3. The Perfection of Renunciation
Renunciation (nekkhamma) is here synonymous with emancipation. Emancipation is of two kinds: emancipation from Saṁsāra, or the cycle of existences, and emancipation from sense-desires (kāma); the former being the result of the latter. Only when emancipation from sense-desires has been achieved through practice, can one gain emancipation from Saṁsāra. Of these two kinds of emancipation, it is for the purpose of the resultant emancipation from existences that the Buddha in the Chronicles of the Buddhas (Buddha-vaṁsa) likens the three states of existence to prisons.
The three states of existence are: 1) The state of sensual existence (kāma-bhava); 2) the state of fine material existence (rūpa-bhava); and 3) the states of formless, non-material existence (arūpa-bhava).
According to the Basket of Conduct (Cariyā-piṭaka) commentary, the perfection of renunciation, in terms of Abhidhamma, is wholesome consciousness together with mental concomitants that arise by virtue of emancipation from sense-desires and from the three states of existence.
The Great Exposition (Mahā-niddesa) describes two kinds of sense-desire: pleasant objects of sense-desire (vatthu-kāma), and the mental defilement of greed, which is desire for pleasant objects (kilesa-kāma). With reference to the perfection of renunciation, emancipation from sense-desires means emancipation from both kinds.
How to Be Mindful to Achieve Emancipation
How to achieve emancipation from the defilement of sense-desires (kilesa-kāma) is explained in the Great Exposition (Mahā-niddesa):
Addasaṁ kāma te mūlaṁ, saṅkappā kāma jāyasi,
na taṁ saṅkappayissāmi, evaṁ kāma na hohisi.
Sensuality, I have seen your source; you arise from thoughts of pleasant objects of sense (kāma-vitakka). No more will I think of any pleasant object of sense. Then, Sensuality, you will arise no more.
In this connection, three kinds of wrong thought and three kinds of right thought should be understood. The three kinds of wrong thought are:
1. Sensuous thoughts (kāma-vitakka), i.e., thinking of pleasant objects as desirable things.
2. Hateful thoughts (byāpāda-vitakka), i.e., thinking of harming others.
3. Cruel thoughts (vihiṁsā-vitakka), i.e., thinking of torturing others.
The three kinds of right thought are:
1. Thoughts of renunciation (nekkhamma-vitakka), i.e., thinking of emancipating oneself from sensuous objects.
2. Thoughts of hatelessness (avyāpāda-vitakka), i.e., thinking of others with loving-kindness.
3. Thoughts of non-violence (avihiṁsā-vitakka), i.e., thinking of others with compassion.
The source of greed (kilesa-kāma), on close examination, is found to lie in sensuous thoughts (kāma-vitakka), which is one of the three wrong thoughts. As long as one keeps on thinking sensuous thoughts, greed continues to multiply and there is no emancipation from that mental defilement of greed. Only when one ceases to think of the pleasant objects of sense-desire, will greed not arise and one achieves emancipation. Therefore, as stated above, one should be mindful to be free from the mental defilements of greed. Just as freedom from sense-desire leads to freedom from the cycle of Saṁsāra even so making efforts to free oneself from greed results in freedom from the pleasant objects of sense-desire.
The characteristics, functions, manifestations and proximate causes of this perfection of renunciation and of the remaining ones are dealt with later.
Relation between Renunciation and Monastics
The Basket of Conduct (Cariyā-piṭaka) commentary defines renunciation (nekkhamma) in this way: nekkhammaṁ pabbajja-mūlakaṁ. This definition can be interpreted in two ways: “Renunciation has a monastic’s life as its cause” and “renunciation is the cause of a monastic’s life.” The first interpretation: A monastic’s life as a cause of renunciation is in consonance with the narration in the Birth Story about King Mahā Janaka (Mahā-janaka-jātaka, Ja 539). King Mahā Janaka first acquired the requisites of robes, a bowl etc. without the knowledge of his queen, lesser queens and royal attendants and then went up to the upper terrace of his palace and became a monastic; thereafter, he renounced the world. In this instance, the Bodhisatta Mahā Janaka became a monastic before he made the renunciation. Therefore, it may be said that the monastic’s life is the cause and renunciation is the effect.
The second interpretation: Renunciation as a cause of a monastic’s life, is in consonance with the stories of the wise Sumedha, the Hatthipāla brothers, etc. the wise Sumedha first went forth and reaching Dhammika Mountain, found a dwelling place readily prepared by Sakka, the Lord of the Devas. Then only he became a monastic. Similarly, the Hatthipāla brothers went forth first and when pursued by the whole country led by royal parents, they became monastics. Therefore, it may be said the renunciation of the wise Sumedha, the Hatthipāla brothers, etc. is the cause, and the monastic’s life is the effect.
The Basket of Contuct (Cariyā-piṭaka) commentary gives the exposition in accordance with the first interpretation. This is mentioned in detail below. Though the wise Sumedha, the Hatthipāla brothers, etc. renounced the world first and became monastics afterwards, they did so only because they wanted a monastic’s life. Therefore, even though renunciation took place first, it may be said that a monastic’s life which follows later is the real cause.
For example, to construct a building, the wood is cut first. Although the cutting of wood precedes construction, the wood is cut with the intention of constructing the building, therefore, it should be said that the desire to build the building is the cause and the cutting of the wood is the effect.
