If experiences are inherently neutral

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
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: Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:05 am
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.
Yes, feelings are something that exist only with a feeler, feeling simply are what they are though - they are themselves, and not another thing.

It would be inaccurate to say a quality of happinesses exists within an object, it’s equally absurd to claim feelings don’t exist at all, since it is self evident we experience them.
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
MagnetSoulSP
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2023 1:45 am

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by MagnetSoulSP »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:02 am
Ardha wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:05 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:55 pm

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.
Yes, feelings are something that exist only with a feeler, feeling simply are what they are though - they are themselves, and not another thing.

It would be inaccurate to say a quality of happinesses exists within an object, it’s equally absurd to claim feelings don’t exist at all, since it is self evident we experience them.
We do experience them but it's essentially lying to ourselves because the object itself has no such quality that would elicit such a reaction, same with any experience. It only is as such because we assign meaning and value to it, which is still lying to ourselves.
User avatar
justsit
Posts: 1466
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:24 pm
Location: Delaware

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by justsit »

It's not lying, it's simply a misperception. Teachers often use the example of a rope and a snake. You walk outside at night and see a coiled object in the yard, and you think "Snake!". But as you get closer, you see it is only a coil of rope. There's no lie there, just a misunderstanding of the true nature of what you're seeing.

In the case of feelings, we can misinterpret their true nature, but that doesn't mean we're lying to ourselves. Lying implies a deliberate action. Rather, we simply do not see clearly.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Ardha wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:05 am 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.
That’s not even logical.

There is nothing happening to you except your experience.
Experiences do not exist outside the mind.
That doesn’t mean that nothing is happening in the universe outside of your own experience.
So feeling happy or sad over such things isn't living in reality, because in reality stuff just "is".
it’s not even a question of “living in reality”.
It’s not a question about “lying to myself”.

You may ask, “how can I enjoy things knowing that they aren’t real?” But that’s really asking “how can I enjoy things if they themselves are neutral?

But you still have it backwards.

It’s like asking, “how can I like garlic if its flavor is neither pleasant nor unpleasant?

If you find it pleasant, you like it. And if you don’t find it pleasant, you don’t like it.

What is do hard to understand about that?

Just because from the garlic’s side it is neither pleasant nor unpleasant, liking it doesn’t mean you are living a lie!
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
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: Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:51 am
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:02 am
Ardha wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:05 am
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.



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:



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.
Yes, feelings are something that exist only with a feeler, feeling simply are what they are though - they are themselves, and not another thing.

It would be inaccurate to say a quality of happinesses exists within an object, it’s equally absurd to claim feelings don’t exist at all, since it is self evident we experience them.
We do experience them but it's essentially lying to ourselves because the object itself has no such quality that would elicit such a reaction, same with any experience. It only is as such because we assign meaning and value to it, which is still lying to ourselves.
The object, the observer and the feeling are inseparable, they exist in a co-emergent and interdependent relationship.

It seems like “lying to yourself” because you insist on emotion being “real” in some static, almost platonist sense, and have set that as your criteria for happiness….which is actually the cause of your dissatisfaction.

Phenomena are beyond these designations of real and unreal, those terms themselves are basically smoke and mirrors.
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
MagnetSoulSP
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2023 1:45 am

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by MagnetSoulSP »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 4:04 am
Ardha wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:05 am 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.
That’s not even logical.

There is nothing happening to you except your experience.
Experiences do not exist outside the mind.
That doesn’t mean that nothing is happening in the universe outside of your own experience.
So feeling happy or sad over such things isn't living in reality, because in reality stuff just "is".
it’s not even a question of “living in reality”.
It’s not a question about “lying to myself”.

You may ask, “how can I enjoy things knowing that they aren’t real?” But that’s really asking “how can I enjoy things if they themselves are neutral?

But you still have it backwards.

It’s like asking, “how can I like garlic if its flavor is neither pleasant nor unpleasant?

If you find it pleasant, you like it. And if you don’t find it pleasant, you don’t like it.

What is do hard to understand about that?

Just because from the garlic’s side it is neither pleasant nor unpleasant, liking it doesn’t mean you are living a lie!
Liking it does mean you are living a lie though because you are showing a preference for something that is ultimately neutral. Having preferences isn't living in the world but in samsara (at least from other Buddhist practitioners I've read). The end goal is to have no likes or dislikes because such things are ultimately lies.

