You seem to be assuming that the nibbana that occurs at the attainment of arahantship entails the permanent extinction of consciousness. But isn’t there a more plausible interpretation of the texts? What are extinguished permanently upon the attainment of arahantship are only the defilements, not all states of mind and consciousness. It seems to be the case according to at least some texts (the ones that employ both the four jhanas and the four formless attainments), that in order for the permanent extinction of the defilements and destruction of the asavas to occur, one must first (among other things) achieve a state in which conscious awareness ceases. But that doesn’t mean that from the point of nibbana forward, the arahant is never again conscious! The arahant returns to consciousness after having achieved release, but the defilements and asavas are gone. Clearly the Buddha and his arahant disciples were conscious after attaining the goal. They walked around talking to people, hearing things, seeing things, etc. But they were liberated.
That’s quite a claim which needs some references.
So ‘obvious’ that Ananda had to be chided by the Buddha for not understanding that it is in fact, deep and subtle.
No matter how much we try, we can’t dissect an Arahant. SN 22.86 makes it quite clear.
On the surface, the answer seems quite obvious: of course they do. But, the point here is that you think there are two distinct aspects in experience: you (as an individual) and the rest of the world. Which leads to the conclusion (again, seemingly obvious) that if you die, the rest of the world stays intact. The Buddha, on the other hand, redefines experience and the world altogether and explains that phassa is how the world arises at all.
But, all this wrangling will be endless, since it is mostly just hubris wagging its tail. The suttas have numerous instances where people come to the Buddha and say: It would be good if the Tathagata can give a brief exposition of the Dhamma. And a few sentences were enough for them to walk the Path on their own. We, on the other hand, think that it is somehow more profound to be hung up on minutiae…
Hi Sunyo,
I fully agree with you. See the detailed discussion of this term at:
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5560
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=6867&p=109444#p109444
SN12.2 , IMHO, also talks about appropriation, taking the things listed as one’s own or identifying with them.
With metta
Ādāna
आदान ādāna [act. ādā] n.
- binding on or to, fettering (AV.)
आदा [ ādā ] [ ā-√ dā ]
- "to give to one’s self " , take , accept , receive from (RV.)
- to seize , take away , carry off , rob (RV.)
- to take off or out from , separate from (RV.)
- to seize , grasp , take or catch hold of (RV.)
- to put on (clothes) (RV. - ŚvetUp.)
- to begin to speak or to recite (TāṇḍyaBr.)
- to cause one to take (ŚāṅkhŚr.)
- to be on the point of taking or carrying away from (TS.)
√ दा dā
- to give , bestow , grant , yield , impart , present , offer to (dat. , in later language also gen. or loc.) (RV.)
- “to grant a boon” (ŚBr.)
- to carry , hold , keep , preserve (RV. AV. VS.)
- to wish to give , be ready to bestow (RV.)
- to add (VarBṛS.)
आ ā
It reverses the action ; e.g. [ ā-gacchati ] , " he comes " ; [ ā-datte ] , " he takes "
उप upa
ind. with, together with, at the same time with, according to (RV. - AV. - ŚBr.)
AV. Śaunaka shakha
We bind our foemen with a bond that binds them close and holds them fast.
ādānena saṃdānenāmitrān ā dyāmasi
6.104.1a
This bond, made keen by Indra, I have formed with heat of holy zeal.
idam ādānam akaraṃ tapasendreṇa saṃśitam
6.104.2a
May Indra, girt by Maruts, make a bond to bind our enemies.
indro marutvān ādānam amitrebhyaḥ kṛṇotu naḥ
6.104.3c
Upādāna would then have the meaning of “he seizes according to (the craving/thirst [taṇhā])”. With the underlying meaning in the above strophe in the AVŚ. - namely a bond.
Someone said above that upādāna might mean “To identify with”.
But the “identification” occurs before craving (taṇhā).
He regards feeling as self … perception as self … volitional formations as self … consciousness as self (viññāṇaṃ attato samanupassati), or self as possessing consciousness (viññāṇavantaṃ vā attānaṃ), or consciousness as in self (attani vā viññāṇaṃ), or self as in consciousness (viññāṇasmiṃ vā attānaṃ).
