The construct of ‘old age’

Recently a group of us were working on a proposal about aging that focused on the transition into ‘old age’. We consulted with a long time Shambhala Buddhist practitioner who is 94 years of age about what age might mark the entry into ‘old age’. Her reply was, “well…90….maybe”.

Contemplating these comments I was reminded of the Buddhists teachings about how we create dualistic constructs (a fundamental one being the sense of ‘me’) and then forget that we made them up. We go around believing that our constructs have an essence of their own; that they actually exist.

When we use the words ‘old age’ we are using a dualistic construct. It may or may not be useful or helpful but from a non-dualistic point of view there really is no such thing as ‘old age’.

On a conventional dualistic level, it would also seem that the meaning we attach to a construct like ‘old age’ is not the same for everyone and, as well, can change over time.

My own case could be example. I am 67 years old. My grandfather died when he was 67. At that time I was a college student and my grandfather, who was dying of colon cancer, certainly seemed old to me. I would have placed him the category of ‘old age’.

On the other hand, my father was quite active and healthy when he was 67 and remained so until a brief terminal illness at age 81. I know from several conversations when he was in his late 60’s that he did not consider himself old.

I don’t consider myself old either, although I love taking the Senior's discount. But I do recognize that I’m older than I was and that my body and brain/mind (especially my memory) are showing signs of being old.

The point of this contemplation, if there is one, could be that there is no single definition or meaning associated with the construct ‘old age’. It might, in fact, be helpful if we dropped that construct altogether. Perhaps instead of talking about 'old age' it would be more useful to simply talk about the experience of ‘being older’.