Peace Finder

Situation

When someone I love has died

6 traditions are shelved here, each stating the question in its own words.

Is there a season for this, or only an end?

A tradition carried in the Hebrew scriptures and in the rabbinic literature built around them — Mishnah, Talmud, commentary and law — read and argued over continuously for more than two thousand years. Its teaching arrives as much through recorded disagreement between named teachers as through statement, and its texts are read as scripture by their communities.

About this passageKohelet is read in the synagogue on the intermediate Sabbath of Sukkot, the autumn festival of temporary shelters. The speaker has already reported trying wisdom, pleasure, work and wealth and finding each of them insubstantial — hevel, a word for vapour or breath. This passage is a list rather than an instruction: fourteen pairs, each holding a thing and its opposite, with no ranking between them and no advice about which to choose.

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.

In plainer words

Everything gets its turn. Being born and dying. Planting and pulling up. Killing and healing. Tearing down and building. Crying and laughing. Mourning and dancing. Scattering stones and gathering them. Holding someone and letting go. Searching and giving up the search. Keeping and throwing out. Ripping and mending. Saying nothing and saying it. Loving and hating. War and peace. The list does not tell you which one you are in. It says only that there is a season for it, and that a season is not the whole year.

A restatement in modern English, written for this collection. The passage above is the text; this is one way of putting it.

The Holy Scriptures: A New Translation, Jewish Publication Society, 1917. Public domain. Digitised by the Open Siddur Project from images shared by JPS, and imported by Sefaria.

Filed undertimeimpermanenceacceptancepatience

What did they take with them, and what did they not?

A tradition originating with the teaching of the Buddha in northern India and preserved in several textual collections. The discourses gathered here come from the Pali canon, recorded as talks given to particular people in particular circumstances.

About this passageSāriputta, one of the Buddha's two chief disciples and Ānanda's teacher and friend, has died of illness in a village far from Sāvatthī. His attendant Cunda carries the bowl and robe back and, with Ānanda, brings the news. What Ānanda says about his own state is unusually direct for the discourses. The reply neither corrects his grief nor promises the loss will be undone.

"Sir, this novice Cunda says that Venerable Sāriputta has become fully quenched. This is his bowl and robe. Since I heard this, my body feels like it's drugged. I'm disorientated, and the teachings don't spring to mind."

"Well, Ānanda, when Sāriputta was fully quenched, did he take away your entire spectrum of ethical conduct, of immersion, of wisdom, of freedom, or of the knowledge and vision of freedom?"

"No, sir, he did not. But Venerable Sāriputta was my adviser and counselor. He educated, encouraged, fired up, and inspired me. He never tired of teaching the Dhamma, and he supported his spiritual companions. I remember the nectar of the teaching, the riches of the teaching, the support of the teaching given by Venerable Sāriputta."

"Ānanda, did I not prepare for this when I explained that we must be parted and separated from all we hold dear and beloved? How could it possibly be so that what is born, created, conditioned, and liable to wear out should not wear out? That is not possible.

Suppose there was a large tree standing with heartwood, and the largest branch broke off. In the same way, in the great Saṅgha that stands with heartwood, Sāriputta has become fully quenched.

So Ānanda, live as your own island, your own refuge, with no other refuge. Let the teaching be your island and your refuge, with no other refuge."

In plainer words

Sāriputta had died. His friend Ānanda came to the Buddha carrying the bowl and robe and said: since I heard, my body feels drugged, I cannot think straight, and none of the teaching comes to mind. The Buddha asked him: when Sāriputta died, did he take your integrity with him? Your understanding? Your freedom? No, Ānanda said — but he was my adviser and my friend, and he never once got tired of teaching me. And the Buddha said: did I not tell you that we are parted from everything we love? Anything made of parts comes apart. The biggest branch broke off the tree. Stand on your own ground now.

A restatement in modern English, written for this collection. The passage above is the text; this is one way of putting it.

About this passageFrom the chapter on transmigration without discoverable beginning. The rhetorical form is a comparison of quantities, which the tradition uses elsewhere with bones and with mothers' milk. The list of losses at the end is not abstract: mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, relatives, wealth, health. The stated purpose of the comparison is disenchantment.

"Mendicants, this transmigration has no known beginning. No first point is found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, shrouded by ignorance and fettered by craving.

What do you think? Which is more: the flow of tears you've shed while roaming and transmigrating for such a very long time — weeping and wailing from being coupled with the unloved and separated from the loved — or the water in the four oceans?"

"As we understand the Buddha's teaching, the flow of tears we've shed while roaming and transmigrating is more than the water in the four oceans."

"Good, good, mendicants! For a long time you've undergone the death of a mother, of a father, of a brother, of a sister, of a son, of a daughter, loss of relatives, loss of wealth, or loss through illness. From being coupled with the unloved and separated from the loved, the flow of tears you've shed is indeed more than the water in the four oceans."

