2

Whats the different between leaving, abounding, letting go, push away, say out of aversion, anger, and renouncing?

Both seems to be combined with tanha (thirst), yet one is called ku-sala (bad-cutting away) and one a-ku-sala (not bad-cutting away). And/Or is renouncing combined with a-moha, not-not-knowing or moha, not-knowing/delusion root of aversive notion of desire for leaving, letting go?

If, by forsaking a limited ease, he would see an abundance of ease, the enlightened man would forsake the limited ease for the sake of the abundant.

Dhp 290

Sound gready, that what gives rise to "aversion", like strong desire for refined pleasure, yet even 'enlightened' situation.

How is renouncing conductive toward and on the path, leaving and let go part of the path of liberation?


A realated topic with given space for discussion and possible answer can be found here.

(note that this question is not given for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment, but for ones work trough the wheel here and liberation)

3
  • Vibhava tanha arises as a result of attachement, aversion and ignorance combined with the wrong view of Nicca, Suka , Atta and Subha.
  • Nekkhamma is a result of non-attachement, non-aversion and wisdom combind with the right view of Anicca, Dukkha ,Anatta and Asubha.
  • 2
    beside of right view and wrong view, there are no real differences to be traced, here, Upasaka Sarath. How could nekkhamma not be a rejection? So it seems to be more a matter of what to reject, in what way. – Samana Johann Jun 12 at 7:31
  • @SamanaJohann, the defining difference would be our intentions: If we expect to eliminate the pain completely (vibhava tanha), we are fabricating unwholesome sankhara. If we expect to accept the pain, and strive (chanda) for reminding us (samma sati) that it's impermanent (anicca) and not ours (anatta) we are renuncianting pain in a wholesome way. – Erik Jul 20 at 20:43
1

well you said the difference, aversion is not samma sankappa, because aversion is devoid of dispassion from the knowledge of the worthlessness of whatever is avoided.

And what, Brethren, is what is free from the asavas?

The destruction of lust, Brethren, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of illusion, - that is called what is free from the asavas.

And what, Brethren, is the path that goes to what is free from the asavas?

Herein, Brethren, a brother practises right aim, which is founded on singleness of heart, founded on dispassion, founded on cessation, whicb leads to giving up.

He strives, puts forth energy, exerts bis mind and strives.

That, Brethren, is called 'the path that goes to what is free from the asavas.'

singleness of heart translates weirdly viveka-nissitam

here is what happens with the the akulasa sankappa http://obo.genaud.net/a/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/04_salv/sn04.35.096.wood.pts.htm

  • 1
    What are the quality differences of ku-sala-resolve and a-ku-sala-resolve, good householder? Singleness of heart can be akusala as well. Strives for what, "rejects" what, to get right singleness of heart? – Samana Johann Jun 12 at 6:39
0

Both seems to be combined with tanha (thirst)

I don't think they are "both combined with tanha (thirst)".

I think of tanha as always meaning "an unskilful craving" -- especially a craving "to have what you cannot have", or. "to keep (permanently) what you cannot keep".

Whereas a skilful version of that is more likely to be called chanda.

Anyway, the way I understand it is --

  • If you're an addict, addicted to something, then perhaps you "crave" it
  • Perhaps, after a while of experiencing being an addict, you begin to see the disadvantages (including "unpleasantness" and "suffering") of being an addict -- at that point you might "crave not to be" an addict
  • With additional right view and practice and skill, and other supporting factors (including perhaps some "good friends"), you might be able to renounce what you're addicted to -- that, then, might be called a "skilful desire", and not just an "unskilful craving"
  • Maybe after you have done that successfully, finished training, then there's no more craving and even no more desire -- see the Brahmana Sutta (SN 51.15) for example

I think I can say from personal experience that there are some things that I used to be accustomed to and attracted to, but which I no longer use, no longer crave (never think about), and no longer even feel averse to if I encounter/contact them -- that if I smell them, for example, it doesn't elicit craving or aversion -- it's just a smell, a recognisable smell -- perhaps that means perception (sañña) without much feeling (vedanā).

Even though I'm not averse to it I still renounce it -- perhaps because I still remember and feel aversion towards being an addict (and don't want to resume using the thing and becoming accustomed and addicted again). I don't think that type of aversion counts as "craving not to be", though -- because, given that I am already not, it's not a craving for something to be other than it is.

Still there are some "states" that I'm averse to -- e.g. social conflict -- and I might avoid situations which might give rise to that -- and, I don't know, perhaps my avoiding such situations isn't always "skilful". I think there's some Buddhist training about not being averse to e.g. social situation (perhaps it's more Mahayana or Vajrayana training though) -- see e.g. Aversion and Mahayana -- but I don't know a lot about that.

  • 1
    What the definition of kusala, akusala, Nyom Chris. What greed, what aversion, is kusala? – Samana Johann Jun 12 at 13:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.