[Q&A] Dukkha vs legitimate need

[Dhammañāṇa]

Dukkha vs legitimate need

I heard a talk by Ajahn Amaro that says that wherever I encounter dukha, it is a sign that there is a attachment involved, that I can let go of and this way free myself from the attachment.

https://youtu.be/-h_O_SuKOKE?t=2823

But this way, what prevents me from laying down and dying from hunger or thirst - if I feel hunger, it may be dukha from my attachment to food, or to survival...

What is the difference between attachment and legitimate needs?

Thanks for answering a noob question.

Here, how ever a modified, expanded answer

- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -

  Venerable memebers of the Sangha,
Ven. Fellows,

Upasak, Upasika,

Nyom Alex, and those interested,

"What is the difference between attachment and legitimate needs?"

What's a legitimate need? One, one would tolerate because having still the same incapacity, like laws are usually made, or common-society conducts agreements? Desires are endless and most cause harm, even if agreed for a particular common society and not that of Nobel Ones. Therefore better to focus on (given/giving) actions (causes) than "material" things or fruits (effects). Effects need (their) related giving into to cause certain appearing.

The Dhamma is not about "rights" but about "duties" to be fulfilled if wishing for certain aim. No right and legitimization of improper given by anybody, but cause and effect seen clear, explained what one should do and one should not do to gain long lasting freedom from suffering!

A legitimate action for a good for one self and all others, which is required - by thoughts, words or hysical deeds - is one that does neither take live, take others possession, takes away the truth, takes sensuality harmful from others around, takes away ones heed-fullness by intoxication: i.e. the precepts). That's probably not so good matched if just saying "let go" generally, and the precepts help that defilements would not have a change to cheat and argue.

At least right effort is twofold: what to nourish, force, develop and what to denourish, under-press and relinquish. So one should never let go of good: i.e. generosity is good, not taking live, taking what is not giving, signs that steal the truth... not intoxicating oneself, respect those/that worthy of respect, helping ones parents, tending to renouncing of ordinary life.

One who would let go of needed, path, good... such is a fool or didn't got it right told. So a lot of "greed" is required to gain long lasting happiness and go beyond suffering and as one knows ever sacrifice is hurtful at first place.

What then might be left as attachment, after having given up the bad and grasping the good, fine. One might just look inside in a more refined way, since dukkha would probably again arise.

As the Sublime Buddha told: it's much better to bear Dukkha then to break the precepts, let go of good.

And at least one could go just for alms: is that legitimate where you live, in the modern society and it's rules so pride on them?  That's the highest way of conduct and livelihood, to provide ones "needs" (4 paccaya) without doing any reasonable harm to anyone, aside oneself if doing such for impure aims, just to be able to cross to the other shore and/or to give others a possibility to make good and fruitful merits (to get a little bond to liberation).

Train Your Hunger (The Sea Squirt) might be a useful talk in addition here.

And what worth would it have to just let go before really free of Dukkha? "I gave up everything, yet still suffer...?", since the deep, hard root of it was not traced, not seen. It's most legitimate to seek for overcoming all Dukkha, although there might be those don't like to see one liberated while by one self caught , since it benefits all, incl. those disliking it, incl. oneself. Proper way (without violating precepts) to maintain one body (for ones safety here and later) and the entertainment of mind, livelihood for the mind, is also important, best if dwelling in Jhana 3+ or talk, deeds around Dhamma.

Another expanded teaching, to understand the different of Wisdom/real compassion and Justice is:

Wisdom over Justice , by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu (2017; 17p./90kB) [PDF icon]
    Bhante Thanissaro gives here a patiently talk, in form of an essay, why skillful means are more important then to pursuit a certain right or a final objectivity and points out generosily, why so many practicing people have a hardship in regard of central worldview, so that it could be possible understood in it's details. Engaged Buddhism is against usual views and means around it not a tabu, following the Buddhas ideas about it.

...which might explain further the different of common and popular views and that of the wise and traditional.

Finally a clear approach of the sages at the Sublime Buddhas time:

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa

As he was sitting there, Ven. Sariputta said to him, "I trust, Dhanañjani, that you are heedful?"

