Taoism and The Flow of Things.

Although I do not know that much about the Tao, I took an Eastern Religions course one year ago and Taoism was included in that discussion. I was thinking the other day about my approach to tasks and getting things done, and I remembered a few interesting ideas about the way of the Tao.

I thought this would be extremely applicable to write about right now, being that it is the week before finals week for me, thus I am overwhelmed with a lot of tasks that need doing, and I could not think of anything more relevant to my life right now to write about.

One of these magnetic ideas that I just recalled recently, is a short story about a farmer that is meant to be representative of the way of the Tao:

An old farmer who had worked his crops for many years.

One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit.

“Such bad luck,” they said sympathetically.

“We’ll see,” the farmer replied.

The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses.

“How wonderful,” the neighbors exclaimed.

“We’ll see,” replied the old man.

The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune.

“We’ll see,” answered the farmer.

The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son’s leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out.

“We’ll see,” said the farmer. (Dr. Jamie Rishikof)

My take away from this story is that the farmer had realized there are many things which lie outside of his means to control, and he cannot predict the future outcomes of current situations. There is a distinctive wisdom inside of this message. No one knows what is around the corner, what's going to happen to them, or what is about to occur. In a nutshell, the way of the Tao means to go with flow of the nature of things, rather than try to fight against that current.

These comparisons with nature and all of the harmonious relationships within nature is an integral part of Taoist philosophies. It has been called by some, "a nature-based philosophy." Taoism is intensely rich with short stories, parables, and many comparisons to nature. The most important comparison that I have ever heard throughout my little quest to better understand Taoism, and to get an idea of their way of life is the comparison to water.

In Taoism, the characteristics of water are seen as ideal characteristics for a human being to have as well. The way in which water moves, and how it acts in relation to all of the other things in nature, is seen as a source of inspiration to the Tao. As water moves down a stream or in a river, there are plenty of large rocks blocking its path: yet, it moves around each one someway. Water doesn't forcefully try to resist change, but it remains powerful anyway. "Water always seeks the lowest point and always takes the shape of any vessel into which it is poured."(Michele Scott James)

The way of the Tao is the way of living your life in accordance with an awareness of the frequent and unexpected changes that happen in the nature of life, it is to be ready to transform at a moment's notice to that change.

Taoists embrace the mystery. They enjoy every confusion and misunderstanding and mysterious thing they see, because to them, life is a game, and games, as you know, aren't fun without both the possibility of winning and the equal possibility of losing. Mystery is what makes games fun, and to Taoists, mystery is what makes life fun...For this reason, Taoists still retain their basic innate fear...They look within themselves and see all that they don't understand, and they like it that way.(Bill Mason)

My reasoning behind picking this topic is very specific to what I am going through right now. I will be taking a step back from writing briefly, in order to adjust myself to the next change coming, which is: being really busy with finals, cleaning up my life a little bit, and removing some of the stress of trying to make deadlines for the current time period. Meanwhile, I will be embracing the mystery of breaking with the routines that I have now, and will be creating some new ones. I intend to resume writing later, with new perspectives on important topics as soon as I have effectively adapted myself to the incoming change.

Sarah

Works Cited

Anthony, Seamus. "The Contemporary Taoist." The Contemporary Taoist. Blogger, 8 Jan. 2005. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

James, Michele Scott. "Daoism." Gossamer Strands. N.p., 2007. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

Mason, Bill. "Taoist Ethics." Taoism.net. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

Rishikof, Jamie. "We'll see." Doctor Rishikof. Dr. Jamie Rishikof, n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

Smith, Trey. "Verse 8: Flow Like Water." Rambling Taoist. Blogger, 24 July 2009. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

"Taoism: Chinese Customs and Beliefs." Nations Online.  Nations Online, 10 Feb. 2013. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

Buddha, Dharma, Sangha.

