user2493: By "transformation target" I mean ...
When you hold this compulsion in spacious non judgmental awareness, investigate it and tease it apart into (1) that which is unskillful and (2) that which is skillful, what is the "name" that you give to (2) that which is skillful?
Re: transforming unskillful aims (unwise intention) into skillful aims (wise intention),
a prominent Western Buddhism site has suggested the following:

Three Poisons/Defilements (Kilesas – lit. torments of the mind)

Greed (lobha) – mindfulness transforms this into Faith
Aversion/hatred (dosa) – mindfulness transforms this into discriminating Wisdom
Delusion (moha) – mindfulness transforms this into Equanimity


This feels mostly correct to me except for “greed (lobha) -> faith”.
This feels like a half measure in restraining greed.
It feels like continuing to cling to greed.
Is there any evidence that the Buddha agreed or disagreed with these transformation targets?
Re: alternative targets ...
My strong intuition is that nibbana, the subjugation of Mara, is neurologically the subjugation (and repurposing) of the “task negative network” by the “task positive network”
i.e. The utilization of “feeling” to serve “thinking” so that the sensory-motor brain will be more inclined to “see things as they actually are” and make more accurate predictions.
i.e. The dharma is a guide to transforming the sensory-motor brain to use the feedback of bad predictions (dukkha) to transform unskillful views which sustain the bad predictions (dukkha) into skillful views leading to skillful predictions. (the end of dukkha)
To that end, it is my strong intuition that these are the correct targets:
greed (lobha)   -> searching (for similarities) (aka "diffuse mode")     
hate (dosa)     -> discerning (for differences) (aka "focused mode")    
delusion (moha) -> equanimity (the earned reward of a superior sensory-motor predictive model)     

Is there any evidence that the Buddha agreed or disagreed with these transformation targets?
Why do I think these are the correct targets?
"All models are wrong. Some models are useful." ~George Box
This mental model is "useful":
sense-desire = The belief that happiness depends upon satiation of THIS desire for THIS sensory experience.
greed = The compulsion, arising from THIS belief, to pull towards.
hate = The compulsion, arising from THIS belief, to push away.
craving = The compulsion, arising from THIS belief, to pull towards and/or push away, that which I do not yet possess
clinging = The compulsion, arising from THIS belief, to pull towards and/or push away, that which I possess and fear losing
"Clinging to sense-desires" is "clinging to views."
Specifically the view that "happiness depends upon satiation of THIS desire for THIS sensory experience."
Clinging to one particular way to meet our needs impairs the ability of the sensory-motor brain to process feedback that would help it to see other means by which those same needs might be met.
To say that this is "unskillful" is a polite understatement.
It represents a malfunction of the sensory-motor brain.
It represents a failure of the "task positive network" to restrain and to use the "task negative network's" "diffuse mode (searching)" and "focused mode (discerning)" as tools to extract wisdom from the feedback leading to a superior sensor-motor predictive model yielding better predictions, better decisions, better moves in the world.
Instead of clinging to a particular sense-desire, it can be skillful to cling to the desire to "see things as they actually are".
In so doing,
1: the compulsion to "pull towards" is repurposed
away from "greed"
and towards "searching for a way to understand the experience."  (aka "diffuse mode")
2: the compulsion to "push away" is repurposed
away from "hate"
and towards discernment. (aka "focused mode")
For example discerning between that which is unskillful and that which is skillful.
That which we call "thinking" seems to consist largely of alternating between "diffuse mode" and "focused mode".
For example, this new thing that I am trying to to understand is
1: "similar to" this other thing that I already understand ("diffuse mode") in these ways ...
but
2: "different than" this other thing that I already understand ("focused mode") in these ways ...
This "thinking" is the "task positive network" of the sensory-motor brain.
It repurposes the more primal emotions of greed and hate and uses them to solve problems.

user-1: That site says this:

Three Poisons/Defilements (Kilesas – lit. torments of the mind)

Greed (lobha) – mindfulness transforms this into Faith
Aversion/hatred (dosa) – mindfulness transforms this into discriminating Wisdom
Delusion (moha) – mindfulness transforms this into Equanimity


I have no idea where they got this idea and i don't think there is any similar expression anywhere in the theravadin texts.

user17553: I don’t remember the sutta but following way can help you neutralise the lobha,dosa and moha ....
Lobha can be neutralised by practising Santosh ( roughly translates into satisfaction with what you have).
Dosa can be neutralised by practising compassion (there are various other ways but compassion works always).
Moha can be neutralised by getting rid of ignorance or practising 8 fold path.
For dosa I can give you the link : https://suttacentral.net/an5.161/en/thanissaro

user254: Is there any evidence that the Buddha agreed or disagreed with these transformation targets?
I'm not aware of that list's being explicit in a sutta reference -- not that I know all the suttas but other answers seem to think so too.
But still, if I assume that they're true and that you want my explanation of them, here's how I make sense of them given what I remember.

