How to distinguish between equanimity and indifference?

I've been practicing more strongly lately, and I've noticed that I don't get bothered with things as easily as I used to. But is it equanimity or indifference? I can't really tell the difference between them, because they both seem to signify being okay with either outcome, good or bad. For instance, I went to the hospital these days 'cause I was dizzy. Normally I would be freaking out, as I have health anxiety, but I was actually pretty collected and even a bit accepting if death arrived. Then I got better, and that was okay too. What was it then? Equanimity or indifference?

I've been practicing more strongly lately, and I've noticed that I don't get bothered with things as easily as I used to. But is it equanimity or indifference? I can't really tell the difference between them, because they both seem to signify being okay with either outcome, good or bad. For instance, I went to the hospital these days 'cause I was dizzy. Normally I would be freaking out, as I have health anxiety, but I was actually pretty collected and even a bit accepting if death arrived. Then I got better, and that was okay too. What was it then? Equanimity or indifference?

Found here:

The monk-scholar Bhikkhu Bodhi has this to say about the difference between equanimity (upekkha) and indifference...

“The real meaning of upekkha is equanimity, not indifference in the sense of unconcern for others. As a spiritual virtue, upekkha means equanimity in the face of the fluctuations of worldly fortune. It is evenness of mind, unshakeable freedom of mind, a state of inner equipoise that cannot be upset by gain and loss, honor and dishonor, praise and blame, pleasure and pain. Upekkha is freedom from all points of self-reference; it is indifference only to the demands of the ego-self with its craving for pleasure and position, not to the well-being of one's fellow human beings. True equanimity is the pinnacle of the four social attitudes that the Buddhist texts call the 'divine abodes': boundless loving-kindness, compassion, altruistic joy, and equanimity. The last does not override and negate the preceding three, but perfects and consummates them.”*

Indifference says, "I couldn't care less, because it doesn't concern me." Equanimity says, "I can stand in the midst of this for the sake of all beings."

--

I would say that since this was a health scare, and that it very much did concern you, what you've mentioned is equanimity and not indifference.

The teenage angst usually is marked with indifference. It is a subtle aversion and not true.

Equanimity always conditions loving kindness, joy,compassion. And it isn't made through rejection or attraction.

Indifference can be felt in the body as a holding.

Equanamity always is marked with peace and a deep caring that isn't conventional at times.

I could careless what people think of me but i want to help them the best i can.

Equanimity is more like impartiality. Think of it in terms of love or compassion. You love someone but if you developed indifference you would remove that love and not be bothered by what happened to them. If you developed impartiality then your love would remain but it would now spread out to meet others.

So for the normal ups and downs of life like in your example. Indifference would be like not caring about what happens to you. Impartiality would mean being okay with whatever happens to you because you're not as attached to one particular outcome.

I'd say this is equanimity. Indifference would be where you lack compassion for people you see who are suffering, and so are indifferent toward their fate. Indifference in such a situation would come across as a sort of coldness, not at all the goal of Buddhist practice. As you meditate, be sure to include meditation on compassion.

I don't understand the difference yet. It's so subtle. What is the difference between not caring what happens, and caring, but not expecting anything in particular?

Try it.

Equanimity is when problems facing you leave you unruffled, and able to deal with them calmly. If others are facing serious problems, your emotions don't engage, meaning you don't get upset, but you do feel compassion for them, so you reach out to help if you are able to lend a skillful hand. Indifference would be if you walked away from suffering, saying to yourself, "It's just their karma."

lotuspadma said:

I don't understand the difference yet. It's so subtle. What is the difference between not caring what happens, and caring, but not expecting anything in particular?

if you live in the united states,
- you are indifferent to the today's weather in Australia. you couldn't care less.
thats indifference.

if it's raining outside your home on the weekend:
- without equanimity: "God dammit! why is it raining on my day off??"
it affects you emotionally negatively.
- with equanimity: "oh well, i'll bring my umbrella and enjoy myself :)"
it doesn't affect you emotionally negatively.

patbb said:

if it's raining outside your home on the weekend:
- without equanimity: "God dammit! why is it raining on my day off??"
it affects you emotionally negatively.
- with equanimity: "oh well, i'll bring my umbrella and enjoy myself :)"
it doesn't affect you emotionally negatively.

--with joy (we're allowed to have joy, right?): "RAIN! Now I won't have to water the garden, the plants will love this rain, and I can go out and splash around in it! It's been so long since we've had moisture!" :om:

Dakini said:

--with joy (we're allowed to have joy, right?)

yes, joy is always there but only allowed to shine when it's not covered by clouds of negative emotions.

so i would guess that joy is a very natural response to this kind of things when there is no conditioned negative emotional reactions popping up.

I think equanimity as the Buddha meant it is a stage of development more than a mood or emotion. One passes through serenity on one's way to equanimity. And I believe that if you were in this stage of equanimity, the question of whether you were in the stage of equanimity would not preoccupy you.

Buddha bless,

Conrad.

conradcook said:

I think equanimity as the Buddha meant it is a stage of development more than a mood or emotion. One passes through serenity on one's way to equanimity. And I believe that if you were in this stage of equanimity, the question of whether you were in the stage of equanimity would not preoccupy you.

Buddha bless,

Conrad.

there are the stages where you are effortlessly equanimous toward all formations (and everything);
this is indeed a different thing.

but people need to practice equanimity whenever not in a equanimity stage. that make sense?

My shot at it:
The difference between the two is an open heart.

When we have an open heart without equanimity we get in all sorts of trouble. We are tossed around by the waves of our emotions.

So one way out is to close our hearts and be indifferent.

The other way is to allow the emotions to be there and to fully accept them. The acceptance is what makes us equanimous.

Past night I remembered one line (from a book by Seung Sahn) which draws a powerful image of this way of acceptance imo:

“If you want to cross the ocean of suffering, you must take the ship with no bottom.”

Equanimity concerns balance and perspective.

Indifference concerns lack of care or concern.

They are different words.

Be less concerned with definitions of words and more concerned with the experience as a whole and what that meant to you and how that can be applied for your life and for the lives of all around you and beyond.

Thank you to everyone. I really learned what my 4nt guided meditation was talking about

I think equanimity is when you know exactly what's going on and you have your opinions and feelings about what is going (positive or negative), but in spite of all that you are still able to stay calm and handle the situation with well reasoned, fact-based decisions. A moment when you are able to not let your emotions cloud your judgement.

Indifference i just not caring at all.