In regards to the first post it is logical. If as you say nothing is happening to you except your experience and experiences don't exist outside the mind then that means there is nothing outside of your mind.
It seems like “lying to yourself” because you insist on emotion being “real” in some static, almost platonist sense, and have set that as your criteria for happiness….which is actually the cause of your dissatisfaction.
No, it's lying to yourself because you're painting over a neutral experience/object.
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: Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:38 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 4:04 am
Ardha wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:05 am 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.
That’s not even logical.

There is nothing happening to you except your experience.
Experiences do not exist outside the mind.
That doesn’t mean that nothing is happening in the universe outside of your own experience.
So feeling happy or sad over such things isn't living in reality, because in reality stuff just "is".
it’s not even a question of “living in reality”.
It’s not a question about “lying to myself”.

You may ask, “how can I enjoy things knowing that they aren’t real?” But that’s really asking “how can I enjoy things if they themselves are neutral?

But you still have it backwards.

It’s like asking, “how can I like garlic if its flavor is neither pleasant nor unpleasant?

If you find it pleasant, you like it. And if you don’t find it pleasant, you don’t like it.

What is do hard to understand about that?

Just because from the garlic’s side it is neither pleasant nor unpleasant, liking it doesn’t mean you are living a lie!
Liking it does mean you are living a lie though because you are showing a preference for something that is ultimately neutral. Having preferences isn't living in the world but in samsara (at least from other Buddhist practitioners I've read). The end goal is to have no likes or dislikes because such things are ultimately lies.

In regards to the first post it is logical. If as you say nothing is happening to you except your experience and experiences don't exist outside the mind then that means there is nothing outside of your mind.
It seems like “lying to yourself” because you insist on emotion being “real” in some static, almost platonist sense, and have set that as your criteria for happiness….which is actually the cause of your dissatisfaction.
No, it's lying to yourself because you're painting over a neutral experience/object.
Why can’t you like things, why is that living a lie? Your logic doesn’t track.

There’s no painting over anything, the emotion, the object and the observer are mutually dependent, the only issue is that as Frankl puts it:

“Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and freedom.”

As the observer/experiencer of emotion you are choosing to live in your own prison with your fixated view of how what simply -is itself- must be another way.
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
MagnetSoulSP
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2023 1:45 am

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by MagnetSoulSP »

Why can’t you like things, why is that living a lie? Your logic doesn’t track.
Because you're painting over neutral stimuli (just short hand for experience and objects to save typing). If it's neutral then liking or disliking it is making it more than it actually is. Going back to that quote I posted in here about the "one with true understanding". That the proper way of being in the world is to not feel inherently good or bad about anything because it just IS. Liking things is living a lie. The logic tracks, it's Buddhist logic from what not only she said but what I have read others in the past say:
Nothing is worth the measure we give it, because worth doesn’t really exist. It is a figment of our judging minds, an imaginary yardstick to measure the imaginary value of imaginary distinctions
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: Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:38 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 4:04 am
Ardha wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:05 am 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.
That’s not even logical.

There is nothing happening to you except your experience.
Experiences do not exist outside the mind.
That doesn’t mean that nothing is happening in the universe outside of your own experience.
So feeling happy or sad over such things isn't living in reality, because in reality stuff just "is".
it’s not even a question of “living in reality”.
It’s not a question about “lying to myself”.

You may ask, “how can I enjoy things knowing that they aren’t real?” But that’s really asking “how can I enjoy things if they themselves are neutral?

But you still have it backwards.

It’s like asking, “how can I like garlic if its flavor is neither pleasant nor unpleasant?

If you find it pleasant, you like it. And if you don’t find it pleasant, you don’t like it.

What is do hard to understand about that?

Just because from the garlic’s side it is neither pleasant nor unpleasant, liking it doesn’t mean you are living a lie!
Liking it does mean you are living a lie though because you are showing a preference for something that is ultimately neutral. Having preferences isn't living in the world but in samsara (at least from other Buddhist practitioners I've read). The end goal is to have no likes or dislikes because such things are ultimately lies.

In regards to the first post it is logical. If as you say nothing is happening to you except your experience and experiences don't exist outside the mind then that means there is nothing outside of your mind.
It seems like “lying to yourself” because you insist on emotion being “real” in some static, almost platonist sense, and have set that as your criteria for happiness….which is actually the cause of your dissatisfaction.
No, it's lying to yourself because you're painting over a neutral experience/object.
Placing any "value judgement" on experiences, including calling those experiences "neutral," is entirely a mental construct. Saying it is "neutral" is no different than saying it is "good" or "bad."

