Posts by Don

Quote from elli

Yes, I agree totally with the word as used by DeWitt. The word in english and greek for "άφθαρτα" is "incorruptible" or "untouched" by the corruptible, and on the basis of Ethics I explained - as much as I could - the reasons why this word is the accurate one.

I may be mistaken but I think what Elli is saying is that "άφθαρτα" means "incorruptible" or "un-corruptible" in the sense of "untouchable" by anything "corrupt". Which, to me, makes perfect sense when you look at the last half of KD 1. That says "affected by neither anger nor gratitude." So what is being described is not a being that is eternal or imperishable in the sense that it lasts forever, but rather a being that is "untouched", that "remains the same" whether battered by gratitude or anger. That is very intriguing to me (if I'm understanding her correctly).

We seem to be getting hung up on what English word is used in translation. That's secondary from my perspective. Epicurus didn't speak English. We need to understand the connotations of the ancient Greek text itself and then decide the best English paraphrase, whether that's a single word or a phrase that best encapsulates the meaning of the original.

I greatly appreciate your willingness to engage in this discussion. It's truly a pleasure and also a way for me to investigate my own understanding. I'll need to read your post thoroughly before responding but am sure, in the end, there will be more that unites us as Epicureans than divides is.

Thank you. And that image is a thrill!! I was not aware it was online. I immediately went to the British Library site to view the whole digitized manuscript! I even added the website as an External Link to Diogenes' Wikipedia article. Ευχαριστώ!!

It has been some time since I read DeWitt. Does he give any textual evidence for believing that "They were never called immortal by Epicurus himself…". Both KD 1 and the Letter to Menoikos include the line concerning "blessed and imperishable beings." Are we to pick and choose which words we want to attribute to the Founder? If it's merely a matter of inconvenience (Oh, Epicurus would never say *that*!), I would be interested to see additional scholarship to support that. And DeWitt's contention that Epicurus thought that the gods could decide whether or not to be subject to dissolution starts to sound very supernatural to me. That troubles me.

To respond to your final thoughts:

Now here I would be reluctant to go so far. I think that especially in an issue like the nature of divinity, Epicurus might consider that an attribute of divinity such as deathlessness (for the gods) might have application to us as reassurance of the overall doctrine that the gods do not interfere with us, even if we as humans are never able to achieve deathlessness ourselves.

I'm interested to explore your reluctance. The reason I belabor this point is that this is literally KD Number 1, the very first of the Principal Doctrines laid out in antiquity for this philosophy I'm considering charting my life by. If I can't make reasonable sense out of this in some shape or form, what else is lurking that I can't reasonably explain?

One of my questions would be: Is this really a question of the "nature of divinity" (which sounds rather theological and religious) or is Epicurus talking about what our lives *could* be? Or explaining how our lives actually are? Perseus Project's text of Diogenes' Lives includes a scholion note to KD 1: Elsewhere he [Epicurus] says that the gods are discernible by reason alone, some being numerically distinct, while others result uniformly from the continuous influx of similar images directed to the same spot and in human form. Long and Sedley in The Hellenistic Philosophers, Vol. 1, expand on this and give a cogent and coherent explanation of KD 1. According to their research and in light of the scholion, the Epicurean gods are "thought constructs" - the result of countless images impressing upon our minds - and so as concepts are imperishable. Second, it is up to us to endow the gods with imperishability, to preserve them by continually conceiving of them that way. L&S also posit that the Epicurean gods are paragons of the Epicurean life. As such, the Epicurean sage can serve as an imperishable example to the community. They also quote Sextus Empiricus' Against the Professors text against Epicurus which grumbles against the Epicureans who see eudaimonia as literally meaning one must have the correct conception (eu-) of the god (-daimon) to be truly happy. L&S provide a number of texts, from Epicurus, Lucretius, and others, to back up their assertions in a way I can get past KD 1.

τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον οὔτε αὐτὸ πράγματα ἔχει οὔτε ἄλλῳ παρέχει· ὥστε οὔτε ὀργαῖς οὔτε χάρισι συνέχεται· ἐν ἀσθενεῖ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον.