These are called the Three Jewels of Buddhism, and each precious jewel permeates throughout every one of the Buddhist schools. It is because of their exceptional value within the Buddhist religion that they get their metaphorical naming, some might call them the three "gems" of Buddhism instead. They are seen as quintessential identifying elements that anyone seriously wanting to seek this way of being, to cultivate this grade of understanding, or that wants to develop true Buddhist insight is recommended to emulate.

In short, they are to be thought of as: the Buddha being the doctor or the teacher, the Dharma being the medicine or the teaching, and the Sangha being a kind nurse, or the classmates surrounding you. As Reverend Dr. Nancy Ash puts it, "Imagine the Buddha as an amazingly effective, intuitive doctor of complementary and alternative medicine. The Dharma is the perfect medicine that cures root causes, and the Sangha is like a loving supportive nurse who assists us in taking our medicine."

The Buddha part of this could be interpreted in different ways, though it's primarily not meant to represent bowing to the historical Buddha as a god-like figure, but to inspire the development of a Buddha-like attitude within yourself. Buddha means "Awakened One" and the root word within Buddha is "budh," which means to open your eyes, to wake up, or to have woken up to reality. This term isn't simply a term given to the historical Buddha, (Siddhartha Gautama) but is meant to encompass a certain level of awakening within ourselves as well. It describes both Siddhartha Gautama, and this inherent nature to become Buddha-esque within every person. This jewel of knowledge and insight is intended to realign a person with the profound alertness that this nature exists within them.

In terms of how to bring the greatest form of that nature to light, this where the Dharma jewel in Buddhism comes into play. The word Dharma holds different meanings in both Hinduism and Buddhism, and based on my understanding and all of my research, it means in this instance: all of the teachings of the Buddha, the truth the Buddha understood, reality, your understanding of it, your virtues, and ethics.

To express this to others and to reiterate it within themselves, every one of the three jewels are said akin to vows when a person decides to enter a certain level of Buddhist study. Thich Nhat Hanh records in the book The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching one version of the Dharma vow, that I feel is particularly potently stated:

Going back, taking refuge in the Dharma in myself,

I vow, together with all beings, to realize understanding and

wisdom as immense as the ocean.

To take refuge in the Dharma jewel, a person is essentially deciding to try out this way of life in which Buddhist teachings, and a true deep understanding of them grown over time, promise to act as a means of self-medication to the user; to end their mental suffering. I believe the idea here is that if someone were attempting to really cultivate the essence of Buddhist philosophies and try trek toward their own version of enlightenment, if they abide by an honest pursuit of understanding wholeheartedly, and with the right intentions: then Buddhism gives them all of the tools necessary to get to a grander insight about the nature of reality, and the amount of available bliss.

It is my understanding, that if a person were to choose to not truthfully acknowledge the essentialness of the Dharma or pursue their own understanding of it, that's fine, but their access to those tools will be limited, considering that: "..Buddhism is not an abstract philosophy or creed; it is a way of approaching life and therefore it only has any meaning when it is embodied in people." (The Buddhist Centre) The Dharma concept in Buddhism, to me, seems like the main point of studying Buddhism that a student of Buddhism should try to grasp. "Despite the wealth of its literature, the essence of Buddhism is very simple: it is finding ways to transform oneself. It could be summed up as ‘learning to do good; ceasing to do evil; purifying the heart’ as The Dhammapada says." (The Buddhist Centre) It is in this way, simply stated, that the Dharma "gem" is acting as a medicine for the soul, and how it inter-relates with the ideal that Buddhists possess of becoming a Buddha.

If someone were officially trying to take on this large of an undertaking, some support would probably be best. This is why the concept of having a community in Buddhism is so important. In Buddhism, the community is called the Sangha. It is similar to having classmates in the classroom with you, and the persons that make up the Sangha are the mentors and peers that are there to support you, and to in return be supported by you.