Delusion (moha) – mindfulness transforms this into Equanimity
I think there are three poisons:

Greed (associated with "pleasant")
Aversion or hatred (associated with "unpleasant")
Ignorance or confusion (associated with "neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant")

And I think it's said that the third of these is the "root" problem -- because people are confused about what's "neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant" therefore they chase after the pleasant and so on and that's samsara.
Whereas I think a monk learns to esteem what's neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant.
See also What is the difference between householder and renunciation equanimity?

Greed (lobha) – mindfulness transforms this into Faith
This seems like the least easy to understand, maybe the least orthodox of the three statements if it is unorthodox.
Maybe "faith" is what motivates renunciation and generosity (instead of greed).
It's strange though because I thought that "faith" was a help only initially, i.e. before then seeing things truly for yourself -- because that (experience) comes with practice, and "with faith" may be how practice begins.
But then again, see the topic Reference request for "the Buddha takes the Dhamma as his superior" -- maybe that "dwelling in dependence" (on the three jewels) and "respecting the Dhamma" is what might be described as a "faith".

Aversion/hatred (dosa) – mindfulness transforms this into discriminating Wisdom
That reminds me of the answers to this question -- Experiencing physical pain -- including,

According to my teacher, the enlightened attitude is to see pain as information. (For comparison, the non-enlightened attitude is to block/avoid/suppress pain by all means.) Because pain is information, we should evaluate it, see what message it carries and what it means for us, and then act.


user20805: Right resolve(s) are the tools opposing the root causes of suffering, good householder, and conditioned by right view. And what is right resolve/striving:

...Being resolved on renunciation (virāganissitaṃ), against greed: resolved on no-desiring/on turning away.
...on freedom from ill will (nirodhanissitaṃ), against aversion: resolved on non-destruction.
...on harmlessness (vossaggapariṇāmiṃ), against delusion: resolved on giving up/letting go ([wrong] stand/position).


user471: From "The Abhidhamma in Practice" by N.K.G. Mendis:

There are six roots. Three are kammically unwholesome (akusala); the
other three may be either kammically wholesome (kusala) or
indeterminate (abyaa-kata), depending on the type of consciousness
they arise in. The unwholesome roots are greed (lobha), hatred (dosa),
and delusion (moha). The three roots which are wholesome in some
cittas and indeterminate in others are greedlessness (alobha),
hatelessness (adosa), and undeludedness (amoha). Though these last
three roots are expressed negatively they have positive
manifestations. Greedlessness manifests as generosity and
renunciation, hatelessness as loving-kindness, and undeludedness as
wisdom or understanding.

So according to the Theravada Abhidhamma:

The opposite of greed (lobha) is greedlessness (alobha), which manifests as generosity and renunciation.
The opposite of hatred/ aversion (dosa) is hatelessness (adosa), which manifests as loving kindness.
The opposite of delusion (moha) is undeludedness (amoha), which manifests as wisdom or understanding.


2493: <p>By &quot;transformation target&quot; I mean ...
When you hold this compulsion in spacious non judgmental awareness, investigate it and tease it apart into (1) that which is unskillful and (2) that which is skillful, what is the &quot;name&quot; that you give to (2) that which is skillful?</p>
<p>Re: transforming unskillful aims (unwise intention) into skillful aims (wise intention),
a prominent Western Buddhism site has suggested the following:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/dhamma-lists/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Three Poisons/Defilements</a> (Kilesas – lit. torments of the mind)</p>
<ol>
<li>Greed (lobha) – mindfulness transforms this into Faith</li>
<li>Aversion/hatred (dosa) – mindfulness transforms this into discriminating Wisdom</li>
<li>Delusion (moha) – mindfulness transforms this into Equanimity</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>This feels mostly correct to me except for “greed (lobha) -&gt; faith”.<br />
This feels like a half measure in restraining greed.<br />
It feels like continuing to cling to greed.</p>
<p><em><strong>Is there any evidence that the Buddha agreed or disagreed with these transformation targets?</strong></em></p>
<p>Re: alternative targets ...</p>
<p>My strong intuition is that nibbana, the subjugation of Mara, is neurologically the subjugation (and repurposing) of the “task negative network” by the “task positive network”
i.e. The utilization of “feeling” to serve “thinking” so that the sensory-motor brain will be more inclined to “see things as they actually are” and make more accurate predictions.
i.e. The dharma is a guide to transforming the sensory-motor brain to use the feedback of bad predictions (dukkha) to transform unskillful views which sustain the bad predictions (dukkha) into skillful views leading to skillful predictions. (the end of dukkha)</p>
<p>To that end, it is my strong intuition that these are the correct targets:</p>
<pre><code>greed (lobha)   -&gt; searching (for similarities) (aka &quot;diffuse mode&quot;)     
hate (dosa)     -&gt; discerning (for differences) (aka &quot;focused mode&quot;)    
delusion (moha) -&gt; equanimity (the earned reward of a superior sensory-motor predictive model)     
</code></pre>
<p><em><strong>Is there any evidence that the Buddha agreed or disagreed with these transformation targets?</strong></em></p>
<p><strong>Why do I think these are the correct targets?</strong></p>
<p>&quot;All models are wrong. Some models are useful.&quot; ~George Box<br />
This mental model is &quot;useful&quot;:</p>
<p><strong>sense-desire</strong> = The belief that happiness depends upon satiation of THIS desire for THIS sensory experience.<br />
<strong>greed</strong> = The compulsion, arising from THIS belief, to pull towards.<br />
<strong>hate</strong> = The compulsion, arising from THIS belief, to push away.<br />
<strong>craving</strong> = The compulsion, arising from THIS belief, to pull towards and/or push away, that which I do not yet possess<br />
<strong>clinging</strong> = The compulsion, arising from THIS belief, to pull towards and/or push away, that which I possess and fear losing</p>
<p>&quot;Clinging to sense-desires&quot; is &quot;clinging to views.&quot;
Specifically the view that &quot;happiness depends upon satiation of THIS desire for THIS sensory experience.&quot;</p>
<p>Clinging to one particular way to meet our needs impairs the ability of the sensory-motor brain to process feedback that would help it to see other means by which those same needs might be met.</p>
<p>To say that this is &quot;unskillful&quot; is a polite understatement.<br />
It represents a malfunction of the sensory-motor brain.<br />
It represents a failure of the &quot;task positive network&quot; to restrain and to use the &quot;task negative network's&quot; &quot;diffuse mode (searching)&quot; and &quot;focused mode (discerning)&quot; as tools to extract wisdom from the feedback leading to a superior sensor-motor predictive model yielding better predictions, better decisions, better moves in the world.</p>
<p>Instead of clinging to a particular sense-desire, it can be skillful to cling to the desire to &quot;see things as they actually are&quot;.
In so doing,</p>
<p>1: the compulsion to &quot;pull towards&quot; is repurposed
away from &quot;greed&quot;
and towards &quot;searching for a way to understand the experience.&quot;  (aka &quot;<strong>diffuse mode</strong>&quot;)</p>
<p>2: the compulsion to &quot;push away&quot; is repurposed
away from &quot;hate&quot;
and towards discernment. (aka &quot;<strong>focused mode</strong>&quot;)<br />
For example discerning between that which is unskillful and that which is skillful.</p>
<p>That which we call &quot;thinking&quot; seems to consist largely of alternating between &quot;diffuse mode&quot; and &quot;focused mode&quot;.</p>
<p>For example, this new thing that I am trying to to understand is<br />
1: &quot;similar to&quot; this other thing that I already understand (&quot;diffuse mode&quot;) in these ways ...<br />
but<br />
2: &quot;different than&quot; this other thing that I already understand (&quot;focused mode&quot;) in these ways ...</p>
<p>This &quot;thinking&quot; is the &quot;task positive network&quot; of the sensory-motor brain.<br />
It repurposes the more primal emotions of greed and hate and uses them to solve problems.</p>
 -1: <p>That site says this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Three Poisons/Defilements (Kilesas – lit. torments of the mind)</p>
<ol>
<li>Greed (lobha) – mindfulness transforms this into Faith</li>
<li>Aversion/hatred (dosa) – mindfulness transforms this into discriminating Wisdom</li>
<li>Delusion (moha) – mindfulness transforms this into Equanimity</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>I have no idea where they got this idea and i don't think there is any similar expression anywhere in the theravadin texts.</p>
 17553: <p>I don’t remember the sutta but following way can help you neutralise the lobha,dosa and moha ....<br />
Lobha can be neutralised by practising Santosh ( roughly translates into satisfaction with what you have).</p>
<p>Dosa can be neutralised by practising compassion (there are various other ways but compassion works always).</p>
<p>Moha can be neutralised by getting rid of ignorance or practising 8 fold path.</p>
<p>For dosa I can give you the link : <a href="http://subduing%20hatred" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://suttacentral.net/an5.161/en/thanissaro</a></p>
 254: <p><strong>Is there any evidence that the Buddha agreed or disagreed with these transformation targets?</strong></p>
<p>I'm not aware of that list's being explicit in a sutta reference -- not that I know all the suttas but other answers seem to think so too.</p>
<p>But still, if I <em>assume</em> that they're true and that you want my explanation of them, here's how I make sense of them given what I remember.</p>
<hr />
<p><strong>Delusion (moha) – mindfulness transforms this into Equanimity</strong></p>
<p>I think there are three poisons:</p>
<ol>
<li>Greed (associated with &quot;pleasant&quot;)</li>
<li>Aversion or hatred (associated with &quot;unpleasant&quot;)</li>
<li>Ignorance or confusion (associated with &quot;neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant&quot;)</li>
</ol>
<p>And I think it's said that the third of these is the &quot;root&quot; problem -- because people are confused about what's &quot;neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant&quot; therefore they chase after the pleasant and so on and that's samsara.</p>
<p>Whereas I think a monk learns to esteem what's neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant.</p>
<p>See also <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/25046/254">What is the difference between householder and renunciation equanimity?</a></p>
<hr />
<p><strong>Greed (lobha) – mindfulness transforms this into Faith</strong></p>
<p>This seems like the least easy to understand, maybe the least orthodox of the three statements if it is unorthodox.</p>
<p>Maybe &quot;faith&quot; is what motivates renunciation and generosity (instead of greed).</p>
<p>It's strange though because I thought that &quot;faith&quot; was a help only initially, i.e. before then seeing things truly for yourself -- because that (experience) comes with practice, and &quot;with faith&quot; may be how practice begins.</p>
<p>But then again, see the topic <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/28691/254">Reference request for &quot;the Buddha takes the Dhamma as his superior&quot;</a> -- maybe that &quot;dwelling in dependence&quot; (on the three jewels) and &quot;respecting the Dhamma&quot; is what might be described as a &quot;faith&quot;.</p>
<hr />
<p><strong>Aversion/hatred (dosa) – mindfulness transforms this into discriminating Wisdom</strong></p>
<p>That reminds me of the answers to this question -- <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/5142/254">Experiencing physical pain</a> -- including,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>According to my teacher, the enlightened attitude is to <strong>see pain as information</strong>. (For comparison, the non-enlightened attitude is to block/avoid/suppress pain by all means.) Because pain is information, we should evaluate it, see what message it carries and what it means for us, and then act.</p>
</blockquote>
 20805: <p><a href="https://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-sankappo/index_en.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Right resolve(s)</a> are the tools opposing the root causes of suffering, good householder, and conditioned by right view. And what is right resolve/striving:</p>
<ul>
<li>...Being resolved on renunciation (virāganissitaṃ), against greed: resolved on no-desiring/on turning away.<br></li>
<li>...on freedom from ill will (nirodhanissitaṃ), against aversion: resolved on non-destruction.<br></li>
<li>...on harmlessness (vossaggapariṇāmiṃ), against delusion: resolved on giving up/letting go ([wrong] stand/position).</li>
</ul>
 471: <p>From &quot;<a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Abhidhamma in Practice</a>&quot; by N.K.G. Mendis:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There are six roots. Three are kammically unwholesome (<em>akusala</em>); the
other three may be either kammically wholesome (kusala) or
indeterminate (<em>abyaa-kata</em>), depending on the type of consciousness
they arise in. The unwholesome roots are greed (<em>lobha</em>), hatred (<em>dosa</em>),
and delusion (<em>moha</em>). The three roots which are wholesome in some
cittas and indeterminate in others are greedlessness (<em>alobha</em>),
hatelessness (<em>adosa</em>), and undeludedness (<em>amoha</em>). Though these last
three roots are expressed negatively they have positive
manifestations. Greedlessness manifests as generosity and
renunciation, hatelessness as loving-kindness, and undeludedness as
wisdom or understanding.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So according to the Theravada Abhidhamma:</p>
<ul>
<li>The opposite of greed (<em>lobha</em>) is greedlessness (<em>alobha</em>), which manifests as generosity and renunciation.</li>
<li>The opposite of hatred/ aversion (<em>dosa</em>) is hatelessness (<em>adosa</em>), which manifests as loving kindness.</li>
<li>The opposite of delusion (<em>moha</em>) is undeludedness (<em>amoha</em>), which manifests as wisdom or understanding.</li>
</ul>
