Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Loss?
Irris
Explorer
I read somewhere that it's good as a Buddhist to let yourself grieve over losing someone. But are there any actions that are recommended to help respect the dead and move on? Not a ritual, but I guess something like it?
My dog that I've had since I was a kid had to be put down today. She was 15 years old. Just curious, as someone interested in delving deeper into Buddhism, what would the Buddha do?
I feel a bit silly for posting this.. I'm just having a hard time finding anything about this subject. Thanks!
My dog that I've had since I was a kid had to be put down today. She was 15 years old. Just curious, as someone interested in delving deeper into Buddhism, what would the Buddha do?
I feel a bit silly for posting this.. I'm just having a hard time finding anything about this subject. Thanks!
0
Comments
You might find certain rituals practised by certain traditions, but I think to be completely honest, as with all things transitory, you love it in your heart, but let it go.
Any ritual you'd like to perform for yourself I'm sure would be fine.
It's a personal thing, after all....
Just greive in whatever manner your comfortable with. Everyone grieves in different ways. I don't think there is a right or wrong way.
Again, I'm very sorry for your loss, and I wish you the best.
Peace
Mtns
Grief is a process, and you can't really skip steps. The deeper the connection with that which you lose, the bigger the impact of the process. The actual process is different for everyone, depending on how we relate to our world.
Take care and I am so sorry for your loss...
Matt
I was mostly wondering if there were any "Buddhist" forms of ceremony...
Usually we just bury the animal, exchange fond memories, cry a little, and move on. Sometimes we give a card to whomever the pet was most attached to.
I think the most ceremonial pet burials we've had were these:
-When my 3year old Jack Russel Terrier got hit by a car several years ago, we buried her by the river (we live on) and I made a circle of stones over the place.
-When a calico cat died, we planted a red/brown leafed tree over the place, whose foliage resembles her fur colors.
-When a bird died, which my mother was really attached to, she actually put him in a bon fire, so that when he burned he would go up into the sky and "fly" again.
We're country folk, I guess our ideas of proper burials tend to be very nature-related
In related happy/sad life-goes-on news, a couple of our new calves are orphans this year. The mothers both died within a couple days of each other - we think the owner of the farm sprayed pesticides on the grass like an idiot - so we have a couple of very cute little black babies to look after. They play in the barn like dogs!
That nice saving Australians. :eek:
I don't know where you heard that, but I consider myself a Buddhist and I don't buy it. Grief comes from attachment. It is possible to love and care for others without being attached to them.
IMO, The best way you can respect the dead is by being as happy when they are gone as you were when they were here. Would they want you to be unhappy?
Interesting you say that, my dog who was one of my best friends for a long time died two weeks ago and I can honestly say I didn't grieve. As for what the Buddha would do, I suspect he would not grieve either.
No need to feel silly, ask anything you want, this is a great place to learn.
With Metta,
Guy
I would have to disagree. I dare say that it is only considered "normal" because it is the socially conditioned and accepted response, most people don't know any better.
This is why people say things like "I'm sorry to hear...", their intentions are good, but they don't realise that saying things like this tends to make the person feel like they SHOULD be upset and then get even more upset.
With Metta,
Guy
Edited to Add: When an old animal (or person) dies after living a long happy life, I admittedly don't feel very sad. I see it as a release from suffering, since the very old animals (and people) in my life who died were in a lot of pain prior to death.
On the other hand, when an animal (or person) dies young, due to accidents, I find it very hard to just accept and move on as if everything is fine/normal.
Yeah, I remember seeing this. But following that statement (if I remember correctly), they said that it showed that Buddha, too, was a human and that he failed as well.
.
This is the first I have heard of this. It seems quite uncharacteristic from what I have read in the Pali Canon. I would be interested if someone could cite the original source.
Yes, there were quite a few cringe-worthy details in that PBS show. I couldn't watch it all, my equanimity is not strong enough.
Yeah, I kind of felt that way too. He reached supreme Enlightenment, and that seems like something a fully awakened one wouldn't do. (Nor do I think he "failed" as I noted in my previous post.)
Yeah, but there were very few cringe-worthy moments. The rare Dalai Lama appearances in it were great of course!
Well, grief is part of dukkha and Buddha was fully liberated from dukkha.
This, I believe, is due to the gap between how we think the world SHOULD be and how it actually is. Drop the expectations and there's no problem.