Thus this way of regarding things and the notion “I am” (“asmī’ti”) have not vanished in him. As “I am” has not vanished, there takes place a descent of the five faculties (indriyānaṃ avakkanti hoti).
…
When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a feeling born of ignorance-contact, “I am” occurs to him; “I am this” (“ayamahamasmī’tipissa hoti”)
SN 22.47
However, “this is mine” (etaṃ mama) is really what happens in the upādāna nidāna (SN 22.8).
This is more than an identification with the “object”. It is a binding with the craving that ensues that identification. One identifies oneself with the “object” (or affect); seizes the “object”, and is bound to the craving that results.
The strong desire/thirst (taṇhā) for the “object” becomes a fetter. The “object” is bound to oneself.It becomes “mine”.
Getting out of it, entails to give up the fetter of the “mine” (upādāna) - viz. the craving bond - then the “I am” (“asmī’ti”,) and finally the " ‘this’ as my self" (attato samanupassati).
Just another view.
Thank you. Also I like to refer to the example Buddha gives in MN 140 of the tela lamp, where the wick ‘takes’ the oil/fuel.
I would very much like to see an alternate translation of this analogy this excerpt from SN 22.83:
“It is by clinging, Ānanda, that the notion ‘I am’ occurs, not without clinging. And by clinging to what does ‘I am’ occur, not without clinging? It is by clinging to form that ‘I am’ occurs, not without clinging. It is by clinging to feeling … to perception … to volitional formations … to consciousness that ‘I am’ occurs, not without clinging.
“Suppose, friend Ānanda, a young woman—or a man—youthful and fond of ornaments, would examine her own facial image in a mirror or in a bowl filled with pure, clear, clean water: she would look at it with clinging, not without clinging. So too, it is by clinging to form that ‘I am’ occurs, not without clinging. It is by clinging to feeling … to perception … to volitional formations … to consciousness that ‘I am’ occurs, not without clinging.
I never really understood this analogy, but then I saw the parallel SA 261 (excerpt):
’Ānanda, it is by clinging to states that one conceives ‘I am this’, not without clinging to states. Ānanda, by clinging to what states does one conceive ‘I am this’, not without clinging to them? Clinging to bodily form one clings to it as ‘I am this’, not without clinging to it. Clinging to feeling … perception … formations … consciousness one clings to it as ‘I am this’, not without clinging to it.
’Just as a person who holds in his hand a clear mirror or clean water in a bowl as a mirror and clings to it to see his own face, who sees because of clinging to the mirror, not without clinging to it.
’Therefore Ānanda, clinging to bodily form one clings to it conceiving it as ‘I am this’, not without clinging to it. […]
I thought the person in the Pali analogy looked at her own face ‘with clinging’, but it seems to me that the point of the analogy is that like someone would grasp a hand mirror to see their own face, the khandas are grasped in order to conceive of them ‘I am this’.
Can the Pali analogy justifiably be translated into something like:
“Suppose, friend Ānanda, a young woman—or a man—youthful and fond of ornaments, would examine her own facial image in a mirror or in a bowl filled with pure, clear, clean water: she would look at [the mirror or bowl] by grasping it, not without grasping it. So too, it is by grasping form that ‘I am’ occurs, not without grasping. […]
?
If so it would seem to really tie upadana to the act of making a self out of the khandas.
Some ppl panic at the idea of not owning anything. As if they somehow won’t exist if they don’t have possessions; and that scares them. Fear and greed seem to feed each other.
It seems that you’ve found a missing analogy (in Pāli texts) which explains what upādāna is. Great find!
Slight variation- because they like what they see, they are happy to grasp it as Self. If they didn’t like the aggregates that they saw they would want to get rid of it from the Self.
Actually, I think because we see ourselves in the aggregates, that’s why we grasp them even though they are frequently painful.
For example, someone in the habit of obsessing over perceived flaws in their appearance might spend just as much time in front of the mirror, even though they are experiencing painful feelings because of that.
Personally, the analogy hits me much deeper in the sense given in SA 261, but of course everyone’s mileages may vary here 
I think DN 15 offers som criteria for narrowing down the meaning of upādāna in the context of dependent origination (DO). Excerpt:
It was said: ‘With wanting (taṇhā) as condition there is upādāna.’ How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If there were absolutely and utterly no wanting of any kind anywhere—that is, no wanting for visible forms, wanting for sounds, wanting for smells, wanting for tastes, wanting for tangibles, or wanting for mental objects—then, in the complete absence of wanting, with the cessation of craving, would upādāna be discerned?” “Certainly not, venerable sir.”
