If experiences are inherently neutral

[PadmaVonSamba]

You encountered a teaching that you didn’t understand. Because you didn’t understand it, you experienced conflicts in the mind. This is basically the only thing has happened. When people try to explain it to you, you cling to your misunderstanding. Maybe that is delusional.

I can actually since the common phrase I hear is "you don't get it" which sounds like the religion has a communication problem. Though that's understandable since there is translation bugs and not everything cleanly moves over.

But both the teaching and the "correct understanding" of it have caused me pain, as my threads have shown. So I'm better off leaving it behind for now.

the threads have only shown that you did not have a correct understanding. But that’s all in the past anyway.

It’s true that certain English language translations fail to convey the meanings of some Buddhist concepts. For example, translating “sunyata” to “emptiness” is okay except that some people only think “emptiness” means a feeling inside that there is no reason for happiness. But that’s not what ‘sunyata’ means at all.

But it’s not the fault of the teachings, when a student doesn’t even try to understand the actual meanings.

And if a student misunderstands a Buddhist teaching given by one person, and many other people try to correct that student’s misunderstanding so it no longer causes stress,
but the student insists on holding on to that misunderstanding even if it causes them stress, that is not the fault of Buddhism. You yourself basically said that once an idea gets planted, you have trouble letting go of it. That’s not the fault of Buddhism either.

But I agree with you, at this time, it is unlikely that you can benefit very much from what the Dharma has to offer. So, good luck. I hope you find your way.

[PadmaVonSamba]

So I don't think this is a very responsible take on the matter, especially the common response to questions about such messages is "you just don't get it" (or something along that line). A better response would be "don't worry about it, it's nothing".

If you already have a working answer (“don’t worry about it”) then why bother asking others for their opinions or advice, if you are going to ignore it anyway?

[master of puppets]

It’s true that certain English language translations fail to convey the meanings of some Buddhist concepts. For example, translating “sunyata” to “emptiness” is okay except that some people only think “emptiness” means a feeling inside that there is no reason for happiness. But that’s not what ‘sunyata’ means at all.

I think sunyata is more empty than emptiness.

[Ardha]

You encountered a teaching that you didn’t understand. Because you didn’t understand it, you experienced conflicts in the mind. This is basically the only thing has happened. When people try to explain it to you, you cling to your misunderstanding. Maybe that is delusional.

I can actually since the common phrase I hear is "you don't get it" which sounds like the religion has a communication problem. Though that's understandable since there is translation bugs and not everything cleanly moves over.

But both the teaching and the "correct understanding" of it have caused me pain, as my threads have shown. So I'm better off leaving it behind for now.

the threads have only shown that you did not have a correct understanding. But that’s all in the past anyway.

It’s true that certain English language translations fail to convey the meanings of some Buddhist concepts. For example, translating “sunyata” to “emptiness” is okay except that some people only think “emptiness” means a feeling inside that there is no reason for happiness. But that’s not what ‘sunyata’ means at all.

But it’s not the fault of the teachings, when a student doesn’t even try to understand the actual meanings.

And if a student misunderstands a Buddhist teaching given by one person, and many other people try to correct that student’s misunderstanding so it no longer causes stress,
but the student insists on holding on to that misunderstanding even if it causes them stress, that is not the fault of Buddhism. You yourself basically said that once an idea gets planted, you have trouble letting go of it. That’s not the fault of Buddhism either.

But I agree with you, at this time, it is unlikely that you can benefit very much from what the Dharma has to offer. So, good luck. I hope you find your way.

I said the explanation and teaching both caused stress, that was the issue. Even when it was explained it just made the stress worse, like when I posted about Love. I think you missed the part where I still had problems even after it was explained to me, because then there was something new causing me stress.

That's what I mean.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Then does feeling happy or sad over something essentially mean I'm just lying to myself.

Like people respond to the same thing differently which means the experience itself is neutral. So if I get upset, happy, etc over something does that mean I'm just lying to myself or deluding myself.

If so does that mean I'm not supposed to feel anything about anything in my life ever again?

The whole question is kind of absurd, experiences by definition have no meaning without an experiencer, and arguably don’t exist apart from one.

So, provisionally (without reference to any deeper questions about sunyata, etc.) you can assume that there is no real distinction, and any definition of neutrality, pleasure or pain with regard to experience is nothing separate from the experiencer.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Then does feeling happy or sad over something essentially mean I'm just lying to myself.

Let me ask you a question:
Have you ever experienced any type of ordinary feeling (anger, excitement, being startled, etc) that has since passed, that right now you are no longer experiencing?

[Ardha]

Then does feeling happy or sad over something essentially mean I'm just lying to myself.

Let me ask you a question:
Have you ever experienced any type of ordinary feeling (anger, excitement, being startled, etc) that has since passed, that right now you are no longer experiencing?

