I was thinking about whether the goal of a wholesome action is to reduce suffering (dukkha) or to "shrink" the roots of suffering, namely craving, desire or aversion (the three poisons). In fact, there are actions that temporarily create more suffering with the ultimate goal of eliminating its roots---This is the case with exposure therapy, where a psychotherapist exposes a patient to the object of their phobia in order to train them to let go of the aversion towards it. This leads me to three questions: 1. Is it sometimes wholesome to perform actions that can temporarily lead to suffering with the goal of "shrinking" its roots? 2. If so, how much suffering is allowed in order to "shrink" its roots? For example, can a Master lead someone towards a path that includes a lot of suffering in this lifetime if they know it to be necessary to eliminate the roots of suffering in the next? 3. Do wholesome actions always lead to a "shrinking" of the roots of suffering (ignorance, craving, and aversion)? It seems possible to me that this is not the case. Take for example the case of a Master who---with the best of intentions---exposes someone to an advanced insight. Two scenarios: - This person was not ready for the teaching and ends up developing more ignorance, craving and aversion. Did he perform an unwholesome action? - He didn't realize that five other people were listening to this teaching through the door and they were not ready for it. Unwillingly, he ends up creating more ignorance, aversion, and desire in these five. Did he perform an unwholesome action?

It seems a significant and overlooked contribution of the Buddha, his redefining of various terms of his day into definitions more conducive to the ending of greed, ill-will and delusion/ignorance. What are (all) these redefined terms (if not listed elsewhere)?

By "transformation target" I mean ... When you hold this compulsion in spacious non judgmental awareness, investigate it and tease it apart into (1) that which is unskillful and (2) that which is skillful, what is the "name" that you give to (2) that which is skillful? Re: transforming unskillful aims (unwise intention) into skillful aims (wise intention), a prominent Western Buddhism site has suggested the following: > [Three Poisons/Defilements](https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/dhamma-lists/) (Kilesas – lit. torments of the mind) > 1. Greed (lobha) – mindfulness transforms this into Faith > 2. Aversion/hatred (dosa) – mindfulness transforms this into discriminating Wisdom > 3. Delusion (moha) – mindfulness transforms this into Equanimity This feels mostly correct to me except for “greed (lobha) -> faith”. This feels like a half measure in restraining greed. It feels like continuing to cling to greed. ***Is there any evidence that the Buddha agreed or disagreed with these transformation targets?*** Re: alternative targets ... My strong intuition is that nibbana, the subjugation of Mara, is neurologically the subjugation (and repurposing) of the “task negative network” by the “task positive network” i.e. The utilization of “feeling” to serve “thinking” so that the sensory-motor brain will be more inclined to “see things as they actually are” and make more accurate predictions. i.e. The dharma is a guide to transforming the sensory-motor brain to use the feedback of bad predictions (dukkha) to transform unskillful views which sustain the bad predictions (dukkha) into skillful views leading to skillful predictions. (the end of dukkha) To that end, it is my strong intuition that these are the correct targets: greed (lobha) -> searching (for similarities) (aka "diffuse mode") hate (dosa) -> discerning (for differences) (aka "focused mode") delusion (moha) -> equanimity (the earned reward of a superior sensory-motor predictive model) ***Is there any evidence that the Buddha agreed or disagreed with these transformation targets?*** **Why do I think these are the correct targets?** "All models are wrong. Some models are useful." ~George Box This mental model is "useful": **sense-desire** = The belief that happiness depends upon satiation of THIS desire for THIS sensory experience. **greed** = The compulsion, arising from THIS belief, to pull towards. **hate** = The compulsion, arising from THIS belief, to push away. **craving** = The compulsion, arising from THIS belief, to pull towards and/or push away, that which I do not yet possess **clinging** = The compulsion, arising from THIS belief, to pull towards and/or push away, that which I possess and fear losing "Clinging to sense-desires" is "clinging to views." Specifically the view that "happiness depends upon satiation of THIS desire for THIS sensory experience." Clinging to one particular way to meet our needs impairs the ability of the sensory-motor brain to process feedback that would help it to see other means by which those same needs might be met. To say that this is "unskillful" is a polite understatement. It represents a malfunction of the sensory-motor brain. It represents a failure of the "task positive network" to restrain and to use the "task negative network's" "diffuse mode (searching)" and "focused mode (discerning)" as tools to extract wisdom from the feedback leading to a superior sensor-motor predictive model yielding better predictions, better decisions, better moves in the world. Instead of clinging to a particular sense-desire, it can be skillful to cling to the desire to "see things as they actually are". In so doing, 1: the compulsion to "pull towards" is repurposed away from "greed" and towards "searching for a way to understand the experience." (aka "**diffuse mode**") 2: the compulsion to "push away" is repurposed away from "hate" and towards discernment. (aka "**focused mode**") For example discerning between that which is unskillful and that which is skillful. That which we call "thinking" seems to consist largely of alternating between "diffuse mode" and "focused mode". For example, this new thing that I am trying to to understand is 1: "similar to" this other thing that I already understand ("diffuse mode") in these ways ... but 2: "different than" this other thing that I already understand ("focused mode") in these ways ... This "thinking" is the "task positive network" of the sensory-motor brain. It repurposes the more primal emotions of greed and hate and uses them to solve problems.

