“‘This is for your well-being, this is for your happiness.’”
But what “happiness” ? The happiness that derives from equanimity ? Or equanimity as the only possible form of happiness, indirectly still based upon this world, that is, upon a specific way of “managing” the aggregates ?
The happiness of freedom from suffering.
The happiness of freedom from craving.
The happiness of freedom from hating.
The happiness of freedom from delusion.
What we call happiness is not the happiness of the noble ones.what we call happiness is gratification
When a mortal desires, he is sure to be happy getting what he wanted.
If his desires fail him, he becomes deformed as if pierced by a barb.
Who shuns desires, as a snakes head with his foot
Mindfully evades this attachment to the world.
(MN102)
But the Realized One has awakened to the supreme state of sublime peace, that is,
liberation by not grasping after, truly understanding these six sense fields’ origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape.”
———————
It’s interesting that in MN137 even equanimity is given up, by relying on non-identification. I assume this means not identifying with either sense-objects or jhanic states as “me” and “mine” ( see MN1 ).
"Therein, relying on equanimity based on unity, give up equanimity based on diversity. That’s how it is given up. Relying on non-identification, give up equanimity based on unity. That’s how it is given up. ‘Therein, relying on this, give up that.’ That’s what I said, and this is why I said it."