What exactly is attachment ('upadana')? Also MN 64

Discussion
1

I was investigating the role of attachment (‘upadana’) in the Dependent Origination and an issue arose in relation to the common translations of the suttas (which include):

Katamañca bhikkhave upādānaṃ? Cattārimāni bhikkhave, upādānāni: kāmūpadānaṃ, diṭṭhūpādānaṃ, sīlabbatūpādānaṃ, attavādūpādānaṃ. Idaṃ vuccati bhikkhave upādānaṃ.

And what, bhikkhus, is clinging? There are these four kinds of clinging: clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and vows, clinging to a doctrine of self. This is called clinging.

What is attachment? There are four kinds of attachment: sensuous attachment, attachment to views,attachment to rules and rituals and attachment to the “I” concept.

And what is clinging? These four are clingings: sensuality clinging, view clinging, precept & practice clinging and doctrine of self clinging. This is called clinging.

SN 12.2

SN 12.12 is an interesting sutta since it appears to negate the view that there is a ‘self’ or “I” that experiences or creates sense contact, feelings, cravings & attachments but that ‘existence/becoming’ arises because of attachment.

MN 64 is another interesting sutta, since, based on its translation by Bhikkhu Bodhi, the five fetters (many of which are common to the four types of attachment) are described as manifesting/arising as “notions”. To quote:

For a young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘identity,’ so how could identity view arise in him? … A young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘teachings,’ so how could doubt about the teachings arise in him? …A young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘rules,’ so how could adherence to rules and observances arise in him? A young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘sensual pleasures,’ so how could sensual desire arise in him?.. A young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘beings,’ so how could ill will towards beings arise in him? Yet the underlying tendencies… lie within him.

MN 18 may also be useful here, since it states:

With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels (vedeti), one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives (sañjānāti), one thinks about (vitakketi). What one thinks about, one objectifies (papañceti).

My discussion topic is about two alternate viewpoints:

  1. Are the translations “attachment to” accurate, since these translations appear to infer that the things (sensual pleasures, views, rules & self-ideas) attached “to” arise prior to the attachment?

  2. Or, alternately, does attachment (‘upadana’) refer to both ‘taking up’ (‘grasping’) a sense object & also developing notions/ideas of sensual pleasure (e.g. ‘beauty’; ‘deliciousness’; ‘sexiness’, etc), views, rules & ‘self’?

  3. In other words, can or should terms ‘kāmūpadānaṃ’, diṭṭhūpādānaṃ’, sīlabbatūpādānaṃ’, ‘attavādūpādānaṃ’ be translated as ‘attachment as/of sensuality’, ‘attachment as/of views’, ‘attachment as/of rules’ & ‘attachment as/of self-ideas’?

:neutral_face:

The 2nd alternative using the joiner “as/of” may be similar to Thanissaro’s literal translation below:

And what is clinging? These four are clingings: sensuality clinging, view clinging, precept & practice clinging and doctrine of self clinging. This is called clinging.

1 Like
2

I don’t think the fetters are regarded as notions in that passage. All it says is that a baby has no notions of identity, teachings, rules, sensual pleasures or beings i.e. such concepts have not yet developed in him.

For an explanation of upādāna, I recommend you check out this video (and the whole series really) by Bhante Sujato:

3

[quote=“raivo, post:2, topic:3392”]
I think the fetters are not regarded as notions in that passage. [/quote]
I amended my post to hopefully make it more clear. I intended to say the fetters manifest/arise in the mind as ‘notions’ rather than the fetters themselves are ‘notions’ (rather than underlying tendencies/anusaya).

