We seem inconsequentially small in the grand scheme of permanence.
Why then do we have such a crisis when having to explain death? Because every single time we are compelled to think of ways to explain death, we're brutally snatched from the comfort of the womb of life, where we sit in a stasis, cocooned by life's embracing warm and care, to be brutally cast into the land of the non living, cold, rotting corpses that were once full of life and are thus harshly reminded of our own fleeting mortality.
The elaborate stories we weave to explain our mortality range from eternal life to the promise of rebirth to the more creative explanation of eventually becoming one with all existence. Stories probably initially brewed to explain death to children but eventually found themselves being believed by children of all ages, from 3 to 130.
These fictitious fairy tales cause absolutely no harm, or do they?
Having to deal with death in all it's concoctions through the centuries have led people to slaughter millions to therefore justify and thereby attach some value to their otherwise meager insignificantly small existence and in the hopes of attaining the rewards mentioned in some of the stories. The rewards of doing a Gods will and attaining either Nirvana, Heaven or Virgins.
This is what should I believe we should be teaching our children.
Death is the end. The Omega of this one act drama we call our lives. When we die, nothing happens. Absolutely nothing. There's no light, there's no one playing a harp, neither is there a jolly fat man laughing, waiting for us to get closer so that he can then sit us down with a cup of oriental tea and then explain to us the meaning of our past life.
Why? Simple.
Disassociation is peace and happiness. Attachment is the greatest sin mankind and any animal before him as ever conceived of.
Attachment stems from territorialism which I simply define as the the most obvious meaning of 'ownership'. True freedom and happiness comes not from possessions by from relinquishing ownership of everything until all you own is every second from the absolute present to the day you were born.
We're all heard this story before, non attachment to possessions especially cited in context to mobile phones, entertainment devices, vehicles, houses, gadgets, instruments, clothes, this indeed has the potential to be an endless list. But have you ever lost something and have been sad for it? It could be your phone, it could be your wallet, it could even be your wedding album; and when you did, did you feel a sense of loss? That isn't sadness, rather, it is your sense of ownership grieving about something it previously 'owned' and now doesn't, what would've been the ultimate purpose of any of those 'things'? Absolutely nothing. They don't make any contribution to who you are, what you do or how you think; and if they do, you probably aren't the type to have reached this far in my little rant.
Let us evolve this discussion shall we?
From 'items' we own to people we 'own'.
People we like, love, lust for and even hate, we find comfort in attributing a name to that relationship, whatever the name could be, by rule has to be a socially recognized name, this in a validates that now you have some stake in the other persons existence.
After defining your relationship, you are now bestowed with some responsibility for the person, to help care for them, help conserve their precious life and maybe even take on more menial tasks you would otherwise volunteer to perform for more deserving souls.
This would perfectly justify the sense of ownership loss we feel when that relationship is then rejected and ended. We're now with one lesser possession; are we grieving the lost person or are we grieving the time we spent to 'maintain' that possession, the hours spent on the phone, meetings in person, money spent, time wasted, chores done.
Are we grieving the loss of a person or are we grieving the loss of a possession.
Our own life being the miniscule limit that it is, we're on a clock to best validate our lives. Before we die, we have to have felt a sense of achievement sans any inkling of the slightest regret.
Being rejected is like a slap in the face to that sense of achievement. Our master plan has now unavoidably changed, terribly inconveniencing us.
In death, everything changes.
When death is accepted wholly, it would be comparable to accepting the loss of a phone as something unchangeable; a moment in history that is irretrievable, sadness is only dispelled in acceptance of the phone being lost.
And so goes with death. Someone lost is lost forever.
What we grieve here, isn't the person themselves, but the end of one of our possessions. Something we were attached to. Something we loved and/or hated.
Children need to be shown that death is unavoidable and thereby inconsequential.
If you cannot avoid death, or save anyone else from it's icy clutches, there's absolutely no reason to despair or become overwhelmed by sadness at the death of a loved one.
They once existed, they now do not.
exactly how your phone once existed, now it doesn't exist as your possession.
Accepting death in this manner you probably deem as being too harsh and unnecessary or even as being too tough to practically execute. Better yet, you might want to debate my theory on us being sad because we perceive people as possessions
Thousands of people die every second, yet we feel nothing towards them.
This means, we don't despair death, just specific people dying.
The amount of sadness felt is directly proportional to the level of emotional connected we have with said person. This shows a sense of emotional investment and therefore ownership.
Is it tough? Absolutely!
Is it necessary for happiness? Absolutely!
Are there any famous people attached to it? Yes!
Realizing death as inconsequential was the final realization that lead to Siddhartha becoming the Buddha.
Luckily for you, you don't have to give up anything you own. Why do i say this?
Because you never will, item, person or otherwise..
