What is the difference between householder and renunciation equanimity? The thirty-six states (6 x 6 classes of contact) to which beings are attached are described in Salayatana-vibhanga Sutta; I have made a caricature while reading each state as below, states 1, 2, 4 &amp; 5 are easy to understand, however, I'm straggling to clearly identify the two type of equanimity and how they differ.

Quoted below is the definition given for each equanimity states in the Sutta, but it’s not clear to me how the foolish deluded householder equanimity is any different from the other. How do these two people react to a given situation? 

I will give an example for the householder equanimity and If possible please try to use the same situation to represent the state of the renunciation equanimity and if possible beyond renunciation equanimity (atammayata) in which there is no act of intention, not even the intention underlying equanimity is said to be present.

For example, a householder loses his beloved son or a wife he could reason and say ‘I know I was only in love with a mortal and what has happened is natural’ and he remains calm without suffering. This equanimity, I take it, doesn’t go beyond form. With a wide open eye as I caricatured his state, he looks into pain and pleasure even death with equanimity without reasoning beyond form. Let them change he is just looking.

Many thanks.


  "And what are the six kinds of household equanimity? The equanimity
  that arises when a foolish, deluded person — a run-of-the-mill,
  untaught person who has not conquered his limitations or the results
  of action 2 &amp; who is blind to danger [3] — sees a form with the eye.
  Such equanimity does not go beyond the form, which is why it is called
  household equanimity. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile
  sensations, &amp; ideas.)
  
  "And what are the six kinds of renunciation equanimity? The equanimity
  that arises when — experiencing the inconstancy of those very forms,
  their change, fading, &amp; cessation — one sees with right discernment as
  it actually is that all forms, past or present, are inconstant,
  stressful, subject to change: This equanimity goes beyond form, which
  is why it is called renunciation equanimity. (Similarly with sounds,
  smells, tastes, tactile sensations, &amp; ideas.)
  
  "And what is equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on
  multiplicity? There is equanimity with regard to forms, equanimity
  with regard to sounds...smells...tastes...tactile sensations [&amp; ideas:
  this word appears in one of the recensions]. This is equanimity coming
  from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity.
  
  "And what is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on
  singleness? There is equanimity dependent on the dimension of the
  infinitude of space, equanimity dependent on the dimension of the
  infinitude of consciousness... dependent on the dimension of
  nothingness... dependent on the dimension of neither perception nor
  non-perception. This is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent
  on singleness.
It's good to get aware of issues of different kind of equanimity not only because most modern, especially lay teacher, even whole &quot;schools&quot; actually teach the dangerous &quot;household-equanimity&quot;. The differernt is btw. actually drawn out in the notes and also in the translators intoduction of the sutta:

A person who &quot;has not conquered his limitations or the results of action&quot;: this passage seems related to the passage in AN 3.99, which defines a person of limited mind, prey to the results of past bad actions, as one who is &quot;undeveloped in contemplating the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in concentration, and undeveloped in discernment; restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering.&quot; As AN 3.99 points out, such a person suffers more intensely from the results of past unskillful actions than does one whose awareness is unrestricted. SN 42.8 recommends the practice of the four sublime attitudes as a way of developing an unrestricted awareness that weakens the results of past unskillful actions.

A person who is &quot;blind to danger&quot; is one who does not see the drawbacks of sensual pleasure or attachment to the body. For such a person, moments of equanimity are usually a dull spot in the midst of the quest for sensual pleasure. This is why such moments do not go beyond the sensory stimulus that generated them.


Ordinary equanimity is based on gross ignorance/moha.
The two illustrations here might also provide for an understanding:
Ignoring the truth &amp; Bhaṅgañāņa and bhayañāņa.
Some &quot;provoking&quot; questions for an understanding in this regard may be also found here: Freed of Fivefold Fear.
Typical outwardly indicators for people dwelling in household-equanimity is total lack in basics like gratitude, goodness, generosity and virtue. Once such states a reached, people are merely hopless lost which is one reason the Buddha often nearly &quot;fighted&quot; against teachers leading in such directions while other teachings, even if not much of benefit have been merely tolerated as current wishes for certain destinies of others.
The immense danger of giving rise to firm household-equanimity is also the reason why in Bodhisatta-vehicles the teaching of emptiness of immature people is a grave fault and breach of the root vows, knowing that they are walking on a tiny edge and althought propably even understood as encouragement to act wrong.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, given for release, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade.]