If we look at the leaves which have fallen from a tree, many of them are old, brown, yellow, decaying. Some of the leaves which have falled are still bright green, full of life. Also, some of the leaves still clinging to the tree are very old and dried out.
In the same way, many of the dead bodies in cemetaries are old bodies. A few of them are middle aged or young. Some people still clinging to life are very old and dried out.
Having been born, we are subject to the possibility of death at any time in any number of possible ways. This is the way it is. The difference between seeing things as they really are and seeing things as we want it to be is the degree to which we create suffering for ourselves.
With Metta,
Guy
No.
'Nature' grieves.
We just hold onto the baggage....
That's contrary to nature.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratna/wheel102.html
I sure hope that isn't eligible for another "that's just unnecessary attachment" reminder
Guy - thanks for the link, I'll read it
Nononono...it's not, I promise, I wouldn't want anyone to think that I am attached to talking about attachment.
I am not convinced. I see this:
Grieving big for small things: dukkha
Grieving small for small things: tathata
Grieving small for big things: dukkha
Grieving big for big things: tathata
Accept what is in front of you, not transform it or pretend it is something it is not? It seems only the attempting to transform the big to the small or the small to the big that accumulations happen.
With warmth,
Matt
ex:
We feel stressed a bit because the financial situation is uncertain, so we react to this by spending the next 2 hours thinking about how terrible the situation might get, thinking about why does this happen to me, thinking about how sad it is that our life is so unlucky, feeling guilty about what we or someone else didn't do to prevent this situation...
2 hours of this and we went from a small stress to not being able to sleep.
We pick up this habit of reacting in this fashion to our feelings and it become a conditioning and we get an anxiety disorder (or depression etc...).
conditioning =we do it often enough, our brain help us with this task and make it easier for us to do.
Here I go again...This is not what the Buddha taught!
"Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting Rolling the Wheel of Truth" (SN 56.11), translated from the Pali by Ñanamoli Thera. Access to Insight, June 7, 2009, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.nymo.html
There's no such thing as grief which is dukkha and grief which isn't dukkha. Grief is dukkha. Period.
With Metta,
Guy
Again, it appears you cling to words as a safety net. I bet Buddha did not say "grief" one time in his life. 'Periods' have a way of limiting our ability to see truth when confronted by it!
It might be easier if you look at pain... because in that same verse it says that pain is suffering, but it is not! Pain is a body sensation that makes us alert. I remember my teacher distinguishing this by asking me "If the Buddha stepped on a thorn, would he experience pain?" The answer is of course, but it might not look the same, as there wouldn't be a causal attribution made toward it, nor a bounding of mental fixations etc. (he wouldn't be mad at the thorn for instance)
This is why I look at grief in this way. Grief/despair might very well be suffering, but grief/healing is a body experience and not intrinsically tied to confusion.
Careful you don't get so caught in the finger that you miss the moon.
With warmth,
Matt
The Buddha was a man, an enlightened man, but a man nonetheless. We need to remember that, lest we assign qualities to him that are not befitting of a man. I don't think it's "beneath" the Buddha to grieve or experience other human emotions. After all, during insight meditation isn't the aim to watch emotions arise, experience and observe them and let them go?
Respectfully,
Raven
As I have mentioned elsewhere, words are all we have to go by when it comes to finding out what are the actual teachings of the Buddha. Without the words of the Buddha as the foundation to our practice, there is no Buddhist practice.
Granted, we can never be sure that one particular Sutta is accurately representing what the Buddha taught. The various redactors over 2500 years may have added or taken away details and so on. We can counteract this effect by cross-referencing many different texts and check for the common ground between them. Those obscure details that are only mentioned once or twice we can put to one side. Then, it is most likely we will be getting a more accurate depiction of what the Buddha actually did teach. But without any basis in the Suttas then where are we supposed to start?
I am not a scholar, far from it, I am a practitioner first and foremost. However, an important part of the practice is to correct our wrong views. I think an intelligent and wise way to do this is by incorporating time for study as PART OF our practice (since unfortunately we cannot go to the Buddha and ask him questions like in the good old days). This is not mistaking the finger for the moon, this is the (work-in-progress) of trying to see if the finger is pointing in the right direction and seeing if that finger (probably) belongs to the Buddha.
