We talk as if the symptoms at the time of death are the symptoms of
what caused
death. We say things like "She died of a
brain
aneurysm" or "She died of heart failure.". Maybe that's a
naïve view of it - like Santa, the tooth
fairy.
But what did she die of really? She died
because she died / because her life ended ...
and ... she died with things going on with her body,
of which there were symptoms. Now: is there
a causal relationship
between them? We sure do glom them together as if
there is, don't we? Yet maybe there isn't really.
This body is a vehicle of awareness. So analogously, our bodies are
the cars in which our awareness travels around. And as our cars
become older and frailer, they steadily degrade and eventually
fail. They rust, they emit smoke, they leak oil. Axles break.
Wheels fall off. Now let's take
a close look
at
cause
here.
Do old cars fail be-cause they rust? Or is rust just
what
shows up
when cars get old? Do old cars fail because they emit smoke? Or is
smoke just what
shows up
when cars get old? Do old cars fail because they leak oil? Or are
oil leaks just what
show up
when cars get old? Do old cars fail because the axles break and the
wheels fall off? Or are axles breaking and wheels falling off just
more of what happens when cars get old? (you get the idea, it's
inexorable).
Of course we could (and should) counter-challenge that symptoms
like
brain
aneurysms and heart failure do cause death, and aren't
merely symptoms at the time we die. Surely it's an area worth
exploring? Look: to me, it's an unresolved
fairy tale.
And here's the
trouble
I have with it: would having no
brain
aneurysms or heart failure mean that our bodies would live
forever? In life, our bodies, like old cars, aren't
going to live forever. They'll die when they die, not a moment
sooner, not a moment later - and no
brain
aneurysm or heart failure, not the presence nor the absence
thereof, will change that inevitability.
|