"The blessed and imperishable being [τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον] has no troubles itself nor causes troubles for others; as a consequence, it is affected by neither anger nor gratitude; because all this would be an indication of weakness, sickness, or lack of strength." (Translation is my own)

Being affected by anger as a sickness or weakness makes sense, but why would being affected by gratitude be a sign of weakness? One conjecture would be that it would show a lack of self-reliance / αυτάρκεια. If we needed reassurance / affirmation from others and didn't just do things because they were pleasurable, we're not truly living a blessed life. That sense of self-assurance would make one a μακάριος καὶ ἄφθαρτος. Blessed, yes. Imperishable? This echoes an idea that, once unnecessary desires are uprooted, they can't come back. But that's a Buddhist concept. Could Epicurus have really been implying that kind of Imperishability?

Some of the senses of φθαρτος, the opposite of ἄφθαρτος, are "pass away, able to be bribed, adrift." Considering the opposite of these qualities - "not pass away, not able to be bribed, not adrift" - gives a deeper sense to what a mortal life potentially filled with these senses of ἄφθαρτος would be like. We know we are mortal. Epicurus and Lucretius proclaim that. So interpreting how we mortals can be imperishable beings isn't readily apparent at first. But this doctrine - all the Principal Doctrines - have to be applicable to our lives, otherwise of what use are they to us? Epicurus was adamant that philosophy had to be practical and to improve one's life. Re-examining the connotations of ἄφθαρτος allows us to see that that idea doesn't have to be a mystical iimperishability but one rooted in the here and now.

You are correct! Someone got some calculation wrong!

I just stumbled across another calendar online for an Hellenic pagan church. That one too gives 7 Gamelion as 3 Jan 2020! But it does also look like it uses the Numachi site that Takis used. Oh, this is wonderful! Takis' previous link gave me an error so that's why I chimed in, but this is great! Disregard all my previous sites now.

I noticed that the 1st year of the 700th Olympiad begins 7/10-11/2021. Round numbers often tend to suggest big commemorations. Epicurus birthday (according to THIS resource) in the 1st year of the 700th Olympiad will be Jan. 9-10, 2022. Do we need to plan something big?

Oops, I misspoke on my previous post!

According to that calendar convertor, the 7th of Gamelion falls on:

Jan. 31, 2020

Jan. 2, 2021

Jan. 9, 2022

Jan. 28, 2023

Jan. 17, 2024

Jan. 5, 2025

Technically, we should probably be celebrating the 20th on the 20th of each ancient Attic month but THAT is WAY more work than anyone wants to do!! Celebrating on the 20th of each of the months of the modern calendar is a way to keep Epicurus' memory immediate and alive.

What I like about that website is that you can see the full calendar with all the festivals, months, Olympiads, etc.

Plus, as a bit of trivia, you can put in your birth year and find your own birthday in ancient Greece. Mine happens to be the 1st of Boedromion.

It would be mind-numbingly difficult to exactly convert ancient dates to modern dates, but this one is the best and fullest option I've personally come across in English.

There is a nifty calendar convertor online for the ancient Attic Calendar .

It appears to line up with the lunar cycles etc. and I've used it to put Epicurus birthday on my calendar the last couple years, e.g., Feb. 3, 2020, for his 2,361st birthday.

I have found Saint-Andre's pages invaluable for the reason that they include the original Ancient Greek text and that they're public domain. The translations are helpful as starting points, but I've only used them as suggested translations. I'm not willing to take anything at face value. His notes are also helpful in showing why he decided on one translation over another.

In my own translation work, I've also found Wiktionary indispensable as well as the Perseus Project's Diogenes Laertius' Lives which provides both English and Greek with clickable links to Liddell & Scott's dictionary.

Quote from Godfrey

I personally discovered Epicurus while pursuing Stoicism, and for quite some time was searching for Epicurean "spiritual exercises" along the lines of some of the Stoic practices....

I, too, discovered Epicurus by way of the Stoics... basically because they've gotten WAY more publicity and promotion - both historically (since the Christians found them palatable enough to incorporate into their theology along with Plato) and in modern times. I still would be interested to see some Epicurean "spiritual exercises" which is why I've found Hadot interesting. Tsouna's The Ethics of Philodemus has also been interesting for this reason. But I also think your study of nature is as valid as any exercise as any.

I'm going to have to find those posts of daily practices, too!

And just to be clear: I haven't personally started an Epicurean Mindfulness of Death practice. I'm intrigued by the idea and will keep the forum updated if I do but so far I haven't tried it.

Quote from Namcisumeht

Thanks. I find that Epicureanism resonates the most with modern theories of human behavior and the science of happiness(e.g. Daniel Gilbert).

Welcome!

i would agree that positive psychology and the modern science of happiness have echoes of Epicureanism especially when it comes to the importance of social interactions and friendship. I find some of the books and research by Gilbert, Seligman, Csikszentmihalyi, and others very interesting. I've even tried making my way through the free Coursera Science of Happiness course from Yale.