Yeah.

Then does feeling happy or sad over something essentially mean I'm just lying to myself.

Like people respond to the same thing differently which means the experience itself is neutral. So if I get upset, happy, etc over something does that mean I'm just lying to myself or deluding myself.

If so does that mean I'm not supposed to feel anything about anything in my life ever again?

The whole question is kind of absurd, experiences by definition have no meaning without an experiencer, and arguably don’t exist apart from one.

So, provisionally (without reference to any deeper questions about sunyata, etc.) you can assume that there is no real distinction, and any definition of neutrality, pleasure or pain with regard to experience is nothing separate from the experiencer.

I have no idea what that means.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Then does feeling happy or sad over something essentially mean I'm just lying to myself.

Let me ask you a question:
Have you ever experienced any type of ordinary feeling (anger, excitement, being startled, etc) that has since passed, that right now you are no longer experiencing?

Yeah.

Then does feeling happy or sad over something essentially mean I'm just lying to myself.

Like people respond to the same thing differently which means the experience itself is neutral. So if I get upset, happy, etc over something does that mean I'm just lying to myself or deluding myself.

If so does that mean I'm not supposed to feel anything about anything in my life ever again?

The whole question is kind of absurd, experiences by definition have no meaning without an experiencer, and arguably don’t exist apart from one.

So, provisionally (without reference to any deeper questions about sunyata, etc.) you can assume that there is no real distinction, and any definition of neutrality, pleasure or pain with regard to experience is nothing separate from the experiencer.

I have no idea what that means.

It means that the quality of an experience can only be relatively defined by an observer, because there is no such thing as "an experience" separate from an experiencer. So, being disgusted, afraid, etc. by the quality of an experience is just being upset with your own mental phenomena.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Then does feeling happy or sad over something essentially mean I'm just lying to myself.

Let me ask you a question:
Have you ever experienced any type of ordinary feeling (anger, excitement, being startled, etc) that has since passed, that right now you are no longer experiencing?

Yeah.

so, since those feelings have passed and were only temporary, does that mean they were not real? Does it mean you didn’t experience them?

[Ardha]

Let me ask you a question:
Have you ever experienced any type of ordinary feeling (anger, excitement, being startled, etc) that has since passed, that right now you are no longer experiencing?

Yeah.

so, since those feelings have passed and were only temporary, does that mean they were not real? Does it mean you didn’t experience them?

Well no, that doesn't mean I didn't experience them they were just temporary.

It means that the quality of an experience can only be relatively defined by an observer, because there is no such thing as "an experience" separate from an experiencer. So, being disgusted, afraid, etc. by the quality of an experience is just being upset with your own mental phenomena.

So you are saying that experiences are inherently neutral and you're lying to yourself over it because you're feeling things the experience doesn't have.

[PadmaVonSamba]

so, since those feelings have passed and were only temporary, does that mean they were not real? Does it mean you didn’t experience them?

Well no, that doesn't mean I didn't experience them they were just temporary.

So, think about this:
If they were only temporary, where did they go?
If they were temporary, does that mean you were merely lying to yourself?

If someone describes feelings as being real or not,
Then if the feelings come and go, and are only temporary, what does “real” mean? What does “lying to myself” mean?

The point is, emotions rise and fall like the wind. They wash over us like ocean waves, and then they are gone. Because of that, one doesn’t need to get attached to them. One doesn’t need to always try to be happy and smiling, and one doesn’t need to hang on to sorrow.

I know that none of this is sinking in, but that’s what it means about feelings being insubstantial.

[PadmaVonSamba]

It means that the quality of an experience can only be relatively defined by an observer, because there is no such thing as "an experience" separate from an experiencer. So, being disgusted, afraid, etc. by the quality of an experience is just being upset with your own mental phenomena.

So you are saying that experiences are inherently neutral and you're lying to yourself over it because you're feeling things the experience doesn't have.

You are the one who keeps bringing up this thing about “lying to yourself”. Johnny Dangerous didn’t say it. You did.

He said that there is no such thing as an experience separate from an experiencer.
Can you think of an example of an experience happening if nobody is experiencing it?

Can you name an experience that isn’t happening inside the mind? Can you name an experience that happens outside of the mind?

I know that trying to re-explain it won’t do any good, but think about it: if an experience can’t happen outside of thoughts, outside of the mind, then it is just a “mental phenomenon” just as Johnny Dangerous said. Isn’t it?

It has nothing to do with “lying to yourself”.

Lying to yourself is believing that a misunderstanding is an accurate and correct understanding.

Lying to yourself is having a rock and thinking it’s an apple because one person may have told you it was an apple, even though everybody else reassured you it is a rock, and you keep agonizing over why your teeth break when you try to eat it.