Hum jaante hai jannat ki haqeeqat lekin, dil ko behelaane ke liye yeh khayal accha hai

(Snippets of an old conversation with someone)

hmm...old age can be weird. I don't mind it as long as all my sense organs are working fine, I can still walk/ run around, and other body parts don't give up. Basically, age doesn't matter as long as qualitty of life doesn't deteriorate.

I am very amused by this talk about "wanting to be dead"

I mean death is so amazing as a thing! It's the one thing you can't really talk about 'wanting' in seriousness without sounding stupid. Because wanting something always connotes desiring something because you anticipate a good result. i.e. you want something because of how it will make you feel once your desire is satiated.

With death, that's impossible. You can want it all you like, but when you get it, you won't be around to experience the fulfillment of the want. So till the time you are capable of feeling and thought, you are left wanting. and when one isn't capable of feeling and thought, how does anything matter anyway?

death is not the end of suffering. If you suffer in life, and are seeking escape in death, its pretty hopeless. Because you will suffer till you are alive. and when you die, it doesn't matter if there is suffering or not because you wont be alive to suffer its presence or enjoy its absence.

.....

Having said that, I talk about wanting to die all the time! :-) but that's more for the sake of drama. And finding expression of an extreme kind for what is otherwise inexpressible.

I think my attitude to death is one of indifference. Not wanting or not-wanting.

................

To escape pain for what? Why do we want to escape pain? Because absence of pain is desirable. Otherwise there is no point wanting it. But with death even that wont be there. Except for others to discuss at an intellectual level. Or for us to discuss it now, at an intellectual level.
Not for the one who has died. For him, as long as he "was" he was suffering. When he "was" no more, well, the verb "to be" can't be applied in any form

.............

For whom is it over? You talk about something unpleasant being "over" for someone, only if they have experienced its absence. Otherwise you wouldn't know it is over right? And how is that possible after death? Except for the alive ones to talk about and discuss?

There is no 'you' after you die.. except in the minds of others you have left behind.
And yes, the idea of death as the end of suffering offers us solace when we are alive. But actually, its a delusion.

.............

But no matter when you die, the pain remains till you do. Even to say "extra pain" and "extra suffering", one has to go way beyond the here and now and it is still a very distanced perspective on the matter.
For instance, lets say I have died. This question of "would have suffered more if she were alive" is something others will discuss after I am gone.
also, "if he hadn't died, he would still be suffering", again this doesn't mean much to the person who dies. If I think that "if I die, I will no longer suffer" makes no sense at all. There will be no "I" after I die who "will no longer suffer"

It is as if a pigeon is trapped in a cage, and one day the cage is opened and it has its first shot at freedom. What I am trying to say vis a vis death is the equivalent of the pigeon's neck snapping just when it is reaching the open door.

............

yes... it sounds like quite a plan in theory. That's what I am saying. It's great comfort for the alive ones to talk about it like this. But in actuality, and if one doesn't believe in life after death and what not, then death is the end of you. Not of the suffering. And no, it doesn't suffice to say if you are not there, then there is no suffering.

Your saying "if they continued to exist, they would continue to suffer" still doesn't help the dead man. Again, you may not say it that way, but the desire for something positive (in this case the avoidance of continued suffering) is implied in the cessation of something negative.

It's not an enemy you can outsmart or defeat.

Imagine it like this. Let's say there's an ostrich who buries its face in the sand to escape a predator. When its face is buried, it can't breathe, see, hear, or feel. It is closed to experience of any kind. In order to experience again, it has to come out, and when it does, the predator is still there.

As I understand it now, your argument is that when it can't experience anything, it can't experience the predator either. But what I am saying is that the second part of this statement is incorrect. For to say "it cannot experience" implies an "it"'s existence. But that is not the case. You can say "it isn't". But once you establish that, any other or further negation is not possible. For when something isn't, the possibility of other verbs being negated ceases to exist

.................

For me to hold the idea that death brings an end to their suffering is a functional one to have. But it doesnt help the one on the other side.

For example, I was glad when Arundhati (an injured and suffering elephant) succumbed to her pain and died. For it gave me mental peace to think that her pain had come to and end. But really, thats a belief I have in order to comfort myself.

For till the time she could feel, she felt pain. So when she died, it was not like she was relieved from her pain. There was no "she" left.

................

The only thing I am suggesting is that however adaptive and great this idea of death as an escape is, it is a purely theoretical one and it can never be anything else. Experientially, it is impossible.

Suffering is a constant companion, a sangdil saathi.