If experiences are inherently neutral

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:56 pm
Ardha wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 9:21 pm
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.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Ardha wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 9:21 pm 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?
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
master of puppets
Posts: 1647
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 9:52 pm

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by master of puppets »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 3:05 pm
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.
MagnetSoulSP
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2023 1:45 am

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by MagnetSoulSP »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 3:05 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:56 pm
Ardha wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 9:21 pm
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.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17089
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Ardha wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:37 pm 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.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Ardha wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:37 pm 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?
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
MagnetSoulSP
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2023 1:45 am

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by MagnetSoulSP »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 12:29 am
Ardha wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:37 pm 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.
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:05 pm
Ardha wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:37 pm 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.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17089
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Ardha wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 9:40 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 12:29 am
Ardha wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:37 pm 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.
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:05 pm
Ardha wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:37 pm 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.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Ardha wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 9:40 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 12:29 am
Ardha wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:37 pm 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?
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
MagnetSoulSP
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2023 1:45 am

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by MagnetSoulSP »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 11:05 pm
Ardha wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 9:40 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 12:29 am
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.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Ardha wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:36 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 11:05 pm
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.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Ardha wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:36 pm
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 10:17 pm 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.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
MagnetSoulSP
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2023 1:45 am

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by MagnetSoulSP »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 12:18 am
Ardha wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:36 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 11:05 pm
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.
That I get, that feelings come and go. That's easy.

Why I mean by lying to yourself though is feeling happy or sad over what is inherently neutral.

And if an experience can't happen outside of thoughts, outside of mind, and it's all just mental phenomenon then that is solipsism, which is worse.
Bristollad
Posts: 1121
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by Bristollad »

If a lion cub watches its mother chase down and kill a young antelope, that cub will experience happiness because it knows it will get to eat.

When the mother of that young antelope sees the lioness kill her offspring, she feels sad.

Same event. Experienced with happiness by one observer, and with sadness by the other. Are they lying to themselves? Are their experiences invalid, or mere solipsism?

If the event was captured on camera and watched by someone, they might feel happy or sad.
If they feel happy because the cub gets to eat, they might even temper that happiness with the knowledge that the mother antelope will feel sad losing her offspring.
If they feel sad seeing the young antelope killed, they might temper that with the knowledge that the cub has the food it needs to survive for a while longer.
The antidote—to be free from the suffering of samsara—you need to be free from delusion and karma; you need to be free from ignorance, the root of samsara. So you need to meditate on emptiness. That is what you need. Lama Zopa Rinpoche
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Ardha wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:47 pm
That I get, that feelings come and go. That's easy.

Why I mean by lying to yourself though is feeling happy or sad over what is inherently neutral.

And if an experience can't happen outside of thoughts, outside of mind, and it's all just mental phenomenon then that is solipsism, which is worse.
This has nothing to do with solipsism. I’m not saying that nothing exists outside of your mind.
I’m saying that feelings do not exist outside of your mind.
Why do you keep jumping to these kinds of conclusions about things?

Feelings aren’t inherently anything. They are just feelings. They are like shadows.

Your position seems to be that if feelings have no inherent reality, then having feelings equals lying to yourself. Do I have that right?
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5709
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by conebeckham »

Ardha wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:36 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 11:05 pm
Ardha wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 9:40 pm
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.
Experiences require an experiencer. He is not saying they are neutral, he is saying they are dependant. The feelings one experiences as a result of this dependant interaction are mental, subjective phenomena, and none of this can be objectified as "inherently neutral." In fact, nothing about our experiences is inherently "anything."
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17089
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Ardha wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:47 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 12:18 am
Ardha wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:36 pm

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.
That I get, that feelings come and go. That's easy.

Why I mean by lying to yourself though is feeling happy or sad over what is inherently neutral.

And if an experience can't happen outside of thoughts, outside of mind, and it's all just mental phenomenon then that is solipsism, which is worse.
No, that’s not what solipsism means. Emotions are mental phenomena by definition, without needing to address Buddhism at all.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Ardha wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:47 pm Why I mean by lying to yourself though is feeling happy or sad over what is inherently neutral.
Okay, let’s take going to the beach for example. Looking at the ocean. I love to do that. I could sit on a beach all day and just watch the waves and listen to them crash on the beach.