The true nature of phenomena is ineffable. Entirely beyond grasp, in the end.

Our perception and subsequent mental processing of our world is all we have, as sentient beings. In some sense, we do not directly experience any phenomenon, anyway. To say an object or an experience is "neutral" grants it an ontology it does not have. But Buddhadharma also does not assert that "All is mind" or that, to use your words, "experiences don't exist outside the mind then that means there is nothing outside of your mind." BuddhaDharma, in the end, is not focused on phenomenological ontology. It is concerned with our experience and our ability to transcend limitations.

In one sense, the story we tell ourselves, the value judgements we make about things, is indeed "incorrect," But to call these judgements "lies" implies a willed falsity. Instead, you should think of this "incorrect" experience as driven by beginningless Karmic forces, beyond the power of simple conscious "choice."

Buddhadharma is not about placing a mental construct or framework on top of our lived experiences, in the end. Thinking something is empty, or neutral, or good or bad, does not make it so, and is not the way Buddhism works. Rational understanding regarding emptiness, lack of existence of phenomena, and the limits of our experience is an important step, but it is not the goal of Buddhism nor the central praxis.
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: Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:27 pm
Why can’t you like things, why is that living a lie? Your logic doesn’t track.
Because you're painting over neutral stimuli (just short hand for experience and objects to save typing). If it's neutral then liking or disliking it is making it more than it actually is. Going back to that quote I posted in here about the "one with true understanding". That the proper way of being in the world is to not feel inherently good or bad about anything because it just IS. Liking things is living a lie. The logic tracks, it's Buddhist logic from what not only she said but what I have read others in the past say:
Nothing is worth the measure we give it, because worth doesn’t really exist. It is a figment of our judging minds, an imaginary yardstick to measure the imaginary value of imaginary distinctions
1) We’ve already established that your friend does not know what they are talking about.

2) Why are they “neutral”? Are you neutral, are plants neutral, are tables neutral? Is anger neutral? Why?

Neutral is a term we use for a mid point between two poles, it’s entirely relative. Meaning, if you take away good and bad there is also no neutral, this is how the entire conceptual mind works really, but there aren’t any actual qualities of “neutral” good and bad, there is an observer making those calls in interdependent relationships with objects.

Things are what they are, schemas like good/bad/neutral are an imposition, a way of narrowing the total field of experience, which is beyond words or conceptual expression, and that includes anger, happiness, etc.

Anecdotally, once you have a taste of reality without that superimposition you grok that actually, all those limitations are the issue, and that reality, or experiences/mind if you like, are fundamentally pure in themselves, beyond expression, limitless…even something boring like neutral feelings.

That is the problem with Buddhism as only philosophy, especially from someone like your friend, you do not get the real deal but a funhouse mirror distortion. If you had a teacher they’d likely tell you to get out of your head and practice loving kindness.

Anyway, stop reading philosophy that upsets you and go get some help for your anhedonia, enough already.
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
Gyurme Kundrol
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by Gyurme Kundrol »

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.
Its not lying to ourselves, its delusion. Its confusion. Theres a huge difference.
Ardha wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:47 pm 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.
Its not solipsism because the meaning is just that outside of our five senses and mind, we have no other experience. This doesn't mean the external world is only "inside our minds" and nowhere else. For example, you cant experience the chair you are sitting in, its impossible. The only thing you experience is the electrical impulses sent by your body determining things like texture and pressure. Your experience of your so called chair is just you experiencing your own sense organ of touch or feeling, thats it. The actual full experience of the object we call a chair is inconceivable because we lack the senses to fully experience the full range of data and information its putting out, and also because outside of the senses, we could not even know the chair was present. So, there is a dependent relationship between our sense organ of feeling and the sense object of chair. Without a chair, there is no possible way to have an experience of a chair. Also, without the sense organ of feeling, there is no way to experience a chair even if we inhabited a universe full of nothing but chairs, we would never know what its like to sit in one.

This applies to all five senses. Sense object makes contact with sense organ, and our mind perceives it. The mind has its own objects as well, that we call thoughts or concepts, but these concepts are not the things themselves. Our concept of the chair is not the chair, its just a mental construct.