However, I read an article not long ago that made me realize that Epicureanism is NOT identical with positive psychology in its popularized forms:

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/…gion-secularism

"Seligman’s inclusion of material achievement in the components of happiness has also raised eyebrows. He has theorized that people who have not achieved some degree of mastery and success in the world can’t be said to be flourishing. He once described a “thirty-two-year-old Harvard University summa in mathematics who is fluent in Russian and Japanese and runs her own hedge fund” as a “poster child for positive psychology.” But this can make well-being seem exclusive and out of reach, since accomplishment of this kind is not possible to all, or even most."

Whether that's a correct interpretation of Seligman's work is up for debate. If it is, that all sounds very Aristotelian or Peripatetic to me. Epicurus wanted eudaimonia to be accessible to everyone! I think we can learn from a variety of sources - and the more people explore what it takes to truly be happy, the better - but we just have to be ready to read and learn with critical eyes.

I am not on Facebook so I missed this earlier discussion so if y'all would indulge me, I'd like to share a few thoughts.

I was a fan of Alan Watts (waay) back in high school and college. He was a pivotal author in the process of widening my perspectives. However, I grew out of him when I began looking at and reading his sources, but his importance to my early development (and *eventual* arrival at Epicureanism) make me feel obliged to "defend" his work… at least a little.

With that as context, let me first say that I fully agree that there are some VERY un-Epicurean parts to the lecture/video. I would NOT recommend this as an Introduction to Epicureanism in any way. The latter part on listening to the Godhead is WAY to deistic and supernatural for my tastes now and are completely incompatible with Epicurus. No question on that. That all grows out of Watts' Buddhist and Hindu proclivities which, in his idiosyncratic and syncretic style, wants us to listen to the Godhead, Buddha-nature, Brahman, etc., within ourselves. We are all One in the Great Ocean of Being. You are a unique manifestation of a way of the Universe (capital U) knowing itself. NOT Epicurean in any way, shape, or form. Plus, the "amor fati"-sounding portions do sound Stoic.

BUT there are some Epicurean-sounding *pieces* in that video. The metaphor of the education system as churning out cookie cutter results echoes Epicurus' indictment of παιδεία, the educational system and culture in his time, as indoctrination. One of my favorite fragments of Epicurus is:

"Flee from all indoctrination [παιδείαν], O blessed one, and hoist the sail of your own boat."

Another Epicurean bit is Watts' exposition of the limits of pleasure. In the lecture, he talks about the unsatisfactory nature of just accumulating wealth, power, sex, etc. That sounds a lot like Epicurus' indictment of the Cyrenaics and the decadent:

KD 10: If the things that produced the delights of those who are decadent washed away the mind’s fears about astronomical phenomena and death and suffering, and furthermore if they taught us the limits of our pains and desires, then we would have no complaints against them, since they would be filled with every joy and would contain not a single pain or distress (and that’s what is bad).

Watts appears to me to be talking about this very thing. I would also say that I interpret his "We don't know what will give us pleasure" or "We don't know what we desire" as springing from this same context. When Elayne says she thinks she's a good judge of what will give her pleasure, I have no doubt that is true as she is mature in her ability to discern the limits of pleasure and what she feels is natural and necessary for her. Watts is referring to people who are indoctrinated by society and culture to think they NEED as much power as possible, as much money as possible, as much (full in the blank) as possible, to be happy and fulfilled. Watts is saying we need to break out of that conditioning to understand the real "necessary and natural desires" to put Epicurean words in Watts' mouth. It's just that Watts believes what is "necessary and natural" is to listen to the Godhead inside you to free yourself.

Now, in the end, does he arrive at the same overall conclusions I would now or that I think are Epicurean? Oh, absolutely not!! I could see Epicurus engaging him in some frank speech and correction! However, I could also envision the two of them sitting in the Garden heatedly discussing philosophy and sharing some spring water (or tea if Watts brought some along) and cheese and Epicurus waving over Themista to the table saying, "You have to come over and listen to this gentleman. I've been trying to correct him all afternoon. He has glimmers of correct doctrine but way too many crazy gymnosophist ideas… but he is entertaining to listen to."

Welcome, @Callisto !

It's nice not to be the newest member now!

The forum has been welcoming! Looking forward to your joining in.