Thanks Raivo. I started this discussion/questions as a discussion. So did you find anything in the video relating to the discussion questions that was useful to share? What I found useful for the discussion was the very end about underlying tendencies (anusaya) but I am not sure this answered my queries because MN 148 appears to describe the underlying tendencies (anusaya) or fetters (samyojana) arise/manifest into the conscious citta (mind) at attachment/grasping (upadana):

When one is touched by a pleasant feeling, if one delights in it (abhinandati), welcomes it (abhivadati) and remains holding to it (ajjhosāya), then the underlying tendency to lust lies within one. When one is touched by a painful feeling, if one sorrows, grieves and laments, weeps beating one’s breast and becomes distraught, then the underlying tendency to aversion lies within one. When one is touched by a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, if one does not understand as it actually is the origination, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger and the escape in regard to that feeling, then the underlying tendency to ignorance lies within one. MN 148

4

I think you are still reading too much into it. It doesn’t say anything about the fetters being notions or manifesting as notions it just says that a baby has no notions of certain things.

But anyway to fuel (:wink:) the discussion, have a look at SN 22.120 and SN 22.121. The first one says that form, feeling, perception, volitional formations and conciousness are things that fetter and the desire and lust for them is the fetter. The second one says that form, feeling, perception, volitional formations and conciousness are things that can be clung to and the desire and lust for them is the clinging. From this it seems samyojana and upādāna are the same thing (desire and lust for something), just viewed from a different angle. And the underlying tendencies are probably just the potential for desire and lust lurking in the subconcious waiting for something to latch onto.

1 Like
5

Thanks however this appears not related to my queries (which I must admit I may have not clearly articulated, both in my post & to myself. If I could see clearly, I would not have asked the questions). I understand desire and lust is the fetter.

However, SN 22.120 and SN 22.121 may provide a useful contrast since they appear to state form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness are things clung to. Where, as the definitions of ‘upadana’ from SN 12.2; MN 9, etc, state ‘sensuality’, ‘views’, ‘rules’ (‘rock & roll’ per Bhante Sujato) & self-views are things related to grasping.

If ‘upadana’ in D.O. referred exclusively to the mental act of grasping or ‘taking up’, why would it not state grasping to eye, ear, nose, tongue, body & mind contact or grasping to form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness?

Why does it list four specific types of upadana, namely, ‘kāmūpadānaṃ’, diṭṭhūpādānaṃ’, sīlabbatūpādānaṃ’, ‘attavādūpādānaṃ’?

6

I suppose they are different ways of cutting the cake. The four types of grasping usually mentioned are probably the most important cause and condition for bhava and the continuation of samsara but in the end all we’re grasping is just form, feeling, perception, volitional formations and conciousness.

2 Likes
7

I sorted it out today. I will stick to the general translation of Thanissaro, i…e, the act of attachment includes forming perception, ideas & thoughts about sensuousness, opinions, rules & self. There is more going on than just ‘picking up’. Thus, for me, it is not attachment “to” 1. 2. 3. 4. but types of attachment.

Regards :deciduous_tree:

8

Of course there’s more going on than JUST picking up. I think the most important aspect is the need to pick up/grasp/not let go and the way that desire and lust that underlies the picking up is a fuel for further rebirth. We feel there’s more we have to do and experience in this world so we grab hold of another existence.

Since 1 and 2 are different numbers, “attachment to 1” and “attachment to 2” are two different types of attachment, or at least could be thought of as two different types of attachment, so I don’t really see what you’re getting at. Perhaps you could explain?

9

MN 38 states: “Yā vedanāsu nandī tadupādānaṃ: delight in feelings is grasping/attachment”. Thus, within attachment/grasping there appears to be also delight/indulgence (nandi).

My point is the common translation of “attachment to sensual pleasures” sounds like the attachment is separate to the ‘sensuality’. Where as, I am proposing, the concocting of sensuality (such as ideas of ‘delicious’, ‘beautiful’, ‘sexy’, ‘delightful’, etc) is itself attachment.

These ideas or constructions of ‘delicious’, ‘beautiful’, ‘sexy’, ‘delightful’, etc, seem to go beyond basic sanna (perception) and, instead, seem to enter into the sphere of sankhara & papanca (mental concocting & proliferation).

Similarly, the development of a (mundane) view & opinion is itself attachment (upadana) rather than something apart from attachment that is attached to.

Similarly, when there is craving for certain naughty behaviours not-to-be, attachment creates rules. Rules & rituals are themselves forms of attachment rather than explicitly things attached to.