None of this implies that the chair exists "inside our minds" in any real sense, nothing implies we are just a brain in a jar or whatever solipsistic idea one might hold. It just implies that what we experience as an "external environment" never leaves the dimension of our five senses, but simultaneously never enters them. Like an object arising in a mirror, it is neither present because its not "inside" the mirror, nor is it absent, because the object is clearly reflected in its surface. Move the mirror, and a new object arises without impediment. Stand up, and the chair vanishes and its like it was never there.

I agree with your own idea to take a step away from Dharma. I dont suggest abandoning Dharma, but just take it easy. Understanding these things does not come quick or easy for any of us. Just go one step at a time and try to relax, and if you havent yet, try to connect with a qualified teacher and sangha to help you work these things out and follow their advice.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Ardha wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:38 pm Liking it does mean you are living a lie though because you are showing a preference for something that is ultimately neutral.
why you are so hung up on this thing about “lies”? You are simply wrong. Totally wrong.
It doesn’t mean you are living a lie.
Having preferences isn't living in the world but in samsara (at least from other Buddhist practitioners I've read). The end goal is to have no likes or dislikes because such things are ultimately lies.
First, that’s not “The end goal”. Second, having likes and dislikes isn’t living a lie. I honestly cannot stand asparagus of eggplant. That’s not a “lie” simply because eggplant itself is itself neither tasty or not-tasty.

I think you are really misunderstanding the whole thing about preferences. The point is that the more attachment you have to your likes and dislikes, the more you get tangled up in samsara. The best teaching on this, in my opinion (am I allowed to have an opinion or am I living a lie?) is On Believing In Mind :

http://home.primusonline.com.au/peony/faith_in_mind.htm

It the point of this isn’t that you are living a lie or cannot be happy or sad.

The point is that ultimately, being attached to the idea that everything has to be one way or another, good or bad, keeps you from fully experiencing things as they truly are. Experiencing things as they truly are is the opposite of lying to yourself.
Experiencing something as it truly is does not mean you can’t enjoy it, even if the thing itself is neither inherently good or bad. It’s the truth of your own experience.

I can see why this might be confusing. Think of it like this: if you go for a walk in the woods, and all the time, you are thinking “this is my favorite tree, but I don’t like that kind of tree, and those over there are ugly, and this one is beautiful” and so on, you’ll miss the experience of the whole forest just as it is.

It’s also confusing because you are mixing up relative truth and ultimate truth.
In regards to the first post it is logical. If as you say nothing is happening to you except your experience and experiences don't exist outside the mind then that means there is nothing outside of your mind.
if you were the only being in the universe, that would be true.

When I said “nothing is happening to you” I didn’t mean that, like, if some angry person yells at you, you are only imagining it. I meant that your experience of that only exists in your mind.

The fact that the experience only exists in your mind is a good thing, because it means you have a choice of letting it bother you, not letting it bother you, getting angry back at the person, or ignoring them, or generating compassion for them, etc. Your possibilities are infinite because the nature of mind is infinite.

I didn’t say that outside of your awareness, that nothing is occurring at all.
It's lying to yourself because you're painting over a neutral experience/object.
You can go ahead and keep thinking that if you want. But it’s not what buddhism teaches, and it won’t bring you peace of mind.

Believing things to be true that are not true is lying to yourself.
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 »

Gyurme Kundrol wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:37 am
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.
Its not lying to ourselves, its delusion. Its confusion. Theres a huge difference.
Ardha wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:47 pm 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.
Its not solipsism because the meaning is just that outside of our five senses and mind, we have no other experience. This doesn't mean the external world is only "inside our minds" and nowhere else. For example, you cant experience the chair you are sitting in, its impossible. The only thing you experience is the electrical impulses sent by your body determining things like texture and pressure. Your experience of your so called chair is just you experiencing your own sense organ of touch or feeling, thats it. The actual full experience of the object we call a chair is inconceivable because we lack the senses to fully experience the full range of data and information its putting out, and also because outside of the senses, we could not even know the chair was present. So, there is a dependent relationship between our sense organ of feeling and the sense object of chair. Without a chair, there is no possible way to have an experience of a chair. Also, without the sense organ of feeling, there is no way to experience a chair even if we inhabited a universe full of nothing but chairs, we would never know what its like to sit in one.

This applies to all five senses. Sense object makes contact with sense organ, and our mind perceives it. The mind has its own objects as well, that we call thoughts or concepts, but these concepts are not the things themselves. Our concept of the chair is not the chair, its just a mental construct.