This is a great list! It has been some time since I've had access to DeWitt, so this is a nice refresher. I don't know why, but it's a little thrill to know that the actual word "Epicurean" appears in the Bible.

Being me, I had to take one of these and trace backwards to see if the original Greek words were the same in the Bible and in Epicurus. I chose Galatians 4:3 to check out for curiosity's sake. The key phrase is τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου (ta stoikheia tou kosmou (< "cosmos")) "the basic principles of the world". My question was: Does Epicurus refer to τὰ στοιχεῖα in his extant works? The answer: Yes!

In the Letter to Menoikos we find:

Do and practice, then, the things I have always recommended to you, holding them to be the stairway to a beautiful life.

This is where translations can trip you up! The phrase translated as "stairway to a beautiful life" is στοιχεῖα τοῦ καλῶς ζῆν which I personally would render something more like "the elements of living beautifully and nobly."

We also find the elements in the Letter to Pythocles which one translation gives as:

"the ultimate elements of things are indivisible" ἢ ὅτι ἄτομα <τὰ> στοιχεῖα

While I realize στοιχεῖα is a fine word that doesn't always have Epicurean implications, it's still interesting to see it used in such disparate texts.

Curiosity assuaged… for now.

Thank you so much for the tips on posting! I do wish to be a good Friend. I tried the removals on this post (both font and size) as an experiment and can see the difference.

Excellent points, Cassius ! Thank you for the reminder about Lucretius. I personally found DRN Book III (the title of which Stalling translates as "Mortality and the Soul") powerful and unexpected on my first readings. I have a lot of highlights and underlines in that one! In fact, I went back through after reading your reply and found my note in my copy for lines 1025-1052 that begins with Lucretius encouraging us to consider reciting those lines from time to time. I take him to mean recitation of all those lines up to 1052 since that includes remembering that even Epicurus died, too. That recitation could constitute one facet of a daily Epicurean practice.

What intrigued me about this Buddhist Mindfulness of Death was seeing it in relation to the Epicurean proclivity for the creation of epitomes and summaries so that we may "practice these and similar things day and night." I saw this item from "enemy territory" as a possible "similar thing." That phrase ("practice these things…") from the Letter to Menoikos, the letter itself being a summary of the teachings, uses the word μελέτα (which Latin translates as meditatio as in Meditatio mortem) where the translation uses "practice." I'm a big proponent of going back to original sources. Dig into the original texts and work forward instead of relying solely on interpreters. In fact, the exact same words - ταῦτα μελέτα - are used in both Menoikos and in I Timothy 4:15-16 which Bible translations render as "Be diligent in these things", "Meditate upon these things", "Practice and work hard on these things", "Remember these things and think about them", and even "Put these things into practice." All of these would be applicable to the ταῦτα μελέτα in Menoikos. Choosing Epicurean summaries, snippets, epitomes, and recitations upon which to "μελέτα," meditate, reflect, remember, and practice strike me as a good basis for a daily practice.

So, just to be clear, I would never recommend that the specifically Buddhist Mindfulness of Death replace reflection on epitomes or readings of Epicurus and Lucretius. What I am suggesting or proposing is that this Buddhist practice could serve as inspiration for an Epicurean one. Using all remedies at their disposal to crack open the hard shell of their own or someone else's fear of death and reluctance to affirm the *fact* of the dissolution of the body into its constituent parts that have no feeling, one could use a systematic remembering of what happens to the body after death to acclimate to that reality. I would contend that this kind of thinking on death would be no more Buddhist than that the Premeditatio Malorum belongs to the Stoics. Cicero traces that back to Euripides in Tusculan Disputations, Book 3. From my reading, both the Stoics and Epicureans have some version of thinking about worst case scenarios to prepare for them, and that idea was simply rolling around in Greek culture since Euripides 150 years before Epicurus and Zeno. Likewise, there were plenty of dead bodies available to ancient Greeks to serve as memento mori in their practice "both night and day" of the finality of death and a reminder of the preciousness of life. I, of course, can't say they *did* this, and lack of evidence can't be used to say "well, they might have." It's frustrating that SO much of Epicurus' work - not to mention Metrodorus' and all the others' - is lost. But I don't think there's anything per se precluding the development of an Epicurean practice of some such exercise as long as it's not caught up with Buddhist trappings of karma, rebirth, and similar superstitions. DRN VI from line 1250 to the end includes a vivid picture of dead bodies. Coupling a recitation of those lines while putting-before-the-eyes a mental visualization of the scene itself *could* be a powerful exercise.