Similarly, the arising of self-view is itself attachment rather than something attached to.

I was just meditating the other day seeking to ferret out the various nuances of D.O. and the impression arose that the translations of “attachment to” may not accurately represent what is occurring mentally when attachment arises. That’s it. I’m over it now. I have let it go. :slight_smile:

1 Like
10

I think you’re lumping together many other factors of DO and calling it upādāna. Of course it’s not so easy to separate the factors from each-other in the mind - it feels more like a soup or a stew with all the ingredients mixed up with each-other. To understand the process better, let’s briefly look at how a complusive habit or an addiction develops from scratch, using the factors of DO.

Contact happens for the very first time. This may come about by pure circumstance or we might seek it out because of some existing ignorance and slight craving (we’ve heard it’s good and want to try it). Because of that contact we feel a pleasant feeling. We associate the pleasant feeling with something. We start believing that something makes us happy (ignorance). That pleasant feeling changes and ceases and we feel an unpleasant feeling. We associate the unpleasant feeling with the lack of that something. We start believing that the lack of that something makes us unhappy (ignorance). We crave to experience that feeling again. We start seeking out that something and repeating the process many times, usually needing more quantity, quality or intensity to experience the same pleasant feeling, all the while increasing our ignorance and craving. At a certain point we can’t stop - we’re attached to that something and grab for and hold on to that something whenever possible. That attachment becomes something that fuels our actions, get’s us out of bed (or keeps us in bed, if we’re attached to sleeping), makes us keep on existing.

11

[quote=“raivo, post:10, topic:3392”]
Contact …we …we’ve heard … we feel…We associate the pleasant feeling… We start believing that something makes us happy (ignorance)…we feel an unpleasant feeling. … We associate the unpleasant feeling… We start believing that the lack of that something makes us unhappy (ignorance). We crave to experience that feeling again…[/quote]
The words “we” & “us” have been used so many times above, as though an ‘Atman’ (‘Unchanging Self’) is engaging in D.O. rather than is a product of D.O. The post above seems to be saying ‘the self’ creates craving rather than craving creates the idea of ‘self’. What does SN 12.12 say about this? :penguin:

12

No. I used personal pronouns to make the post more readable and relatable, not to convey some off-topic hidden message that’s contrary to the Teaching.

All I was trying to say, was that grasping/attachment/clinging needs craving, feeling, contact and ignorance (among other factors) to arise and that doesn’t mean craving, feeling, contact and ignorance are part of the factor of grasping. In other words, the concocting is a more complex process involving many other factors, not like you say:

1 Like
13

Is this suggesting SN 12.12 and all the suttas on D.O. are contrary to the Teaching? Where does the Teaching use personal pronouns to described D.O.? Does the teaching state “my ignorance is the condition for my formations”? SN 12.12 seems to deliberately negate any possibility of personal pronouns, when it states:

“Venerable sir, who feels?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “I do not say, ‘One feels.’ If I should say, ‘One feels,’ in that case this would be a valid question: ‘Venerable sir, who feels?’ But I do not speak thus. Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, ‘Venerable sir, with what as condition does feeling come to be?’ this would be a valid question. To this the valid answer is: ‘With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling as condition, craving.’”

:palm_tree:

I did not post feeling (vedana) & craving (tanha) are grasping (upadana).

The Teachings seem to describe feeling does not contain any thinking (sankhara) component, which is proabably why it is called ‘vedana’, as follows:

And why do you call it ‘feeling’? Because it feels, thus it is called ‘feeling.’ What does it feel? It feels pleasure, it feels pain, it feels neither-pleasure-nor-pain. Because it feels, it is called feeling. SN 22.79

For example, when the mind thinks: “I like this; I dislike that”, based on the suttas, this ‘liking’ & ‘disliking’ does not appear to be ‘vedana’ (‘feeling’). The ‘liking/favouring’ & ‘disliking/opposing’ appear to be thoughts born of grasping, as follows:

On seeing a form with the eye, he does not lust after it if it is pleasing; he does not dislike it if it is unpleasing. He abides with mindfulness of the body established, with an immeasurable mind, and he understands as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Having thus abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he does not delight in that feeling, welcome it or remain holding to it… MN 38

Similarly, craving (tanha) probably does not contain any thinking component. When the mind thinks: “I want” or “I don’t want”, this, to me, has gone beyond craving & into grasping.

