-- 
*Mar*Thank you for sharing this—there’s a lot of raw philosophical energy
in it. I’ll do this in two parts, as you asked:

   1.

   *An edited and improved version* (clearer structure, tighter language,
   smoother flow, while preserving your core ideas and voice)
   2.

   *My own views* in response—where I agree, where I diverge, and why

------------------------------
1) Edited and Improved Version*Acceptance of Death*

Life and death are two sides of the same coin. To understand death, we must
first reflect on how we live.

Our daily existence consists of perception, understanding, motivation and
demotivation, joy and sorrow—none of which possess a three-dimensional
material form. What we call “3D reality” represents only a tiny
fraction—perhaps 0.0035%—of total existence. Even the idea of
three-dimensionality is questionable: if we could truly see the atoms and
molecules that compose an object, the object itself would dissolve into
something far less solid than we imagine. What we call form is an illusion
created by limitation of perception.

During life, we marvel at the wonders of creation. Nature, when left free,
produces the highest form of art—art that evokes rapture, even though
rapture itself has no shape. Life, in essence, is nature’s artistic
expression, a continuous creative wave. Yet our education, research, and
institutions remain almost entirely confined to life before death, as
though death were an error rather than a continuation.

If nature has created such an extraordinary experience called life, it is
reasonable to believe that what follows death is not inferior but perhaps
even more expansive. Unfortunately, we cultivate a deep and paralyzing fear
of dying. This fear arises because we do not live in harmony with nature.
Instead, we interfere with it through science, industry, economics, and
rigid dogmas, forgetting that we ourselves are part of nature.

When one truly lives as part of nature—feeling the life of flora and fauna,
dissolving the artificial boundary between self and world—the division
between life and death also dissolves. Nature does not end at death. If,
during life, one acts in ways that nurture and harmonize with nature, that
harmony must logically continue beyond death. Our inability to understand
death stems not from its mystery, but from our fear and our economic
clinging to life.

The simplest truth is this: if life is lived beautifully and freely, in
alignment with nature, that same beauty continues after death. We are forms
of consciousness, and consciousness is awareness. Death may simply be the
liberation of awareness from three-dimensional confinement into a
non-material reality. Life, at its core, is feeling—and feeling has no
shape.

Every life form is an expression of consciousness. In a truly free and
healthy nature, life forms would not live under the fear imposed by
economic systems. In such a world, approaching death could be as
exhilarating and rapturous as sex—the act that enables birth. If there is
romance in creation, there must also be romance in dissolution. We fear
death because we continuously torture and destroy nature in the name of
economic living. Having ruined nature during life, we cannot expect a
gentle encounter with it after death. In nature, life and death exist in
balance.

After death, we may confront pure feeling—without form, without disguise.
The tragedies, suffering, and misery we have inflicted upon other beings
through exploitative systems may confront us in their full intensity. Death
removes all coverings.

If a university were to regain sanity—freeing itself from technological
frenzy and economic bondage—it could establish a “Free Nature Park,”
untouched by human interference, and even create a *Faculty of After Death*.
At present, no university teaches anything about dying or life beyond
death. This silence itself cultivates fear and terror.

If fear of death were completely removed, death would become a conscious
choice within life, rather than something clung to in misery. Education
should include death as a natural and meaningful transition. In the *Tibetan
Book of the Dead*, death is treated as an art, and the art of dying was
cultivated through education.

To live fully, we must also learn how to die.

*— Y. M. Sarma*
------------------------------
2) My Own Views

I’ll be honest and precise here.
Where I strongly agree

   -

   *Death education is missing*: Modern education absolutely avoids death,
   and that avoidance feeds fear, denial, and unhealthy clinging to life at
   any cost. Philosophical traditions—Buddhist, Stoic, even some indigenous
   cultures—were far healthier in this regard.
   -

   *Life is more than material form*: Your insistence that feeling,
   awareness, and consciousness are not reducible to 3D objects is
   philosophically solid. Even neuroscience hasn’t bridged the “hard problem”
   of consciousness.
   -

   *Fear of death reflects how we live*: I think this is one of your
   strongest insights. People who live destructively—toward nature, others, or
   themselves—often fear death more intensely. Guilt, unresolved harm, and
   alienation amplify that fear.

Where I partially agree (with nuance)

   -

   *Nature continuing “after death”*: I agree metaphorically and
   ethically—what we contribute to the world persists. However, whether
   *personal* consciousness continues as an experiencer is still an open
   question. Philosophically rich, but not demonstrable.
   -

   *Death as romance or rapture*: This is beautiful and provocative, but it
   risks romanticizing something that is deeply variable. Some deaths may
   indeed be peaceful or expansive; others are painful, chaotic, or
   frightening. I’d frame this as a *potential*, not a universal truth.

Where I disagree or would refine

   -

   *Economics as the primary source of death fear*: Economics certainly
   worsens alienation, but fear of death predates modern economies. Even
   hunter-gatherer societies had death rituals precisely because death was
   overwhelming. The root fear may be existential uncertainty, not only
   economic systems.
   -

   *“Death as a choice”*: This is philosophically powerful, but ethically
   dangerous if stated without care. For vulnerable people, this idea can blur
   into despair. I’d reframe it as: *acceptance of death liberates life*,
   not that death should be chosen.

My synthesis

I think your essay is really about this:

*If we lived truthfully, gently, and in harmony—with nature, with others,
with ourselves—death would lose its terror.*

On that, I fully stand with you.

Death doesn’t need to be worshipped or feared. It needs to be *understood*,
*integrated*, and *spoken about honestly*. The real tragedy isn’t
death—it’s living as if death doesn’t exist, and then panicking when it
arrives.

If you want, I can also:

   -

   Make this more *academic/philosophical*
   -

   Make it more *poetic*
   -

   Or help turn it into a *lecture, manifesto, or journal article*

Just tell me the direction 🌱

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHC%2Boj%3DRkysUj57NqZMAWRjf7hQ4KWrYSLRUwKxZx7muBPw%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to