In plainer words

This going round and round has no findable start. So — which is more: all the tears you have cried through all of it, from being stuck with what you hated and torn from what you loved, or all the water in the four oceans? The tears, the monks said. Yes, the Buddha said. The tears. You have lost a mother. A father. A brother, a sister, a son, a daughter. Your people. Your money. Your health. And every time, you cried. That, he says, is reason enough to stop being enchanted by any of it.

A restatement in modern English, written for this collection. The passage above is the text; this is one way of putting it.

Was any of it ever mine to keep?

A school of Greek and Roman philosophy taught from the third century BCE onward, concerned with judgement, action and the distinction between what a person controls and what they do not. Its surviving handbooks were written as practical training rather than theory.

About this passageOne of the shortest chapters in the handbook, and among the most argued over. It applies the school's distinction between what is ours and what is merely lent to the hardest case its readers would face. Epictetus taught in the second century, when the death of a child was a common event rather than a rare one; the Stoic teachers addressed it directly rather than around it. The closing image of the traveller at an inn is the chapter's own summary.

Never say of anything, "I have lost it," but, "I have restored it." Has your child died? It is restored. Has your wife died? She is restored. Has your estate been taken away? That likewise is restored. "But it was a bad man who took it." What is it to you by whose hands he who gave it has demanded it again? While he permits you to possess it, hold it as something not your own, as do travelers at an inn.

In plainer words

Try not to say "I lost it." Say "it was given back." Your child has died — given back. Your partner has died — given back. Your money is gone — given back. You may object that the person who took it had no right to. But whose hands the return came through is a separate question from the fact that what you had was never yours to keep. You were staying at an inn. You do not own the room.

A restatement in modern English, written for this collection. The passage above is the text; this is one way of putting it.

Where does a person go when they are still in every room?

Reflection that does not appeal to a religious or philosophical authority. The pieces here were written for this collection and make no claim to be anything other than one way of putting a question.

About this passageWritten for this collection. It makes no claim about what happens after death, in either direction, and is offered to a reader for whom that question is either settled or beside the point at the moment they are reading.

Grief is not an emotion so much as a change of address. Everything is where it was, and the person is not, and the mismatch has to be worked through one object at a time — the mug, the side of the bed, the shop you both used.

Some of it arrives late. Months on, a person can be undone by a supermarket, or by the sudden realisation that they have gone a whole morning without remembering. That second one tends to feel like a betrayal. It isn't. It is what carrying something looks like once you have carried it long enough to walk.

The part nobody tells you is how much of the work is administrative. There are forms. There is a bank. Somewhere in the middle of the worst month of your life you will be on hold, and the tinny music will keep playing, and this is not an insult to the dead. It is simply what the living have to do.

What is left of them is not nothing, and not them. It is the shape they pressed into the people who knew them, which those people go on carrying, mostly without noticing, and occasionally all at once.

What does a tradition do with loss when it maps a life?

A practice of reading meaning from the positions of the sun, moon and planets, attested in Babylonian, Hellenistic, Indian and Chinese forms and continuous in the West since antiquity. Western astrology divides the year into twelve signs and reads the movement of the planets as a description of timing, season and disposition.

About this passageWritten for this collection, describing how the Western astrological tradition treats a particular sector of the birth chart. It sets out what practitioners say about it. Whether the chart describes anything is not a question this note takes a position on.

The eighth house is the one people flinch at when they first see a chart. It carries death, and inheritance, and everything held jointly rather than alone. Older texts simply called it the house of death, and left it there.

What the tradition does with that sector is worth noting. It does not treat death as an interruption of the chart. It gives it a room, next to the seventh house of partnership and before the ninth of meaning, as though the sequence were: you meet someone, you are altered by losing them, and out of that you go looking for what any of it was for.

The eighth is also the house of what is left behind — the will, the debts, the things that were never only yours. Astrologers reading it talk less about endings than about what does not divide cleanly. A shared account. A shared language. The half of a conversation that now has nowhere to go.

Transits through this house are described as slow. Nothing in the tradition suggests hurrying them.

Does God grieve with me, or only afterwards?

A tradition rooted in the Hebrew scriptures and in the life and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, carried through two millennia of churches, commentaries, liturgies and practices. Its texts are read as scripture by their communities.

About this passageFrom the account of the raising of Lazarus. Jesus arrives at Bethany four days after the death and is met first by Martha and then by Mary, both of whom say the same thing: that he could have prevented it. What follows here is his response before anything is undone. The verse "Jesus wept" is the shortest in most English versions, and the tradition has long noticed that it comes from someone the narrative says already knows how the story ends.

When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews weeping who came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled, and said, "Where have you laid him?"

They told him, "Lord, come and see."

Jesus wept.

The Jews therefore said, "See how much affection he had for him!"

In plainer words

Jesus came to the village where his friend had died. He saw the man's sister crying and the neighbours crying with her, and something in him broke. He asked where they had put the body. And then he cried too. The people standing there said to each other: look how much he loved him. He is about to raise Lazarus. He weeps first anyway.

A restatement in modern English, written for this collection. The passage above is the text; this is one way of putting it.

The Holy Bible, World English Bible. Public domain. The WEB is a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901.

Filed undergrieflovecompassionpresence

Back to the catalog