“It was said: ‘With upādāna as condition there is existence (bhava).’ How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If there were absolutely and utterly no upādāna of any kind anywhere—that is, no kāmupādānaṃ, diṭṭhupādānaṃ, sīlabbatupādānaṃ, or attavādupādānaṃ—then, in the complete absence of upādāna, with the cessation of upādāna, would existence be discerned?” “Certainly not, venerable sir.”
Upādāna is constrained from two sides: One one hand, if you don’t want anything you don’t have upādāna. So it should be possible to deduce from a translation of upādāna that no wanting means that upādāna can’t exist.
On the other hand, no upādāna means there can’t be bhava (which I here take to mean rebirth as Ven. @sunyo suggested earlier in the thread). So it should be possible to deduce no upādāna means no rebirth from the translation.
It seems to me that in order to take a new rebirth, this new existence has to have some content, there has to be something to play around with, there has to be a source of energy to drive it. If there was no upādāna – no sense pleasures, no views, no ideas of a self – there’d be nothing to draw one into a new life. There’d be nothing to do.
I think maybe one has to resort to a combination of take up, take in, draw on and draw in to capture the aspect of appropriation but also consuming the objects of appropriation in the process.
Going back the analogies:
“Suppose, friend Ānanda, a young woman—or a man—youthful and fond of ornaments, would examine her own facial image in a mirror or in a bowl filled with pure, clear, clean water: she would look at it with clinging, not without clinging. So too, it is by clinging to form that ‘I am’ occurs, not without clinging. It is by clinging to feeling … to perception … to volitional formations … to consciousness that ‘I am’ occurs, not without clinging. [Pali]
’Just as a person who holds in his hand a clear mirror or clean water in a bowl as a mirror and clings to it to see his own face, who sees because of clinging to the mirror, not without clinging to it. [Chinese]
I think upādāya here probably means to ‘draw in’, i.e. one has to ‘draw in’ the mirror towards one’s face in order to see the reflection on it.
The “young woman—or a man—youthful and fond of ornaments” would probably bring the mirror real close to their face, maybe mirroring upa as an intensifier, making it more like ‘pulling in’ the mirror to the face.
So for example, if you don’t want anything, you don’t draw anything in (you don’t draw in any sense pleasures, views et) if you don’t draw in anything, then there’s no content to make up an existence, if there’s no existence, there’s nowhere to get born, if there’s nowhere to get born, no birth, no suffering.
Maybe, food for thought either way 
Hi Erik,
Here’s an alternate translation:
“‘It’s with possessiveness, friend Ānanda, that there is “I am,” not without possessiveness. And through possessiveness of what is there “I am,” not without possessiveness? Through possessiveness of form there is “I am,” not without possessiveness. Through possessiveness of feeling… perception… fabrications… Through possessiveness of consciousness there is “I am,” not without possessiveness.
“‘Just as if a young woman—or a man—youthful, fond of adornment, contemplating the image of her face in a mirror, pure & bright, or in a bowl of clear water, would look with possessiveness, not without possessiveness. In the same way, through possessiveness of form there is “I am,” not without possessiveness. Through possessiveness of feeling… perception… fabrications… Through possessiveness of consciousness there is “I am,” not without possessiveness.
As I see it, in the analogy of the mirror upadana is not really used in the same way it is used in dependent origination. Instead of taking rebirth, it’s about taking something to be ones self.
(Again a similar use of the verb take exists in English.)
The analogy seems to include a wordplay, and wordplays don’t usually translate very well, so I don’t think this sutta is a good one to narrow down on a translation for upadana. It does help in getting some sense for the wider meaning, though. And also this sutta to me does not indicate that that meaning is “clinging”. The wordplay is not about clinging to the mirror with the hand, but about seeing things in it with identification, with taking things to be ‘you’. That’s what I think, at least. (Admittedly, this wouldn’t make for a very beautiful English sentence but that’s not what I’m after here 
)
With kindness,
Sunyo
Bhante, a cool thing I just discovered are sites like English-Corpora: COCA, where it’s possible to look up collocations for words from how they’re used in modern language (contemporary American English in this case).
