This week's selection from the Tibetan Book of the Dead provided a quite philosophical discussion of the phenomenon of death, and yet one that was firmly rooted in science (by this I mean that it takes an evidence-based approach to the topic). In it, Thurman often relates his arguments back to the "real world" to provide a solid ground of legitimacy for some admittedly far-out ideas. For instance, Thurman describes psychonauts as ultimate Tibetan heroes who

"explored distant corners of the universe and consciousness" (TBoD 10),

going on to compare them to astronauts. He reminds the reader that we trust our astronauts to tell the truth about their encounters in space, even though we have no experiential evidence to verify their claims, and suggests that the trust that Tibetans place in psychonauts is comparable. Though we have not experienced the same explorations through consciousness as they do, we must respect that they are well-trained and qualified to tell us about the less-accessible truths of existence.

science rules

In Inner Revolution, Thurman further substantiates the psychonaut argument by, again, drawing comparisons to science. He explains how we have come to accept as fact many scientific phenomena which, many years ago, would have been looked at as magic or witchcraft: television, electron microscopes, and gene splicing, for example (IR 211). To me, it is a convincing argument and a good example of striking a balance between faith and reasoning. We have faith in an electron microscope to show us the microscopic features of an organism, but the faith is backed up by convincing evidence; similarly, Thurman urges us to have faith in psychonauts while providing evidence to allow the reader to have a foundation in reason. A question I have is whether Thurman believes that explorations of psychonauts will one day be explained and fully substantiated by science; he seems to imply the possibility.

The discussion of death as a phenomenon contained a few big points that stood out to me. For one, there is the idea that the values of Westerners and Tibetans are fundamentally different in some important ways. Although both value individualism and openness of identity, Tibetans generally do not believe that all things are reducible to one material thing; rather, they believe in a more spiritual productivity (TBoD 11). Further, while Westerners and Tibetans share a fear of death, the fear has different motivations. According to Thurman, Westerners tend to fear death because it results in a halt of activity, and a loss of everything we hold dear. Tibetans, on the other hand, tend to fear death because their fate upon dying could be incredibly unpleasant depending on how they conducted themselves in their lives. Yama, the personification of death, is a big part of Tibetan culture and demonstrates the importance of death to Tibetans. Even so, the fear of death does not seem to hinder Tibetans' quality of life: Thurman explains that their acceptance of death's inevitability brings relief rather than despair, and Tibetans are thus generally seen as lively and easygoing (TBoD 21-22).

One section of the text which grabbed my attention, but which I don't completely understand, is the discussion of death as a between-state, or series of between-states (TBoD 12). According to Thurman, there is an actual state of "existence" between death and rebirth which is not consistent with the nothingness that we associate with death. Indeed, nothingness is the wrong word to describe this state: nothingness, by definition, is not a state at all and cannot be entered (TBoD 24). Taking the argument a step further, nirvana is not oblivion, either, but something else entirely (TBoD 49). This is where my confusion arises: is Thurman suggesting that, similar to how we don't experience unconsciousness (we only remember the beginning and end of these states, not the state itself), we don't actually experience the state between death and rebirth either? What, then, is this in-between state, and how can Buddhists speculate on what could be happening in it?

Finally, I was interested in the way Thurman incorporated Pascal's wager into his writing. Using the logic of Pascal's wager, he says that materialists and nihilists are unafraid of death because they see it as an extension of sleep, which they feel they are already prepared for. Thus, they believe they can "attain" it with no extra work or sacrifice on their part during their lives. They can simply go about their lives and eventually die, since nothing awaits them regardless of how they behave. Here, Thurman advocates for making preparations for death during one's lifetime; specifically, preparations suggested by Buddhist teachings. He uses Pascal's wager to demonstrate how seemingly obvious this conclusion is: if nothing truly awaits us when we die, then there is no (infinite) harm in making spiritual preparations during life. But if something else awaits us, specifically a continuation of consciousness, then we can save ourselves profound trauma and loss by making the preparations now (TBoD 26-27). Such preparations would allow us to enter the state after death without fear, and be able to take advantage of the benefits conferred by the state. I had a rather surface level understanding of Pascal's wager before this reading, but now I grasp its importance on a deeper level. It makes for a convincing argument.