[virtualwhys]

I struggled for a long time with the suicide of someone close to me.

It dawned on me years later that for all of us affected (ripped apart) by his death (age 24) that we were given a gift: suffering.

Looking back, I left my comfortable box -- dropped out of college, shaved my head and entered a monastery -- trying to make sense of it.

That broke me, several family members, and his closest friends in a way that a so called natural death might not do since it was his choice and our guilt.

[ars]

How is suffering a gift? A gift is something you want, and sometimes even defined as something you want, but don't need.

> That broke me

That's sad. But perhaps if you had had a more natural reaction, that the death was a bad, sad, thing. And not a good thing, you would not feel broken.

[wpietri]

If somebody gives you a kit with which you can something you need, is it still a gift? I say yes.

Mindless suffering is indeed something of no value. But mindful suffering for me has been extraordinarily valuable.

For example, I recently did my first triathlon. The training had plenty of suffering. The race was, in some ways, miserable. But because I embraced the suffering, I've grown a lot. Not just physically, but also mentally.

Losing people close to me worked similarly. The suffering was enormous. But so was the growth.

[VMG]

I wonder how this line of reasoning would go over at a murder trial.

[wpietri]

Do you actually wonder that?

[VMG]

No, I actually don't.

I know it would be absurd and there is a good reason we punish people who give the "gift of death" with no regards to some bizarre learning experience for the victims.

[wpietri]

Ok. So if you already knew that, what's your point?

[virtualwhys]

There's no need to define something that cannot be defined.

Broken, suicide does that to the living.

[Helianthus]

>But perhaps if you had had a more natural reaction, that the death was a bad, sad, thing.

This is the assumption I'm struggling with reading these reactions to virtualwhys. There is a sentiment that death is an enemy, a veritable monster; but more to the point, there is a sentiment that anyone who does not believe this is deranged and must be attacked.

You _did_ "call to the dirt" virtualwhys coping mechanism, because you explicitly called his reaction unnatural. Can't you see that he is grieving, too? It is a quieter, more subtle thing; neither maudlin nor overwrought, and he has quietly stepped back from the emotionally charged reactions.

But if you look, other people are stepping forward and relating their own experiences of loss in similar terms.

Personally, I find the "death is bad" to be an outgrowth of our attachment to life; an impossible attachment.

At the very least virtualwhys has received double the insensitivity of the perceived insensitivity of his initial post. You're stomping all over his experience with a friend's suicide: you _know_ that, right?

I wouldn't ask you to feel differently, but I would ask you to understand that not everyone views death the same way you do.

[ars]

The way I understood what he wrote is:

"Since people will eventually die, it's better not to grow attached, even more, I should welcome the death since it will inevitably happen, and not only that, the death will actually benefit me."

> You're stomping all over his experience with a friend's suicide: you _know_ that, right?

It's one thing to process death and grieving by looking for the good in it.

It's another to tell people it's a good thing, and that life is suffering so welcome death - and your death will help other people.

It's like he's telling people "don't bother living", there's no point to it.

[hobs]

There is no point to life but life itself.

[Helianthus]

Let's say you're right. Does that change the fact that you're telling him how to grieve?

[ars]

Is that really so bad to do that?

After all he was told by his monastery how to grieve, and he's telling everyone else here how to grieve (although he did apologize if his views bothered someone).

If you simply relate what you are doing OK, but once you want people to follow your views you must also be willing to accept some opinions back, and it's OK if you disagree. (And obviously actually changing is entirely the choice of the person.)

Plus, keep in mind that he is hardly the only person reading this.

But, all that said, and reading your reply https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5896351 I do get your point about what I am doing. It's just I VERY strongly disagree with what he said, and I couldn't just leave it unremarked.

[Helianthus]

A bit late to say this, but: fair enough. Though I do not think it fair to say his monastery "told him" how to grieve; active learning is not being ordered, and in general is quite the opposite.