"From where would we get any heedfulness, master? — when parents are to be supported, wife & children are to be supported, slaves & workers are to be supported, friend-&-companion duties are to be done for friends & companions, kinsmen-&-relative duties for kinsmen & relatives, guest duties for guests, departed-ancestor duties for departed ancestors, devata duties for devatas, king duties for the king, and this body also has to be refreshed & nourished."

"What do you think Dhanañjani? There is the case where a certain person, for the sake of his mother & father, does what is unrighteous, does what is discordant. Then, because of his unrighteous, discordant behavior, hell-wardens drag him off to hell. Would he gain anything by saying, 'I did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for the sake of my mother & father. Don't [throw] me into hell, hell-wardens!' Or would his mother & father gain anything for him by saying, 'He did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for our sake. Don't [throw] him into hell, hell-wardens!'?"

"No, master Sariputta. Even right while he was wailing, they'd cast him into hell."

"What do you think Dhanañjani? There is the case where a certain person, for the sake of his wife & children ... his slaves & workers ... his friends & companions ... his kinsmen & relatives ... his guests ... his departed ancestors ... the devatas ... the king, does what is unrighteous, does what is discordant. Then, because of his unrighteous, discordant behavior, hell-wardens drag him off to hell. Would he gain anything by saying, 'I did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for the sake of the king. Don't [throw] me into hell, hell-wardens!' Or would the king gain anything for him by saying, 'He did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for our sake. Don't [throw] him into hell, hell-wardens!'?"

"No, master Sariputta. Even right while he was wailing, they'd cast him into hell."

"What do you think Dhanañjani? There is the case where a certain person, for the sake of refreshing & nourishing his body, does what is unrighteous, does what is discordant. Then, because of his unrighteous, discordant behavior, hell-wardens drag him off to hell. Would he gain anything by saying, 'I did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for the sake of refreshing & nourishing my body. Don't [throw] me into hell, hell-wardens!' Or would others gain anything for him by saying, 'He did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for the sake of refreshing & nourishing his body. Don't [throw] him into hell, hell-wardens!'?"

"No, master Sariputta. Even right while he was wailing, they'd cast him into hell."

"Now, what do you think, Dhanañjani? Which is the better: one who, for the sake of his mother & father, would do what is unrighteous, what is discordant; or one who, for the sake of his mother & father, would do what is righteous, what is concordant?

"Master Sariputta, the one who, for the sake of his mother & father, would do what is unrighteous, what is discordant, is not the better one. The one who, for the sake of his mother & father, would do what is righteous, what is concordant would be the better one there. Righteous behavior, concordant behavior, is better than unrighteous behavior, discordant behavior.[2]

"Dhanañjani, there are other activities — reasonable, righteous — by which one can support one's mother & father, and at the same time both not do evil and practice the practice of merit.

"What do you think, Dhanañjani: Which is the better: one who, for the sake of his wife & children ... his slaves & workers ... his friends & companions ... his kinsmen & relatives ... his guests ... his departed ancestors ... the devatas ... the king ... refreshing & nourishing his body, would do what is unrighteous, what is discordant; or one who, for the sake of refreshing & nourishing his body, would do what is righteous, what is concordant?

"Master Sariputta, the one who, for the sake of refreshing & nourishing his body, would do what is unrighteous, what is discordant, is not the better one. The one who, for the sake of refreshing & nourishing his body, would do what is righteous, what is concordant would be the better one there. Righteous behavior, concordant behavior, is better than unrighteous behavior, discordant behavior.[3]

 "Dhanañjani, there are other activities — reasonable, righteous — by which one can refresh & nourish one's body, and at the same time both not do evil and practice the practice of merit."

Then Dhanañjani the brahman, delighting & rejoicing in Ven. Sariputta's words, got up from his seat and left.

Quote from: Dhanañjani Sutta: To Dhanañjani

Mudita

Thanks a lot! I was very happy to read this talk - very inspiring and clarifying things! And also directly answers the question I asked!