I disagree. Grief (as I understand it) is primarily an emotional phenomena, not physical. It may have secondary physiological effects (lethargy, loss of appetite, weeping, etc), but in itself it is not physical.
Thank you, I will be careful.
With Metta,
Guy
At the risk of being branded a fundamentalist, I will let the Suttas do the talking...
"Dona Sutta: With Dona" (AN 4.36), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight, June 7, 2009, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.036.than.html
As far as I understand, the Buddha is only capable of four pure emotions: Metta (Kindness), Karuna (Compassion), Mudita (Joy for other's good fortune) and Uppekha (Equanimity). Grief is an emotion which is based on delusion, which the Buddha has abandoned totally and irreversibly.
As far as I know, "Insight Meditation" is a modern invention and not what the Buddha taught. I am prepared to be proven wrong on this point though if you can find a reference to it in the Suttas.
With Metta,
Guy
I hear a direct pointing at natural phenomena. For instance, pain is said to be suffering, but I have already covered that, to crickets. Sorrow is said to be suffering, actually "sorrow and lamenting" if we go by comma separated pairings. Do you hear confusion arise, in the absence of correct viewing of nature, as one laments about their sorrow in a way that uproots them from their equanimity?
I suppose if you consider sorrow, grief and pain to be impossible in the same space as equanimity, this subtly would be unavailable. This isn't about being scholarly, as I am not either! This is about looking at the rising of the phenomena without attachment to it.
As a last question, do you consider Buddha as not a human being? I see that sutta, and again, if that is your drawn conclusion I can see why we have such a time sharing views on things. As I read that, I smile and feel what he was saying, and also consider him a human being. To me, he's saying that the concepts are not applicable, because from his side he is empty. Much like a chair is not actually anything conceptual from its own side, yet, smiling, I consider it perhaps a maya-chair because as a maya-chair, I can relate the non-conceptual experience of it to others.
With warmth,
Matt
There is no self, so he is not a human being. Of course, he has the same status as any of us as he is not a god. If he is a god, he is a god in the same sense that we all are. So in short, yes, he is a human being (paradoxically). lol.
The difference between Buddha and us, is that he had attained supreme Enlightenment, the omniscience of Nirvana, in this lifetime and revealed it (I don't like that word because I don't feel it's revelation, but rather sharing knowledge that one has already attained) unto Samsara.
I am quite happy for you to use the Suttas
I was not aware the Buddha stated he was not human. Thank you for pointing that out to me.
Respectfully,
Raven
If you could be so kind as to provide a source in the Suttas for this view I would be very grateful. Otherwise, I see no need to make such an elaborate speculation over two simple words.
No, I consider that the unenlightened Prince Siddhartha was a human being. My understanding is that the Buddha was not a human being.
How do you draw this conclusion when the Sutta states the exact opposite?
With Metta,
Guy
You're welcome.
I notice you live in Sydney, there are some really good Dhamma teachers there.
Bhante Sujato stays at Santi Forest Monastery, he has an exceptional knowledge of the Pali Suttas. I would highly recommend getting in contact with him if you are interested in studying the Suttas.
Also there is Ajahn Khemavaro who stays at Wat Buddha Dhamma which is just outside of Sydney. These forest-dwelling monks are hard to get to (they don't tend to hang out in the city!) but the effort of going and visiting them is well worth it.
With Metta,
Guy
I do it because the words point at what is actually a non-conceptual happening in the external that is different than any single or dual word depiction can accurately capture. Its not speculation, its depiction. Collapsing the non-conceptual into concepts is an imperfect mechanism.
I explained this in the next few sentences. All forms, from every rock to every person is made up of the same non-conceptual 'stuff' as the buddha. "To me, he's saying that the concepts are not applicable, because from his side he is empty." However, this is the true nature of all phenomena, no? Transitory? Non-conceptual?
Buddha said that we should come to see the truths though deep looking and discernment... not the blind interpreting of words.
