In light of the Buddhist understanding of atman/anatman, the three marks of existence, and the emptiness of the Five Skandhas, what is the “self” from Chodron’s Tibetan Buddhist perspective?  What are any actual or potential conflict this notion of the individual encounters in contemporary American culture.          

            The idea of “self” in Buddhism is something that people in Western societies have difficulty conceptualizing. While not totally denying a sense of self- Buddhists do, after all, have names for the individual people in their lives and for themselves; the Eastern view is that this self we name and differentiate from other selves is illusory. They believe that it is a construct that evolves from a merging of smaller components (The Five Skandhas). I find these Buddhist notions a little contradictory, but maybe that's the whole point, as in the koan “What was your name before you were born”? We are different entities, but simultaneously we are not. There's more than one answer, no matter the question.

            It would not be very practical in daily life to have to abandon the names for the people, other organisms, and inanimate objects we interact with. My wife wouldn't likely answer to “illusion of separate consciousness”. She answers to “Debbie”. Even the Buddha was “Gautama”. And so it becomes a little confusing how to apply all this Buddhist wisdom into the everyday world of a culture such as America. Pema Chodron gives us some very good applications in When Things Fall Apart.

            In Chapter 10, “Curious About Existence”, Chodron begins with an analysis of the three marks of existence and suggestions on how to use them in our thinking. Per Chodron, “there's nothing wrong with impermanence, suffering, and egolessness; they can be celebrated” (60). She then goes more deeply into each mark in turn. “Impermanence is the goodness of reality... the essence of everything. It is babies becoming children, then teenagers, then adults... meeting and parting... falling in and out of love” (60). Chodron's point is that we shouldn't struggle against it; we should not fear change.

            The fear of impermanence leads to the next mark- suffering. Why, Chodron asks, should we celebrate suffering? Her answer: “Who ever got the idea that we could have pleasure without pain... they are inseparable... Everything that ends is the beginning of something else” (61). Citing birth and death as examples, Chodron makes a strong point. Giving birth is painful, but yet a very positive (her word “delightful”) experience in most cases. And while I won't agree that death is delightful, often it brings the end of pain and suffering, and can be viewed positively too. I had an uncle who passed away recently. He was blind from macular degeneration, could not walk, and was suffering from dementia. There is no way to perceive his passing as anything but good, sad though it was. I cried at his graveside (“Taps” gets me every time) but also shared laughter with others as we recalled his life in happier days. That to me is a good analogy of pleasure coexisting with pain. We should embrace them both, knowing that neither will last. (Interesting how Christians, with Heaven and Hell, promote

just the opposite).

            The loss of ego, the last mark of existence, is the desired end result of embracing the two that precede it- impermanence and suffering. I was impressed with Chodron's remark “It doesn't have to be a big deal. Egolessness is available all the time as freshness, openness, delight in our sense perceptions” (64). Her ending advice, to paraphrase, is to question our existence and what we have been led to assume from our experiences and education. Embrace impermanence and suffering. In doing so we are likely to discover that our essential nature can find peace.

Chödrön, Pema. When Things Fall Apart: Heart Advice for Difficult Times. Boston, Mass:

            Shambhala, 2000. Print.