The importance of Sangha cannot be overestimated. Trying to achieve enlightenment by yourself and only for yourself is like trying to walk uphill during a mudslide. Opening yourself to others, supporting and being supported, is critical to loosening the fetters of ego and selfishness. (Barbara O'Brien)

By taking these vows, honoring, and understanding the jewels: a Buddhist is giving this way of life their best chance. They are re-emphasizing to themselves, and to others that they are fully giving their commitment to the belief that looking at life in this way can cease their mental anguish. Finally, as put in The Heart Sutra:

Three Treasures: the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, the teacher, the teaching, and the community of those taught. This is all that is urged of anyone who travels the Buddhist path. [Taking refuge in the Buddha, we learn to transform anger into compassion; taking refuge in the Dharma, we learn to transform delusion into wisdom; and taking refuge in the Sangha, we learn to transform desire into generosity.]

Sarah

Works Cited

Ash, Reverend Dr. Nancy. "Basic Beliefs of Buddhism: The Three Jewels." Doing a 360. The Rev. Dr. Nancy Ash, 2013. Web. 17 Apr. 2013.

"Definition of 'Buddha'." Buddha Foundation. Wordpress, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2013.

O'Brien, Barbara. "The Three Jewels" The Buddha, the Dharma, the Sangha." About. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2013.

Pine, Red. The Heart Sutra. Berkeley: Counterpoint Press, 2004. Print.

"Three Jewels." The Buddhist Centre. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2013.

Thurman, Robert. "The Three Jewels of Buddhism." Belief Net. Beliefnet, Inc., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2013.

"What are the Three Jewels of Buddhism?" Ygoy. N.p., 2010-2012. Web. 17 Apr. 2013.

The Yoga Philosophy in Practice

In an earlier post, I mentioned some of the intricacies of the Hindu yoga philosophy in relation to the Yamas. What I didn't mention, however, is that I am currently taking yoga and that is how I got the idea to write about the philosophy behind it. Being that I have already discussed meditation in practice recently, I thought I should discuss yoga in practice too.

My interest in yoga was at first, purely out of vanity. I thought it would be a great way to get healthier and look better. My reasons were simple, and had hardly anything to do with the mental benefits, just the physical. I was unsure of what I could expect from yoga: whether I would be insecure, if it would make me feel uncomfortable, or if I would feel really awkward and out of place once there. For every yoga class, my instructor turns off the lights, leaving the only light in the room to be a dimly lit lamp in the corner. This makes you feel less insecure automatically. At first, you can't see much and you can just barely see your mat in front of you, but then your eyes adjust naturally, and you can see everything as clearly as you need to.

Mental clarity somehow follows. "Yoga is one of the six classic systems of Hindu philosophy that practices certain disciplines to achieve [freedom from the limitations of the flesh and lead to the fulfillment of knowledge]. The goal of Yoga is not to achieve peace within, channeling, or the working of miracles, but the acquirement of knowledge." (ThinkQuest) Also, as put by The Free Dictionary, yoga can be accurately defined as:

yo·ga n.

1. A Hindu discipline aimed at training the consciousness for a state of perfect spiritual insight and tranquility.

2. A system of exercises practiced as part of this discipline to promote control of the body and mind.

Yoga has a strong history in Hinduism - to say the least, and some say that yoga pre-dates Hinduism. "It was the fruit of the highest intellectual and spiritual development...Yoga is to transform the [whole] man, to discipline his body, to purify his mind, to [touch the very foundations of his being]." (Hindu-Wisdom)

Although I have only been in yoga for a handful of months, I feel that the gist of taking yoga is a combination of deep breathing, concentration and altering one's mental focus, creating some tension in the body, and then releasing that tension. Beyond that, I feel that it has helped me concentrate significantly better in my studies, and given me a much-needed stress release. I feel, alike many other people, that a physical release along with an emotional one can help a person further live up to their intellectual capacity and potential. While I certainly do not think that taking yoga would ever have the ability to transcend a person beyond regular schooling or make anyone an automatic genius, based on my own experiences with it and my personal observations: the consequent absence of intense stressors, the lightheartedness that accompanies it, and the immediate staunchly altered focus, effects one's mental performance afterword.

According to Science Daily, a study conducted in the April 2012 edition of the Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics concluded that "Yoga classes have positive psychological effects for high-school students." and, "Teens taking yoga classes had better scores on several of the psychological tests." Within that study:

Students completed a battery of psychosocial tests before and after the ten-week yoga program. In addition to tests of mood and tension/anxiety, both groups completed tests assessing the development of self-regulatory skills -- such as resilience, control of anger expression, and mindfulness -- thought to protect against the development of mental health problems.

They suggest that yoga's way of combining "..strength and flexibility exercise with relaxation and meditation/mindfulness techniques.." provide us with a promising approach to better suppressing mental health issues, and increasing the positive beneficial mental effects. From my own point of view, if I was practicing yoga when I was a teenager, I would have definitely been more relaxed. Now, when I walk into yoga I am eager to get going and to feel more relaxed, strong, and competent. The instructor tells us to let go of all comparisons, and I do. When I leave the dark room after doing yoga, I feel an air of ease to everything that I try to accomplish after that: my mind feels stronger, and my personality more relaxed. I feel more able to do the things that I thought were hard before, this allows me to feel better about my work, my life, and myself.

Sarah

Works Cited

Ashley, Sarah. "The Yamas of Hinduism and Yoga." Fog and Confusion. Blogger, 24 Jan. 2013. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.

"Hinduism: Yoga." ThinkQuest. Think Quest Education Foundation, n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.

"Yoga and Hindu Philosophy." Hindu Wisdom. N.p., 28 Oct. 2008. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.

"Yoga: Definition of Yoga by the Free Dictionary, Thesaurus, and Encyclopedia." The Free Dictionary. Farlex, Inc., 2013. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.

"Yoga Shows Psychological Benefits for High-School Students." Science Daily. Science Daily LLC, 4 Apr. 2012. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.

The Three Marks of Existence in the Buddhist Faith: Part Three: Dukkha

 

The term dukkha is most often translated into simply meaning "suffering." However, a lot of the sources that I've looked at over the past few days argue that this definition may be inadequate. Most of them say that dukkha is far more subtle, and sweeping than what any person might ascertain from just hearing the term "suffering." Instead, they feel that it must include a wider range of emotions and feelings, such as: "..discomfort, pain, stress, instability, inadequacy, failure, and disappointment." - Phillip Moffitt. Meanwhile the author Glenn Wallis also suggests that it include all of these emotions, too:

faint unsettledness

irritation

impatience

annoyance

frustration

disappointment

dissatisfaction

aggravation

tension

stress

anxiety

vexation

pain

desperation

sorrow

sadness

suffering 

misery

agony

anguish

The reason why these authors feel that any real understanding of dukkha should be so comprehensive, is because that is how the Buddha meant it when he was describing the meaning of dukkha those many years ago. He meant for it to extend beyond "suffering," because he wanted it to be understood that it is not exclusive to the extremes, and to clarify that it does not only amount from an external physical pain that one might feel.

The importance of understanding dukkha lies in the process of solving a problem: you cannot begin to solve a problem correctly without first understanding it correctly, and the problem will continue to arise again repeatedly in time, if you do not comprehend the root cause. The venerable Ajahn Chah phrased it as thus:

Dukkha is a noble truth. If we allow ourselves to face it then we will start to seek a way out of it. If we are trying to go somewhere and the road is blocked we will think about how to make a pathway. Working at it day after day we can get through. When we encounter problems we develop wisdom like this. Without seeing dukkha we don't really look into and resolve our problems; we just pass them by indifferently..When dukkha arises we should investigate to see the causes of its arising. Then once we know that, we can practice to remove those causes.

This truth, of all the marks of existence within Buddhism that I've mentioned, is by far the easiest to accept. It's pretty evident to any adult, and to any teenager, there are inherent undeniable forms of mental anguish that we accidently impose on ourselves and that we make much worse than they need to be, by seldom acknowledging where those feelings originated. The primary purpose of citing this as an all-pervading truth about our reality, is to treat the underlying causes that cause the pain or unpleasantness, with insight. "The Buddha did not offer a magical cure for dukkha, but he did point out that everything arises because of causes. When the cause is eliminated so is the effect." - Edna Lake

The "treatment" for this, as prescribed by Buddhists, is to build your discernment and to alert your cognition to the core of these problems. This idea is a reoccurring theme in Buddhism and it is that way, because that is how the Buddha found his enlightenment. The proper recognition of the Four Noble Truths and the following of The Eightfold Path is the way that Buddhism suggests to appease this suffering, but if any of us are only going to take away a philosophical message from their marks of existence, I think it should be: that we ought to place a little more emphasis on being knowledgeable about the nature of things, whether that is in reference to the nature of our feelings, the nature of ourselves, or the nature of the other miscellaneous items that we come in contact with everyday of our lives and attach meaning to. If we maintain a better comprehension as to what may not last, we might be better able to live our lives with a more solid grounding, and with a more indestructible happiness.

Sarah

Works Cited

Chah, Ajahn. "Understanding Dukkha." Ajahn Chah. Wat Nong Pah Pong, Mar. 2008. Web. 2 Apr. 2013.

Lake, Edna. "Dukkha: Suffering or Dissatisfaction." Buddhapadipa Temple. Buddhapadipa Temple, n.d. Web. 2 Apr. 2013.

Moffitt, Phillip. "The Mind That Suffers." Shambhala Sun. Shambhala Sun Foundation, May 2008. Web. 2 Apr. 2013.

Rinpoche, Traleg. "The Journey Starts Here: Knowing This Truth Is Noble." Shambhala Sun. Shambhala Sun Foundation, May 2008. Web. 2 Apr. 2013.

Wallis, Glenn. "What's Dukkha?: What Isn't." Shambhala Sun. Shambhala Sun Foundation, May 2008. Web. 2 Apr. 2013.

The Three Marks of Existence in the Buddhist Faith: Part Two: Anatta

A few months ago, a couple of people were inquiring if there was anything in Buddhism that I didn't like, or disagreed with, something that I found a little bit unsettling, or that puzzled me at all. I remembered back to when I was required to write a journal for an Eastern Religions course and we were asked to write down our thoughts about what would be the easiest step on The Eightfold Path for us, and what would be the most difficult. I remember that I wrote down "Right Understanding" would be the hardest for me to follow, being that I didn't completely agree with all of the aspects of Buddhist metaphysics.

The part that I had trouble agreeing with wholeheartedly was the concept of "no-soul." What I am referring to, is called "Anatta." It is the second of the three marks of existence in Buddhism. It is essentially the belief in a lack of an eternal un-dying soul within our bodies, and it contradicts the idea that an ego or personality's existence is permanent. For those that grew up in Buddhism this might not be so difficult for them to grasp, however, I was raised by a very Catholic mother. So, when I think about a future in which I would not be reunited with my parents one day, it is rather depressing to say the least.

This week I have been mulling over many varying opinions about this idea, and I've also been reading about the different perspectives people have as to the nature of what a soul really "is" or "is not" in the first place. While I still haven't formed a solid conclusion about my personal opinion about this, and rightfully so: considering how important an end-of-life concept is to a person's faith and their outlook on life; I still want to share and give my interpretations of this idea of an impermanent identity and consciousness.

While all of us understand that technically the brain dies when biological death happens and when all neurological functions cease to be, most Americans- including myself, cling to the idea that after a person dies their soul and spirit continue to live on. But if the neurological connectors that help us to form thoughts, and to feel emotion are gone, how can a person's soul truly continue to exist after death?

Buddhists say that in order for something come into being in the first place, it must be ever-changing, and subsequently cease to exist. Though, if that were the case with my identity and personality, isn't it a little strange then that I am the same person that I was yesterday? Narada Thera writes, “Buddhists do agree with (Bertrand) Russell when he says 'there is obviously some reason in which I am the same person as I was yesterday, and, to take an even more obvious example if I simultaneously see a man and hear him speaking, there is some sense in which the 'I' that sees is the same as the 'I' that hears.'” Thus, I would infer that even though we are unable to locate the identity of a person and the location of their soul scientifically, it clearly exists in a very similar way every single day.

On the website of the author Greg Stone, which runs in accordance with a book he wrote dedicated to exploring the after-life, called Under the Tree, says of those holding the "no-soul" belief:

Those holding the “no soul” view argue a person is comprised only of the aggregates (skandhas): 1) material processes, 2) feeling, 3) perception, 4) mental formations, and 5) consciousness. In the “no soul” interpretation a being that transcends the aggregates does not exist. The aggregates are all that exist. All aspects of a person are impermanent and transitory: nothing survives the dissolution of aggregates upon body death.

However, various schools of Buddhism do not seem to interpret the five aggregates of a person's existence in exactly the same way. Also, if consciousness is one of the five aggregates and the Buddha recalled his former lives, then how could that be possible without a continuous stream of consciousness that was present throughout all of his former lives?

The Buddha taught students to cease identifying with the five aggregates. He taught you are not your physical body; not your mind; not your perceptions; not your feelings; not mental imprints. Those qualities are not self. He taught cessation of attachment to those aggregates. The purpose of the practice was to free oneself from attachment and identification with that which was not self, the aggregates. (Stone)

To me, it would be extremely difficult not to identify with the five aggregates. For if we are not our processes, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness: then what are we? "Buddhism does not totally deny the existence of a personality in an empirical sense. It only attempts to show that it does not exist in an ultimate sense. The Buddhist philosophical term for an individual is santana, i.e., a flux or a continuity."(Thera) If that is the case, then there is a soul and a self in Buddhism that lies within an individual's body that is there inside of a mind everyday: most Buddhists just do not see it as being of the same consistency, everlastingly belonging to that individual, and existing beyond life.

As I mentioned before, the opinions about this from different Buddhists differ, just one of many Buddhist schools: Tibetan Buddhism, offers an intermediate state after death. I found this idea stated in a passage from the Tibetan Book of the Dead on the internet. I found this passage so interesting, because it got me thinking that if there is really no "I" in Buddhism then there could be no "you" either:

Since you [no longer] have a material body of flesh and blood, whatever may come—sounds, lights, or rays— are, all three, unable to harm you; you are incapable of dying. It is quite sufficient for you to know that these apparitions are your own thought-forms. Recognize this to be the bardo [the intermediate state after death].

Despite how much all of these opinions fascinate me, I don't think it is all that necessary for me to gain that much clarity about the fate of my soul just yet. -pretty cryptic, no? Being so young, I think with time and study, and personal contemplating, the answer to this question will eventually reveal itself. I think there is only so much a person can come to based on analysis, at some point your own emotions and your "gut" feelings take over. I feel that no person can really say that emotional decision about the after-life is wrong, because what is true in terms of belief for one person is completely relative to them.

Being the daughter of a Catholic mother, I grew up with the hopefulness in mind that one day I would be reunited with loved ones in a "heaven" of sorts. While that might seem lofty to some Buddhists, I think once you have been met with that idea and have had it in the back of your thoughts for a long period of time, meanwhile, observing death around you: it would be very hard for any person to let go of that kind of faith. When a person's faith is so personal, so emotional, and so complicated, I wonder how necessary it is to completely "decide" all things about it. Is it really necessary to follow one faith, or any faith at all, and wouldn't it be completely possible for someone to instead take parts from different faiths to make up their personal beliefs? Who is to say that you must impose any rules upon yourself to completely define your faith into a specific category? As someone that has found Buddhism very useful, and directly psychologically helpful to them; the thought of one's identity being so subject to future decay is supremely depressing, at best.

Sarah

Works Cited

"How the Major Religions View the Afterlife: Buddhism." Unexplained Stuff. Advameg Inc., 2008. Web. 28 Mar. 2013.

O'Brien, Barbara. "Skandha." About. About.com, 2013. Web. 27 Mar. 2013.

Stone, Greg. "The Buddhist Paradox." Visit Under the Tree. Pink Unicorn Publishing, 2013. Web. 27 Mar. 2013.

Thera, Narada. "Buddhism in a Nutshell." Buddhanet. Buddha Dharma Education Association, 1996-2012. Web. 27 Mar. 2013.

The Three Marks of Existence in the Buddhist Faith: Part One: Anicca

The word Anicca comes from the terms: "nicca," meaning permanence and infinite continuity, and the privative particle "A," implying an absence of. Therefore, "Anicca" means the impermanence. In the case of Buddhist studies, this term means a total and absolute acceptance of the fleeting nature of things. It is the idea that anything which comes into being must eventually go. To this concept, some argue that:

Everything that occurs in the world, perceived by us, is inherently subject to decay, as soon as it appears. The aspect of change, the aspect of impermanence is vividly shown by the simple fact that phenomena appear. As soon as a phenomenon manifests, we are duly informed about its impermanent nature as before it occurred, it had not manifested yet and then it is here before us. We can ascertain that it just appeared. Therefore a change took place, and as a matter of fact, in particular when a phenomenon appears. Then, this phenomenon will have a limited duration, and it will inevitably disappear. As soon as it appears, a natural law compels it to ultimately vanish. This is valid for all of them, without exception. (Dhammadana)

With the concept of Anicca, a person would have to accept the argument that everything we see as our permanent reality is not a permanent fixture as we have come to know it, but is actually just a conditional feature which depends on a series of changes to occur in order for it to exist in the universe at all. It must also, after going through a series of changes on its own, subsequently cease to exist alike everything else in the universe.

We cannot find anything that is permanent. Flowers decompose, but knowing this does not prevent us from loving flowers. In fact, we are able to love them more because we know how to treasure them while they are still alive. If we learn to look at a flower in a way that impermanence is revealed to us, when it dies, we will not suffer. Impermanence is more than an idea. It is a practice to help us touch reality. (Hanh)

It is my impression that the general purpose of becoming knowledgeable about Anicca and the other marks of existence in Buddhism (which I will later describe) is for us to comprehend the true nature of things.

A person's comprehension of the true nature of things is an essential element of Buddhism. It is also essential to how much Buddhist philosophy can directly relate to a individual's personal view of their current reality. This is because, it is said that by understanding the true nature of things, we are able to "..free ourselves from the need for certain experiences, attachment to self and to the illusion of permanence." - Ven. Dr. Karuna Dharma. This awakening to the illusion of permanence is not meant to make a follower of this idea feel cold to the experiences of life. It is meant to enhance their life by giving them the power of knowing that the lack of fortune they might have at the present time will not last forever, and the superb or miraculous circumstances one might be in right now, could go at any time.

But why then, should we attempt to have happiness if it will simply leave us soon or eventually with time? On that subject, the Buddha's perspective was paraphrased by the writer Thanissaro Bhikkhu as thus:

"His wisdom lay in realizing that the effort that goes into the production of happiness is worthwhile only if the processes of change can be skillfully managed to arrive at a happiness resistant to change. Otherwise, we're life-long prisoners in a forced-labor camp, compelled to keep on producing pleasurable experiences to assuage our hunger, and yet finding them so empty of any real essence that they can never leave us full."

I believe the point of knowing this real nature of things is to find a long-lasting happiness that is not fleeting. If we are utterly latched-onto something that is not going to last for a long period of time, then, when it does leave us it tears us. The intention of this idea of a non-permanent reality is not to prevent us from realizing something good when it comes or to prevent us from experiencing it. In contrast, this concept is there to reinvigorate a person with a more free form of joy: one which does not need much.

