User avatar
Posts: 4133
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Renunciation

Post by heart » Thu Aug 02, 2012 1:16 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Will wrote:
They are the same thing
They are not the thing. One who is free of grasping and attachment has no need renunciation.
Being free of grasping and attachment is itself renunciation. This renunciation is however not exactly the same as renunciation in the context of path of renunciation, transformation and self-liberation.

"We are all here to help each other go through this thing, whatever it is."
~Kurt Vonnegut

"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)

Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:34 pm

Re: Renunciation

Post by trevor » Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:04 pm

For dealing with the passions, we can use the example of a poisonous plant. According to the Sutra interpretation, the plant must be destroyed, because there is no other way to resolve the problem of its poison. The Sutra practitioner renounces all the passions.

According to the Tantric system, the tantric adept should take the poisonous plant and mix it with another plant in order to form an antidote: he does not reject the passions but tries to transform them into aids to practice. The tantric adept is like a doctor who transforms the poisonous plants into medicine.

The peacock, on the other hand, eats the poisonous plant because he has the capacity to use the energy contained in the poison to make himself more beautiful; that is, he frees the poisonous property of the plant into energy for growth. This is the Dzogchen method of effortlessly liberating passions directly as they arise.
from" onclick=";return false;

User avatar
Posts: 183
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:16 am

Re: Renunciation

Post by waimengwan » Sun Aug 05, 2012 1:15 pm


The merit accrued brings us to becoming a Buddha, when one is a Buddha one has all the skills necessary to benefits sentient beings.

Now as we practice as unenlightened beings, we have a limited capacity to benefit all beings. Whereas a Buddha has a ll qualities and resources to benefit beings on many levels. So becoming a Buddha is not for the sake of becoming one, but to save all sentient beings. Hence bodhicitta is the wish to benefit all sentient beings.

Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:56 pm

Re: Renunciation

Post by SamBodhi » Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:41 pm

waimengwan wrote:Renunciation, how I understand this is we need renunciation then the actions that we do will result in true merit. Without renunciation all actions we do can be either karma or a combination of karma and merits. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Then as a lay person what kind of renunciation can we achieve without becoming a monastic?
You may find this helpful.
The Buddhist view of renunciation is based not in distancing oneself from the others but through renouncing of the ego or the 'self' and finding a better ability of generating an introspection that arouses the wisdom which illuminates the basic goodness, the core quality of every human being."
--Jetsün Khandro Rinpoche
from here- ... he-msg.php

no tea is too good for me

Posts: 803
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am

Re: Renunciation

Post by MalaBeads » Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:11 pm

Of course, a dictionary defintion is always a useful starting point for understanding what a concept "means". But meaning is not confined to the dictionary and it is just as useful to understand how a word (or concept) is used. Meaning comes down to usage when all is said and done. To insist that something only means what the dictionary says it means is folly. Not that anyone here is insisting on a particular meaning. As far as I can tell.

In this case, the meaning of renunciation, it seems to me, would depend entirely on what yana one is practicing, since each yana seems to use the word somewhat differently. There is not one and only one "definition" of what such a concept "means".

It's always good to ask what something means as long as you understand the context of the answer. Not so easy though to understand context and usage. So much easier if everything were just black and white, yes?

Im not actually sure I've said anything useful here at all but my two cents, fwiw.
I am well aware of my idiocy. I am also very aware that you too are an idiot. Therein lies our mutuality.

User avatar
Posts: 6333
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: Renunciation

Post by Indrajala » Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:42 am

Removed some off-topic posts.

If you have any personal issues with other members please PM them. There is no need to voice such grievances on a thread like this.
tad etat sarvajñānaṃ karuṇāmūlaṃ bodhicittahetukam upāyaparyavasānam iti |
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog) Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog) Dharma Depository (Site)

Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm

Re: Renunciation

Post by Andrew108 » Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:11 am

O.k it's better to use scripture to get the point across. So who better to quote than Nagarjuna?

Question 1. I want liberation. What is liberation?:
''when karmic actions and mental afflictions
cease, that is liberation.''

Question 2. So can ''I'' get liberated?
''The one who experiences perceptions does not exist,
Before, during, or after the experiences of
seeing and so forth.
Knowing this, all thoughts of an
experiencer of perceptions either
existing or not existing are reversed.''

Question 3. But what about samsara - that exists right?:
''No beginning is perceptible,
No end is perceptible,
And nothing in between is perceptible either.''

Question 4. But what about birth and death?
''Since one cannot happen before the others,
And they cannot happen simultaneously,
Why would you ever think
That birth, aging and death truly exist?''

Question 5. But I want to be enlightened, to become a Buddha.
''Whatever is the nature of the Tathagata,
That is the nature of wandering beings.
The Tathagata has no inherent nature;
Wandering beings have no inherent nature.

Question 6. But Buddha is perfect and I want to be perfect. What about renouncing pleasure?
''How could it be possible for
Sentient beings who are like illusions,
Or objects that are like reflections,
To be either pleasant or unpleasant?

Question 7. But surely we have to attain something through renunciation? What about Nirvana?
''Nothing to abandon, nothing to attain,
Nothing extinct, nothing permanent,
No cessation, no arising_
This is how nirvana is taught to be.''

These are useful quotes. Nagarjuna amazes. Much better to post these then talk about the issues based on my own experience.
The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests