as his "expert knowledge".
Why is he in any better position than anyone else?
Doctors & nurses are wonderful, they can transplant hearts, hand out drugs, etc., but we shouldn't put them on a pedestal.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote