Buddhism and the individual

This morning a colleague stated that Buddhism is a negative religion because the Buddha did not accept, or believe in, the individual.

I’ve learned about Buddhism in a haphazard way, and am probably certainly not an expert; nonetheless, that never stops me from pretending I am…

My lay-person’s answer to my colleague was that the Buddha was familiar with the concept of the individual, but he determined that the individual is not an invariable, immortal presence: each of us is an ever-changing process that interacts with an impermanent universe. Every moment brings change; we grow, we adapt; we are fluid beings, not static entities. This is an important aspect of the First Noble Truth: we suffer because we grasp onto a moment, but there is no going back: we should enjoy each new, precious moment as it manifests, alters us, and evaporates into the past.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

 

What’s So Great About Now?

The quote below (found at Tricycle Daily Dharma, Oct. 29) is from an article by Cynthia Thatcher (What’s So Great About Now?):

“The current myth among some meditation circles is that the more mindful we are, the more beauty we’ll perceive in mundane objects. To the mind with bare attention, even the suds in the dishpan—as their bubbles glint and wink in the light—are windows on a divine radiance. That’s the myth. But the truth is almost the opposite: in fact, the more mindfulness we have, the less compelling sense-objects seem, until at last we lose all desire for them. It’s true that strong concentration can seem to intensify colors, sounds, and so forth. But concentration alone doesn’t lead to insight or awakening. To say that mindfulness makes the winter sky more sublime, or the act of doing the dishes an exercise in wonder, chafes against the First Noble Truth.”

the entire article

 

The First Noble Truth

In an attempt to explain Buddhism — as I understand it —  I’m planning to scribe several posts (about one a week). This, the first post, is my rudimentary understanding of the Buddha’s First Noble Truth, which is generally translated as: “Life is suffering” (or life is filled with suffering, or something similar).

But the Buddha wasn’t English, and he did not use the word ‘suffering.’ He told his disciples that life is dukkha, a Pali word with many meanings; unfortunately, there is no English counterpart for the word.

Dukkha can mean suffering (or pain), but can also indicate anything that is impermanent (even happiness), or something that is dependent on, or affected by, something else.

The Buddha’s message was simply one of non-attachment; so enjoy your bliss, but don’t grasp onto it, because it is impermanent and dependent on something else…

.

.

.