But the ocean is, as you say, “neutral”. By itself, it is neither good or bad. And it’s not the intention of the ocean waves to make me feel happy or sad. Still, I feel happy when I am there. Am I lying? Lying about what? My feelings are definitely occurring. If I tried to deny that feeling, I would be lying to myself.

Things do not need to have intrinsic reality in order to occur or be experienced. Everything we experience lacks intrinsic reality, yet our experiences are perfectly valid. We are not “lying” to ourselves when we feel things.

That is why I asked you whether you had ever experienced moments of feelings which have since passed. The emotions arose as a valid experience, you felt them, then they faded away and you experienced other feelings.

It is possible to generate feelings over something that doesn’t exist at all. This is very common. For example, a husband wrongly suspects his wife of cheating on him with another man, and he feels intense anger and sadness and jealousy. Even though his suspicions are all in his mind, and his wife isn’t having an affair, what he feels are real feelings. He isn’t lying to himself in terms of his feelings. He’s just mistaken about what’s actually going on.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5709
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by conebeckham »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 5:35 am

It is possible to generate feelings over something that doesn’t exist at all. This is very common. For example, a husband wrongly suspects his wife of cheating on him with another man, and he feels intense anger and sadness and jealousy. Even though his suspicions are all in his mind, and his wife isn’t having an affair, what he feels are real feelings. He isn’t lying to himself in terms of his feelings. He’s just mistaken about what’s actually going on.

Last night I had the strangest dream, very disturbing --when I woke up.

Then I woke up.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
MagnetSoulSP
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2023 1:45 am

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by MagnetSoulSP »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:55 pm
Ardha wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:47 pm
That I get, that feelings come and go. That's easy.

Why I mean by lying to yourself though is feeling happy or sad over what is inherently neutral.

And if an experience can't happen outside of thoughts, outside of mind, and it's all just mental phenomenon then that is solipsism, which is worse.
This has nothing to do with solipsism. I’m not saying that nothing exists outside of your mind.
I’m saying that feelings do not exist outside of your mind.
Why do you keep jumping to these kinds of conclusions about things?

Feelings aren’t inherently anything. They are just feelings. They are like shadows.

Your position seems to be that if feelings have no inherent reality, then having feelings equals lying to yourself. Do I have that right?
But you're saying experience can't exist outside your mind and if our reality is only an experience of everything then that more or less is saying there is nothing outside your head happening. Every "thing" is an experience of that thing, which you claim doesn't exist outside of my head. So then nothing exists outside my head, by your logic.
But the ocean is, as you say, “neutral”. By itself, it is neither good or bad. And it’s not the intention of the ocean waves to make me feel happy or sad. Still, I feel happy when I am there. Am I lying? Lying about what? My feelings are definitely occurring. If I tried to deny that feeling, I would be lying to myself.

Things do not need to have intrinsic reality in order to occur or be experienced. Everything we experience lacks intrinsic reality, yet our experiences are perfectly valid. We are not “lying” to ourselves when we feel things.

That is why I asked you whether you had ever experienced moments of feelings which have since passed. The emotions arose as a valid experience, you felt them, then they faded away and you experienced other feelings.
You are lying to yourself, by feeling something over something inherently neutral. You are lying to yourself by ascribing qualities to the ocean or whatever that it does not possess.

This is why in an earlier thread I quoted her saying "the "proper" way of being in the world is the acceptance of "good and bad" without feeling inherently joyful or bad about it".

Or how:
after that first level, it is appropriate to feel a variety of ways to share in social experiences
if people around you are depressed over loss, the compassionate thing is often to commiserate with them, rather than tell them their loss is false and not worth crying over
if people around you want to give you gifts and celebrate their promotion at work, the compassionate thing is to thank them for the gifts and share in their celebration to maximize their feelings of joy
in both situations, the individual with "true understanding" knows there is no reason to feel anything with regards to either situation as they are just random things that occur through particle and waves in reality colliding
but the conventionally appropriate way of being in the world may include feeling depressed over things to empathetically connect with other people
So feeling happy or sad over such things isn't living in reality, because in reality stuff just "is". If you feel a certain type of way over the ocean you're not seeing the ocean for what it is. It's not making you happy, that's you. Same with something "making you sad". When you break down all these experiences there is no reason to feel anything about any of them and once that happens you just sort of stop. But other people don't know that, so the one with true understanding plays along with the game as though there is something to feel about such things.
Locked

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”