Are we then to love by holding back? No, because: "When we know that the person we love is impermanent, we will cherish our beloved all the more. Impermanence teaches us to respect and value every moment and all the precious things around us and inside of us.." - Thich Nhat Hanh

The Buddha taught with more of a "middle-way" in mind - that of not going to either extreme. He applied this to many of his teachings, including how a person in any age should interpret these profound marks of a something's existence.

Sarah

Works Cited

"Anicca: The Aspect of Impermanence." Dhammadana. Creative Commons, n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.

Bhikkhu, Thanissaro. "All About Change." Access to Insight. N.p., 2004. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.

Dharma, Ven. Dr. Karuna. "Anitya." Buddhism Today. N.p.,  07 Jan. 2000. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.

Hanh, Thich Nhat. The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching: Transforming Suffering into Peace, Joy, and Liberation. New York: Broadway Books, 1998. Print.

Buddhists of America.

Why do westerners take to Buddhism so much? This is something that I have wondered within the last year or so quite a bit. Before taking any religion course, I would have heard the term Buddhism and automatically associated it with monks in the far East Asia. I would have immediately pictured some brief visual image of a few monks gathering quietly in lengthy saffron robes, standing with their hands placed in a "Namaste" greeting sort of way. I initially saw the religion as something very far from me: something foreign, taking place in a land a tremendous distance from little me in The United States. I saw it as something that was cultural, and as a religion having nothing at all to do with The United States. However, I was very wrong about that.

I didn't know at the time about the spread of Buddhism to the West and how there are in fact many Buddhism temples and places of Buddhist study in these countries, and in particular: the U.S, nor was I aware of how there continues to be a massive growth of people practicing Buddhism where I live.

According to one world-renowned religious texts author, historically speaking "Wherever Asian Buddhists traveled, they carried Buddhism into their new surroundings. In the middle of the nineteenth century, Chinese workers migrated to California as the gold rush and railways opened up new opportunities." However, I am less interested in the geographical way in which Buddhism has spread to the West and much more interested in the reasons as to why westerners have come to attach themselves to these ideas so frequently.

I would speculate that the main reason would be the simple fact that they find meditation calming. Westerners find that meditation gives them solace and a little bit of relief from any, or from all of the massive amounts of stress which they sometimes accumulate throughout their work week. I see that factor as the most frequent reason for why a person's interest in Buddhism first transpires.

I have since found out that in addition to a westerner wholly becoming a Buddhist follower, many Americans and westerners belonging to other countries, have come to find that Buddhism attaches very well to any religious faith which they might already have. Even if that includes practicing Buddhist philosophy and the basic principles of Buddhism whilst adhering to a different religious faith concurrently, in accordance with Buddhist philosophy. To them it does not matter whether or not they are completely 100% Buddhist and only that, or not. Most people find the ideas are easy to "add-on" to other religious faiths, and in a nutshell: they feel that it does not contradict with those beliefs nor does it result in any personal confliction with their normal everyday life which they had before becoming involved with these ideas, but rather the Buddhist ideals compliment it very well.

Watch American Buddhism on the Rise on PBS. See more from Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly.

"Buddhism is often embraced by people in the West because they long for peace of mind in the midst of a chaotic materialistic life." - Mary Pat Fisher.

This includes people of many shapes and sizes, and countries. It also includes more recognizable faces, like the actor Richard Gere and Adam Yauch or "MCA" of Beastie Boys fame.

It doesn't matter their color or creed, or whether they are Tibetan or Indian, or a Virginian. In Buddhism, you can be completely Buddhist or only read and follow a few basic teachings and you will still be some form of a practicing Buddhist. Its accessibility means, you can be at any location in the world, belong to any school or no school and it does not really matter as the fundamentals do not change. Buddhism's flexibility allows you to think about it for yourself and gives you the room to maintain your own interpretation of it as you wish. It allows you the freedom to adapt it to your life's plan as you see fit, and that is a very interesting thing.

Sarah

Works Cited.

Fisher, Mary Pat. Living Religions. Upper Saddle River: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2011. Print.