With warmth,
Matt
Many animals grieve their dead. Elephants do it, the higher primates do it. I think it's perfectly natural. Whether it's "Buddhist" or not I can't say, but I do think it's a natural instinct to grieve over the loss of someone (some being) that you hold dear. Perhaps that's attachment, but I guess I'm not spiritual enough to not grieve at least a little. I understand death as a natural part of life (as I believe animals do better than most humans), but that doesn't mean I don't miss the interaction with those who have gone before me. I'd love to have more time to spend with my grandfather and with my favorite dogs. I guess I'll just have to wait until next time around
Mtns
It is important to think of the animal as not just an animal, but as a being with Buddha Nature who has become temporarily lodged in an animal body. Once it has died, it is unknown what its next birth will be. There is no reason to suppose it will not be reborn as a god, a king, or a great Bodhisattva. From the Buddhist perspective of karma even a great meditator can temporarily be trapped in an animal body before progressing on their path to Awakening. It is even possible for a great Bodhisattva to take birth as an animal (or any other kind of being) for the benefit of others."
"In this chapter I talk briefly about bereavement and related issues. The reader will need to look at books that deal specifically with bereavement some of which I recommend in the suggested reading section, for a more thorough treatment of this important subject.
INtenese bereavement is about as close as we can possibly get to experienceing death and groundlessness outside of death itself. It can thrust us into a frightening no man's land similar to the intermediate state between death and rebirth. We can find ourselves suspended between past and future, suddenly cut off from all our associations with the deceased, having to die to our old way of life, and feeling we have lost our sense of identity.
If it's true that this is like dying, then the experience of bereavement can be a terrible but an amazing gift, a wake-up experience, a Dharma practice. Many people have noticed this deeply spiritual dimension to bereavement.
There are of course various levels of bereavement, depending on one's degree of attachment and closeness to the dead person and how much he or she was integral to one's sense of wellbeing and feeling loved. But any bereavement can be an important Dharma practice, because at the very least it brings us face to face with our own mortality. That in itself is a shock and can be hard to handle especially if it is something we have never really related to before.
The Shock of Death
A big part of the suffering of grief either before or after a dear one's death is brought on by shock. In Tibetan culture this condition is described in terms of the life-force (tsolung in Tibetan). It is said that the life forece or subtle energy of the body which usually functions and moves in the heart, is severely blocked owing to shock. I think the custom of beating one's breast familiar from many cultures clearly reflects a similar understanindg of the need to get the life force moving again. While it is blocked (as also happens in depression) one's whole will to live drops away, everything appears colorless and meaningless. Even to perform the simplest of functions involves a tremendous effort. There is very little point in trying to talk about the meaning of life to someone in this condition. There is no energy or inspiration in one's thinking and in fact it is important not to think too much at a time like that.
Anything that gets the life force moving such as physical exercise walking massage or just pottering about are good for someone in this condition in fact anything that keeps one moving, but doesn't take too much thinking energy. Light hearted but sensitive company is a tremendous help. This is where pets, family, friends, and especially the support of fellow practitioners and spiritually like minded people can play an important role.
It is good to set yourself a routine that keeps you moving without getting frantically involved in lots of things. There is often a lot to do when someone dies, and it is likely to be a very busy time. This can take one's mind off things for awhile, which provides some much needed movement, but when all the business dies down, one should not be surprised to find that it can take a very long time for the life force to recover. It often happens that everyone is very attentive around the funeral for the first month of so after death of a loved one. About three months after that when death has become more real the bereaved seem to need more help and it is often just at the time that most friends and family have withdrawn.
It is very helpful if one can somehow feel the heart connection that one has with the deceased person and learn to trust that. It reaffirms the value of a person and our connections at a time when we are very opn to the true essence of what that means. Doing things for the deceased at that time helps reinforce the sense of connectedness. Meditation, offerings, pranidhanas, mantras, tonglesn, feasts, and dedicating the power of our practice (punya) for the deceased, as well as talking to them, can help the person doing these things as much as it helps the deceased. The more faith one has in all these practices the better, but even simply being open to the posssibility that there is meaning n them helps the heart. It helps one feel there is a truth and dignity inherent in a long standing spiritual tradition that feels supportive and inspires confidence. This can be true even if one is not sure one can go along with all the implied beliefs. The reassurance this gives the bereaved helps counter the overwhelming feeling of meaninglessness that is likely to descend on them. It provides some sense of groundedness without which it is very hard to recover.
I believe the whole process of recovering the life force can take several years but it does recover and during that time it tends to chop and change. Sometimes it seems to have picked up energy and sometimes the energy drops again apparently for no reason. Knowing this is likely helps us to face it with courage. It is very important to turn towards and acknowledge what is happening and to let it be, without complicating things by thinking should be able to do better."