I have heard more than one Dharma teacher say the Buddha claimed that practitioners who are more strongly inclined towards hate than greed are closer to nibbana. Is there any evidence from the suttas to support this claim? If true, did the Buddha offer any hints as to why this might be true?

I am reading the Tibetan Book of the Dead Chapter 2 page 26, "A prayer for union with the spiritual teacher [entitled], Natural Liberation, without renunciation of the three poisons". Now in reading this chapter it seems that is a call for union with the fundamental buddha bodies of Reality, Resource, and Emanation. I find it curious that the chapter EXPLICITLY states what the three poisons are, makes a mention "how needing of compassion ..." are buddha bodies that engage in these poisons and proceeds to give an explicit solution, yet renunciation of the poisons is not asked of the reader in fact the title of the prayer explicitly states they will not be renounced. Why is it important NOT to renounce these poisons at this stage of prayer? The beginning of the book makes it clear that much will be renounced (including the desire of sympathy) as it merely perpetuates our cyclic existence yet here an explicit effort is being made to acknowledge the poisons but NOT renounce them. What reason is there for this? At best I can theorize that this has to do with avoiding the type of extreme asceticism that the buddha believed did not allow one to break the cycle, but surely anyone engaging in the poisons described without some renunciation will be trapped all the same.

Please help with these questions! :) > What is the most skillful way to handle someone who is angry? > > What is the most skillful way to handle someone who is deluded? > > What is the most skillful way to handle someone who is greedy? > > And what is the most skillful way to handle the Poisons within me as > well? Metta to all!

Envy is an explicitly unwholesome mind-state, according to Buddhist doctrine. Unfortunately I am experiencing strong envy lately. Can somebody please provide any and all resources to help understand and eliminate envious feelings?

The three poisons are greed or sensual attachment (lobha or raga), aversion or ill-will (dosa or dvesha) and delusion or confusion (moha). These are said to the unwholesome roots, or the roots to all other unwholesome mental states. I'm trying to analyze the mild, severe and opposite examples of the three poisons, in order to get a deeper understanding what the three poisons are. Greed (lobha) ============ The opposite of greed (lobha or raga) is apparently generosity (dana). Is this right? The severe examples of greed include the desire to take what does not belong to you (to steal), covet another's spouse. Can I say that the mild version of greed include the desire to buy certain types of clothes and dress better to make a good impression on others? How about the enjoyment of nice pleasant weather or tasty food, and the desire that it should continue further? What about looking at a good-looking person and desiring to go and talk to them? What about feeling happy when being praised by others? Aversion (dosa or dvesha) ================= The opposite of aversion (dosa or dvesha) is apparently loving-kindness (metta or maitri). Is this right? The severe example of aversion include anger that results in the act of killing or injuring others. Can I say that the mild version of aversion include the dislike of unpleasant weather (too hot and humid, or too cold), or the dislike of minor physical pain (like a mosquito bite) and wishing that it goes away? What about judging others in your mind for their perceived flaws? What about being impatient because your friend is late to meet you for dinner? What about feeling displeased because you were criticized by others? Delusion (moha) =============== The opposite of delusion (moha) is apparently wisdom (panna or prajna). Is this right? What are severe forms of delusion? Could depression, anxiety, rage, terror, remorse be considered severe forms of delusion? What would be mild forms of delusion? What if I fear catching a disease from mosquito bites? What if I feel unhappy due to others' criticism because I care too much about what they think? Or having regret that I did not purchase something when there was a discount which has now expired? Or is this often linked to the greed (lobha) and hatred (dosa), and seldom exists standalone? For example, I judge someone negatively in my mind, but it's actually because I did not understand the reason why they are in that situation? Or I do things like dressing up better for getting recognition from others, but it's actually because I have the wrong notion of putting too much importance into that recognition? Other types of negative mental states =================================== How do other types of negative mental states like envy, sloth, conceit, miserliness, restlessness, lack of shame etc. (list of other unwholesome mental states here ) connect to the three unwholesome roots?

How does a Buddhist know when to tolerate a situation, and when to exit a situation? For example, a lay Buddhist in an abusive relationship: is it correct to accept the abuse, or avoid it? **Disclaimer: I am not referring to my own relationship. I just chose this scenario as a hypothetical example.**

Is there any dependence between these? My understanding is that ignorance is the main cause for samsara (the first of the 12 links of dependent origination). Ignorance meaning not recognizing our true condition. But is attachment a necessary condition for anger? For greed?

I have read that anxiety/worry is unwholesome. Is this because it is a form of aversion, one of the three unwholesome roots, or something else?

Who is considered to be ignorant according to Buddhism? What does the term ignorance cover ? When does one realize, one is ignorant ? Can one know nothing of ignorance and still become enlightened?

Some sensations are neither good nor bad, when I think there is an absence both of pleasure and pain. But what about nirvana itself? Obviously there is no vedana to it. Is its "bliss" something *like* the memory of neutral sensation? I just wonder if that's what it's like to be without the three poisons of attachment aversion and ignorance .

I have a friend that I met few years back. He always look polite, look decent, and look helping others a lot. I did him a lot of helps that no friend would do to him. Later, when I needed helps he really, replied me with very bad words, which I never thought he can even talk like that. This thing really becoming something that I cannot forget. It seems I suffer it a lot. I was thinking how to get rid of this for a long time now. What are the practical measures in Buddhism to get rid of such hate inside one's inside. Thank you.