None of this implies that the chair exists "inside our minds" in any real sense, nothing implies we are just a brain in a jar or whatever solipsistic idea one might hold. It just implies that what we experience as an "external environment" never leaves the dimension of our five senses, but simultaneously never enters them. Like an object arising in a mirror, it is neither present because its not "inside" the mirror, nor is it absent, because the object is clearly reflected in its surface. Move the mirror, and a new object arises without impediment. Stand up, and the chair vanishes and its like it was never there.

I agree with your own idea to take a step away from Dharma. I dont suggest abandoning Dharma, but just take it easy. Understanding these things does not come quick or easy for any of us. Just go one step at a time and try to relax, and if you havent yet, try to connect with a qualified teacher and sangha to help you work these things out and follow their advice.
That just makes things worse for me. An external environment does leave the dimension of our senses otherwise stuff wouldn't happen. All that stuff still just sounds like supporting solipsism by saying it never leaves the dimension of the senses. Same with saying you never experience a chair. Like, all that would sound like solipsism to the average person.
This seems to go against what you're saying, to just reference a few things from it:
The enlightened have no likes and dislikes:
All forms of dualism
Are contrived by the ignorant themselves.
They are like unto visions and flowers in the air;
Why should we trouble ourselves to take hold of them?
Gain and loss, right and wrong –
Away with them once for all!
The wise are non-active,
While the ignorant bind themselves up;
Even calling likes and dislikes a disease:
To set up what you like against what you dislike
This is the disease of the mind:
When the deep meaning [of the Way] is not understood
Peace of mind is disturbed to no purpose.
So its reading like the opposite of what you intend.
Anyway, stop reading philosophy that upsets you and go get some help for your anhedonia, enough already.
Then I'd just be lying to myself.
User avatar
Gyurme Kundrol
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by Gyurme Kundrol »

Ardha wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:59 am That just makes things worse for me. An external environment does leave the dimension of our senses otherwise stuff wouldn't happen. All that stuff still just sounds like supporting solipsism by saying it never leaves the dimension of the senses. Same with saying you never experience a chair. Like, all that would sound like solipsism to the average person.
Your experience of your environment doesnt leave your senses. Thats what I said, and thats the meaning of sense objects making contact with sense organs. It just means that whatever you perceive is arising, for you, through your senses. Those objects dont "enter" your senses in any real way. If they did, then when we sat in a chair, it would meld to our flesh and we would quickly become an amalgamation of things we touched. When we saw an object it would enter our eyes and brain, blinding and killing us.

*your experience* is the key here. What you experience, is entirely you, that's it. What else could it be? Think about it.
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 23, 2023 1:59 am Then I'd just be lying to myself.
You said in a previous post something to the effect that once an idea gets stuck in your head and that you believe it,
you can’t think otherwise about it. Like, if you believe it’s true, you can’t let go of that belief.

How do you know that you aren’t already lying to yourself?
Last edited by PadmaVonSamba on Thu Mar 23, 2023 3:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 23, 2023 1:59 am This seems to go against what you're saying, to just reference a few things from it
Well, since you completely ignored the rest of what I posted,
of course that will be your experience.

Since you already have your conclusion and made up your mind,
And you have had your mind made up from the beginning (not only in this thread,
but also in the previous one, which is identical to this one),
and you just want to refute whatever anyone suggests,
then you must already be certain that your understanding of the Buddhist teachings is true,
meaning that it is accurate and correct, and not false.

So, let’s work with that:

If your understanding is true, then by your own reasoning,
you should be content because it means you are not lying to yourself.

If you are not content, either the teachings are false, or your understanding is wrong.

If the teachings are false, then why do you believe what you heard spoken at some Dharma lecture to be true?

If it is your understanding that is wrong, then why do you argue against people who are offering you a correct understanding?

And if you are content, then what’s the problem?
Last edited by PadmaVonSamba on Thu Mar 23, 2023 3:19 am, edited 5 times in total.
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 23, 2023 1:59 am An external environment does leave the dimension of our senses otherwise stuff wouldn't happen. All that stuff still just sounds like supporting solipsism by saying it never leaves the dimension of the senses. Same with saying you never experience a chair. Like, all that would sound like solipsism to the average person.
It would if that average person didn’t understand the definition of solipsism.

Your experience of an object, and the object itself, are two different things.
Your replies suggest that you don’t understand this.