Excellent points, Cassius ! Thank you for the reminder about Lucretius. I personally found DRN Book III (the title of which Stalling translates as "Mortality and the Soul") powerful and unexpected on my first readings. I have a lot of highlights and underlines in that one! In fact, I went back through after reading your reply and found my note in my copy for lines 1025-1052 that begins with Lucretius encouraging us to consider reciting those lines from time to time. I take him to mean recitation of all those lines up to 1052 since that includes remembering that even Epicurus died, too. That recitation could constitute one facet of a daily Epicurean practice.

What intrigued me about this Buddhist Mindfulness of Death was seeing it in relation to the Epicurean proclivity for the creation of epitomes and summaries so that we may "practice these and similar things day and night." I saw this item from "enemy territory" as a possible "similar thing." That phrase ("practice these things…") from the Letter to Menoikos, the letter itself being a summary of the teachings, uses the word μελέτα (which Latin translates as meditatio as in Meditatio mortem) where the translation uses "practice." I'm a big proponent of going back to original sources. Dig into the original texts and work forward instead of relying solely on interpreters. In fact, the exact same words - ταῦτα μελέτα - are used in both Menoikos and in I Timothy 4:15-16 which Bible translations render as "Be diligent in these things", "Meditate upon these things", "Practice and work hard on these things", "Remember these things and think about them", and even "Put these things into practice." All of these would be applicable to the ταῦτα μελέτα in Menoikos. Choosing Epicurean summaries, snippets, epitomes, and recitations upon which to "μελέτα," meditate, reflect, remember, and practice strike me as a good basis for a daily practice.

So, just to be clear, I would never recommend that the specifically Buddhist Mindfulness of Death replace reflection on epitomes or readings of Epicurus and Lucretius. What I am suggesting or proposing is that this Buddhist practice could serve as inspiration for an Epicurean one. Using all remedies at their disposal to crack open the hard shell of their own or someone else's fear of death and reluctance to affirm the *fact* of the dissolution of the body into its constituent parts that have no feeling, one could use a systematic remembering of what happens to the body after death to acclimate to that reality. I would contend that this kind of thinking on death would be no more Buddhist than that the Premeditatio Malorum belongs to the Stoics. Cicero traces that back to Euripides in Tusculan Disputations, Book 3. From my reading, both the Stoics and Epicureans have some version of thinking about worst case scenarios to prepare for them, and that idea was simply rolling around in Greek culture since Euripides 150 years before Epicurus and Zeno. Likewise, there were plenty of dead bodies available to ancient Greeks to serve as memento mori in their practice "both night and day" of the finality of death and a reminder of the preciousness of life. I, of course, can't say they *did* this, and lack of evidence can't be used to say "well, they might have." It's frustrating that SO much of Epicurus' work - not to mention Metrodorus' and all the others' - is lost. But I don't think there's anything per se precluding the development of an Epicurean practice of some such exercise as long as it's not caught up with Buddhist trappings of karma, rebirth, and similar superstitions. DRN VI from line 1250 to the end includes a vivid picture of dead bodies. Coupling a recitation of those lines while putting-before-the-eyes a mental visualization of the scene itself *could* be a powerful exercise.

[ADMIN NOTE: The first several posts here were copied from a thread about Buddhism, but they focus on the issue of death and they belong here too, as they are a good way to start the discussion of dealing with death of loved ones.]

Let me state emphatically first of all that Epicureans are *not* Buddhists. However, to paraphrase Seneca, there's nothing wrong with crossing "into the enemy's camp – not as a deserter, but as a scout." Seneca is well known for favorably quoting Epicurus, but Seneca was definitely no Epicurean. Likewise, we are not Buddhists, but if there is a Buddhist concept or technique that might prove useful, I believe it is at least worth exploring.

First, please allow me to set the stage by quoting several passages with which we're all familiar on the importance of understanding that death is nothing to us:

KD 2: Death is nothing to us, for that which is dissolved into its elements is without consciousness, and that which is without consciousness is nothing to us.

KD 11: If our suspicions about astronomical phenomena and about death were nothing to us and troubled us not at all, and if this were also the case regarding our ignorance about the limits of our pains and desires, then we would have no need for studying what is natural.

Letter to Menoikos: Become accustomed yourself to hold that for us death is nothing, for all good and evil are in consciousness; and death is the deprivation of consciousness.

And, finally, Seneca who, quoting Epicurus in Letter 26, states that one should "Meditare mortem" or "Think/meditate on death."