Five Kinds of Forest Dwelling
As expounded in the Vinaya Summary (Parivāra, 7.5.56, PTS 5.131), forest dwelling is of five kinds:
1. Dwelling in the forest because of stupidity, dullness of mind, not knowing the
2. Dwelling in the forest with an evil desire: “If I go and dwell in the forest, people will support me generously as a forest dweller.”
3. Dwelling in the forest because of insanity.
4. Dwelling in the forest because the practice is praised by the Buddhas and the virtuous.
5. Dwelling in the forest because one has few wishes, contentment and such virtues.
Only the last two of these kinds of forest dwelling are praiseworthy.
Perfection of renunciation is not a matter of where one lives. The defilement of sense-desires (kilesa-kāma), craving for pleasant sensuous objects, is liable to arise anywhere. This defilement of sense-desires should be eradicated wherever it appears and not be permitted to thrive. Emancipation from the defilement of sense-desires by eradication in this way is the true characteristic of renunciation.
As for emancipation from pleasant objects of sense-desire, there are examples of the wise Sumedha, the Hatthipāla brothers etc., who went forth as far as the Himālayas. Therefore, it may be asked whether it is necessary for those who wish to fulfil the perfection of renunciation, and gain the emancipation from pleasant objects of sense-desire, to go forth as far as the Himālayas. One should do so if possible, if one wishes to, or if circumstances favour it. In the Birth Stories (Jātaka) concerning renunciation, the majority went forth to the Himālayas. They did so as circumstances were favourable to them.
According to the Birth Story about King Maghadeva (Maghadeva-jātaka, Ja 9) and the Birth Story about King Nimi (Nimi-jātaka, Ja 541), the continuous line of rulers, numbering 84,000, beginning with King Maghadeva and up to King Nimi, went forth from household life to a homeless life as soon as a single hair on the head turned grey. However, none of them went to the Himālayas. They repaired only to the royal Mango Grove near their capital city of Mithilā. It is said that by the strenuous practice of meditation they attained the absorptions (jhāna) and were reborn in the Brahma realms. It is evident from these stories that, although not travelling as far as the Himālayas, just leaving the palace, where the mental defilement of greed thrives, is sufficient for the successful fulfilment of the perfection of renunciation. The 84,000 kings, such as Maghadeva, completely abandoned their luxurious palaces, and by living in the Mango Grove, their perfection of renunciation was fulfilled.
Therefore, the perfection of renunciation can be fulfilled by anyone who abandons completely the place where his mental defilement of greed flourishes and without establishing such new resorts, as long as he dwells in a suitable place free from such defilements.
Two Kinds of Renunciation
Renunciation of Bodhisattas is of two kinds: Renunciation when they are young and single; renunciation when they are old and married. The wise Sumedha, the Hatthipāla brothers, etc. renounced the worldly life to escape from the bonds of pleasant objects of sense-desire: luxuries of palaces or homes. Although the Birth Stories (Jātaka) referred to them as examples of those who fulfilled the perfection of renunciation, they were then mere youths, still unmarried. They were possessors of pleasant objects of sense-desire, but it may be said that their ties to them were not so strong.
Only older people living a household life with wife and children are tightly bound with these fetters of the objects of sense-desire (vatthu-kāma). In this connection, it may be said that renunciation by old married people is more difficult than that by younger persons. But some could point out that the renunciation by the Bodhisatta Prince Temiya, made at a time when he was only sixteen and unmarried, was really an arduous one. But his difficulty arose not from the bonds of pleasant objects of sense-desire but from the great troubles of having to pretend to be crippled, deaf and dumb to make his renunciation possible. Therefore, although he faced much difficulty when contriving to make his renunciation, when he actually did so, he encountered little difficulty because he had only a few fetters of pleasant
The Abundance of Meaning (Aṭṭha-sālinī, DsA) gives, in the chapter on the perfection of renunciation, full accounts of the perfections (pāramī) that had been fulfilled by the Bodhisatta when he was Prince Somanassa, Prince Hatthipāla, Prince Ayoghara, etc. in innumerable existences. The commentary gives the special name of supreme perfection (paramattha-pāramī) to the perfection of renunciation fulfilled by King Cūḷa Sutasoma.
Prince Somanassa, Prince Ayoghara, Prince Hatthipāla and Prince Temiya were youthful persons at the time of their renunciation. The renunciation by King Mahā Janaka was more difficult than theirs because he was an older and married man. He became a monastic without the knowledge of his queen, lesser queens and royal attendants, and at the time of renunciation, he faced difficulty, as he was pursued by his queens and retinue to persuade him to return to them. They had not taken any measures to ensure that he would not go forth as a monastic or renounce the worldly life.
As for the 84,000 kings, such as Maghadeva, they openly and publicly declared their intention to renounce. In spite of the entreaties of their families, they refused to yield and made their renunciation. But they did not go very far. They dwelt in their own Mango Groves near their palaces.
In contrast to them, King Cūḷa Sutasoma announced his intention of leaving the world as he was deeply stirred by a spiritual sense of urgency (saṁvega) on seeing a grey hair on his head. Although his queens, royal parents and the assembled citizens prayed in tears for him to give up his plan, he remained firm and indifferent to their earnest pleas and went away till he reached the Himālayas. Therefore, the renunciation of King Cūḷa Sutasoma was far more powerful than those of King Maghadeva, etc. On this account, the commentator has described the perfection of renunciation fulfilled by King Cūḷa Sutasoma as of the highest type (paramattha-pāramī).