A collocation of ‘clinging’ for example, is a list of the words that show up statistically (over millions of lines of text) near the word clinging. It’s basically the company a word keeps.
If one looks up the collocations for ‘clinging’, the top five associate words are:
- still
- life
- hope
- desperately
- skin
As far as I can see from looking at the collocations and their contexts, the main concepts behind ‘clinging’ as used in contemporary American English is:
- Near death person clinging to life
- Hoping despite bad odds
- Something is physically stuck to something else
It could be useful to check with this sort of statistical analysis to get a sense of what concepts a word or phrase is connected with (based on how people use the language IRL), when trying to decide on an English word/phrase to use in translation.
Also I just though this was really cool and wanted to share 
What do you think about using the phrase “identify as” for upadana when identification is the meaning?
Per the Corpus of Contemporary American English, the phrase “identify as” is used almost exclusively in the sense of “taking something to be a part of who you are”.
Here’s what it could look like:
“‘It’s by identifying as something, friend Ānanda, that there is “I am,” not without identifying. And through identifying as what is there “I am,” not without identifying? Through identifying as form there is “I am,” not without identifying. Through identifying as feeling… perception… fabrications… Through identifying as consciousness there is “I am,” not without identifying.
“Suppose, friend Ānanda, a young woman—or a man—youthful and fond of ornaments, would examine her own facial image in a mirror or in a bowl filled with pure, clear, clean water: she would look at it, identifying as [the mirror image], not without identifying.
Yes, that works, I suppose, Erik.
In this thread I was looking for the most fundamental meaning, though.
I Googled to find the meaning of Upadana and end up here!
Why did Buddha not say Thanha Paccya Bhava?
What is the difference between Thanha and Upadana?
Say if I want to drink some water for thurst (Thanha) how it becomes a Upadana?
Thirst, the need to drink water , as is being hungry, is a physical sensation.
Craving for a certain type of drink or food is felt more in the mind, rather than in the abdomen. This is how cravings differ from real thirst or hunger. Craving asks for a special type of food or drink, while hunger or thirst doesn’t make specific requests. Mindfulness of the body, and mind is required to differentiate one from the other.
Upadana is attachment or clinging. If the feeling (vedana) is strong enough and this generates strong cravings, it can lead to becoming attached or cling to wanting this feeling repeatedly, so much so, that it might influence your next birth. If someone keeps repeatedly thinking and pining for the same sensation there is attachment there. Craving is more about wanting something in the present moment. I might crave for something once, only. Addictions would be an examples of attachment. Obsession would be attachment. Habits maybe latent tendencies (anusaya).
With metta
I posted this question in Stack Exchange as well.
Suppose there was a woman or man who was young, youthful, and fond of adornments, and they check their own reflection in a clean bright mirror or a clear bowl of water. They’d look because of grasping, not by not grasping.
Seyyathāpi, āvuso ānanda, itthī vā puriso vā daharo yuvā maṇḍanakajātiko ādāse vā parisuddhe pariyodāte acche vā udakapatte sakaṃ mukhanimittaṃ paccavekkhamāno upādāya passeyya, no anupādāya
SN22.83
@Sunyo bhante, doesn’t ‘upādāya’ in the above simile refer to the concept of ‘dependance’?
Some thing like; it’s only depending on a mirror that the youth is able to see his face not without depending on anything.
Also, in the following simile
It’s like a fire which only burns with fuel, not without fuel.
Seyyathāpi, vaccha, aggi saupādāno jalati, no anupādāno
SN44.9
‘Depending(on something) a fire burns not independently’ ? It also has the added benefit of giving an explanation for bhava. Due to there being a dependance(fuel) their is existence (of the flame in this case). Also it could provide an explanation for the following,
api ca yo tattha chandarāgo taṃ tattha upādānan”ti.
SN22.82
Something like the following;
‘the desire and greed is the dependence there’ ?
Also, I think some one showed obove that in sanskrit ‘ādāna’ can have the meaning of binding or fettering. Is it also the case with pali ?
Would love to hear your thoughts!