So, having a deep, unshakable understanding that death is the end of consciousness, that death dissolves us down to our elements and does away with all feeling, is a requirement to dispel the fear of death. But although Epicurus states that this knowledge will result in dispelling our fear, he doesn't provide a way to get there. There's no path laid out to get to that unshakable knowledge. (Note that I'm not using the word "belief." It's not a "belief" in the colloquial way of understanding that. It is a knowledge of reality.) How can we gain this and make it firm in our minds?

Well, I was recently listening to episode #218 "The Profound Upside of Mortality" of the 10% Happier podcast https://www.tenpercent.com/podcast/where Nikki Mirghafori was talking about, among other things, the Buddhist practice of Mindfulness of Death. I didn't know this woman but I was intrigued by the title. I initially didn't expect to be drawn in, but the more I listened, the more intrigued I became. The Mindfulness of Death practice wasn't mystical. It wasn't supernatural. It was very down-to-earth. It was a concrete way of confronting the reality of death, what it means to be dead, and how you can use it to learn to accept death as a fact of life and to become aware of the preciousness of the life you're living. This struck me as very Epicurean-sounding, which surprised me.

The Buddhist term is Maraṇasati and Wikipedia gives a surprisingly cogent summary of the techniques. The visualizations reminded me of Philodemus' description of the Epicurean practice of setting-before-the-eyes used for therapeutic purposes of combatting the vices of arrogance, anger, etc. An Epicurean variation on this Buddhist practice *could* be a way of setting-before-the-eyes the reality of the finality of death, the dissolution of our atoms, and the preciousness of life.

I share this as a way of engendering discussion in this sub-forum. Let the frank speech begin!

Let me state emphatically first of all that Epicureans are *not* Buddhists. However, to paraphrase Seneca, there's nothing wrong with crossing "into the enemy's camp – not as a deserter, but as a scout." Seneca is well known for favorably quoting Epicurus, but Seneca was definitely no Epicurean. Likewise, we are not Buddhists, but if there is a Buddhist concept or technique that might prove useful, I believe it is at least worth exploring.

First, please allow me to set the stage by quoting several passages with which we're all familiar on the importance of understanding that death is nothing to us:

KD 2: Death is nothing to us, for that which is dissolved into its elements is without consciousness, and that which is without consciousness is nothing to us.

KD 11: If our suspicions about astronomical phenomena and about death were nothing to us and troubled us not at all, and if this were also the case regarding our ignorance about the limits of our pains and desires, then we would have no need for studying what is natural.

Letter to Menoikos: Become accustomed yourself to hold that for us death is nothing, for all good and evil are in consciousness; and death is the deprivation of consciousness.

And, finally, Seneca who, quoting Epicurus in Letter 26, states that one should "Meditare mortem" or "Think/meditate on death."

So, having a deep, unshakable understanding that death is the end of consciousness, that death dissolves us down to our elements and does away with all feeling, is a requirement to dispel the fear of death. But although Epicurus states that this knowledge will result in dispelling our fear, he doesn't provide a way to get there. There's no path laid out to get to that unshakable knowledge. (Note that I'm not using the word "belief." It's not a "belief" in the colloquial way of understanding that. It is a knowledge of reality.) How can we gain this and make it firm in our minds?

Well, I was recently listening to episode #218 "The Profound Upside of Mortality" of the 10% Happier podcast https://www.tenpercent.com/podcast/where Nikki Mirghafori was talking about, among other things, the Buddhist practice of Mindfulness of Death. I didn't know this woman but I was intrigued by the title. I initially didn't expect to be drawn in, but the more I listened, the more intrigued I became. The Mindfulness of Death practice wasn't mystical. It wasn't supernatural. It was very down-to-earth. It was a concrete way of confronting the reality of death, what it means to be dead, and how you can use it to learn to accept death as a fact of life and to become aware of the preciousness of the life you're living. This struck me as very Epicurean-sounding, which surprised me.

The Buddhist term is Maraṇasati and Wikipedia gives a surprisingly cogent summary of the techniques. The visualizations reminded me of Philodemus' description of the Epicurean practice of setting-before-the-eyes used for therapeutic purposes of combatting the vices of arrogance, anger, etc. An Epicurean variation on this Buddhist practice *could* be a way of setting-before-the-eyes the reality of the finality of death, the dissolution of our atoms, and the preciousness of life.

I share this as a way of engendering discussion in this sub-forum. Let the frank speech begin!

I had to check the original DL: Περι εὐγενείας. Thank you again, Elli !