Saying that my experience doesn’t exist outside of my own mind
doesn’t mean that the things my experience are based on only exist in my mind.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
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 »

I really could care less what any of this sounds like to an ‘average person’, most people spend little to no time on this stuff and thus have neither the capacity nor the desire to understand it.

Anyone with a teeny bit of philosophy study would understand the difference with solipsism.

It’s pretty elementary, just speaking in terms of science - light, sounds etc. are not direct apprehension of an object but function of our senses combined with interpretation.

If you think that’s solipsistic, you have a really off definition of solipsism. No one is making an ontological statement that nothing exists outside your mind, only that your experiences, by definition, cannot exist in external objects.
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
MagnetSoulSP
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2023 1:45 am

Re: If experiences are inherently neutral

Post by MagnetSoulSP »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 2:50 am
Ardha wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:59 am This seems to go against what you're saying, to just reference a few things from it
Well, since you completely ignored the rest of what I posted,
of course that will be your experience.

Since you already have your conclusion and made up your mind,
And you have had your mind made up from the beginning (not only in this thread,
but also in the previous one, which is identical to this one),
and you just want to refute whatever anyone suggests,
then you must already be certain that your understanding of the Buddhist teachings is true,
meaning that it is accurate and correct, and not false.

So, let’s work with that:

If your understanding is true, then by your own reasoning,
you should be content because it means you are not lying to yourself.

If you are not content, either the teachings are false, or your understanding is wrong.

If the teachings are false, then why do you believe what you heard spoken at some Dharma lecture to be true?

If it is your understanding that is wrong, then why do you argue against people who are offering you a correct understanding?

And if you are content, then what’s the problem?
What you said didn't comply with the link that you cited and I pointed it out. You said that it was about attachment but the link you gave was just in general with likes or dislikes. It even said so. So either what you cited is mistaken or you are.

How can I be sure that people here have the correct understanding and not her or that quote that I mentioned? It seems like no matter where I go everyone has a different answer for what this stuff means.
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 23, 2023 11:52 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 2:50 am
Ardha wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:59 am This seems to go against what you're saying, to just reference a few things from it
Well, since you completely ignored the rest of what I posted,
of course that will be your experience.

Since you already have your conclusion and made up your mind,
And you have had your mind made up from the beginning (not only in this thread,
but also in the previous one, which is identical to this one),
and you just want to refute whatever anyone suggests,
then you must already be certain that your understanding of the Buddhist teachings is true,
meaning that it is accurate and correct, and not false.

So, let’s work with that:

If your understanding is true, then by your own reasoning,
you should be content because it means you are not lying to yourself.

If you are not content, either the teachings are false, or your understanding is wrong.

If the teachings are false, then why do you believe what you heard spoken at some Dharma lecture to be true?

If it is your understanding that is wrong, then why do you argue against people who are offering you a correct understanding?

And if you are content, then what’s the problem?
What you said didn't comply with the link that you cited and I pointed it out. You said that it was about attachment but the link you gave was just in general with likes or dislikes. It even said so. So either what you cited is mistaken or you are.

How can I be sure that people here have the correct understanding and not her or that quote that I mentioned? It seems like no matter where I go everyone has a different answer for what this stuff means.
Setting up likes against dislikes IS about attachment.
But you insist on interpreting everything in a way that simply reinforces your doubts and insecurities. This is basically being a hungry ghost.

Instead of deflecting back to me, please answer your way out of the contradiction presented above.
Yes, Seng Tsan says that ‘setting up what you like against what you dislike is the disease of the mind’ but that doesn’t mean becoming a zombie, which is your assumption. Previously, you argued that if there are no likes and dislikes, then there’s no point to life or doing anything.
Now your concern is that according to Buddhist teachings, if you have likes and dislikes, you are lying to yourself or living a lie.
Actually, you are already just making stuff up.
Seng Tsan explains that it’s just the opposite: “free of confusion”; “The perfect way”; “no more worry about your not being perfect” and so on.
But you intentionally ignore that.

How can you be sure that people here have the correct understanding? Do what the Buddha said to do. Test it out for yourself and see for yourself .
Don’t just keep wallowing in hypothetical ‘what if’s’ or you’ll never get anywhere. You’ll just keep coming back and arguing in order to avoid finding out that maybe you were wrong. That’s self-grasping, by the way.
I thought that perhaps ”On Believing In Mind” might clear things up. I was wrong.
Sorry, I don’t know how to help hungry ghosts.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Locked

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”