For example, when the mind sees an attractive sexual object or the body is touched in a sexual manner, it is not explicitly (verbal) ‘thinking’ or ‘thought’ that is the sexual craving that represents the flow or drive of blood, hormones, whatever, into the sexual organs. When an addict is addicted to a drug & has craving symptoms, these craving symptoms are obviously not thoughts but more like an ‘energy’ (which the Pali calls ‘kilesa’). Or the practise of cittanupasaana (in MN 10) does not appear to involve observing ‘thinking’, otherwise it would be observing ‘distracting thoughts/vitakka’ (per MN 20). MN 10 states:

And how, monastics, does a monastic meditate by observing an aspect of the mind?

Here, a monastic clearly knows mind with lust as ‘mind with lust’. (1)

They clearly know mind without lust as ‘mind without lust’. (2)

They clearly know mind with anger as ‘mind with anger’. (3)

They clearly know mind without anger as ‘mind without anger’. (4)

They clearly know mind with delusion as ‘mind with delusion’. (5)

They clearly know mind without delusion as ‘mind without delusion’. (6)

They clearly know the contracted mind as ‘contracted mind’. (7)

They clearly know the scattered mind as ‘scattered mind’. (8)

They clearly know the mind grown great as ‘mind grown great’. (9)

They clearly know the mind not grown great as ‘mind not grown great’. (10)

They clearly know surpassed mind as ‘surpassed mind’. (11)

They clearly know unsurpassed mind as ‘unsurpassed mind’. (12)

They clearly know the mind in samādhi as ‘mind in samādhi’. (13)

They clearly know the mind not in samādhi as ‘mind not in samādhi’. (14)

They clearly know the freed mind as ‘freed mind’. (15)

They clearly know the unfreed mind as ‘unfreed mind’. (16)

MN 148 states:

The six classes of craving should be known…With contact as a requisite condition there is feeling. With feeling as a requisite condition there is craving…If anyone were to say…‘Craving is the self,’ that wouldn’t be tenable. The arising & falling away of craving are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that ‘My self arises & falls away.’ That’s why it wouldn’t be tenable if anyone were to say, ‘Craving is the self.’ … MN 148

Thus, MN 148 appears to state it is not the ‘self’ that craves but, instead, craving (tanha) that gives rise to ideas about ‘self’ (upadana). This seems to be confirmed by SN 22.81, which states about the fabrication or birth of the ‘self’ thought:

Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed…regards form as self. That regarding, bhikkhus, is a formation. That formation—what is its source, what is its origin, from what is it born and produced? When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a feeling born of ignorance-contact, craving arises: thence that [self] formation is born. SN 22.81

14

Of course not. I’m not the Buddha and I was not writing a sutta on DO but describing in my own words how a dependence on something develops, linking it to different factors of DO to hopefully show that it’s not a linear process like the links of DO. I consider non-self the most important aspect of the Buddha’s discovery and teaching, so I definitely wasn’t trying to prove that there’s a self who feels etc.

I agree with you here. But I know from personal experience that there can be thoughts like this between feeling and craving. This again is an indicator that the mind doesn’t follow the linear sequence of the links of DO exactly and the actual process in the mind is more complex.

This again seems to suggest that you believe that the mind moves from one link of DO to the next in a linear fashion. Perhaps this difference of views is the underlying reason we seem to have such a hard time communicating.

To me DO isn’t an exact model of the everyday workings of the mind, although different parts of it can be used to model different everyday processes going on in it. Above all DO describes how rebirth happens without a soul (atman) crossing from one life to the next and I also consider it to be an expanded version of the second Noble Truth. I’m not saying my interpretation is the only interpretation or the correct interpretation. Perhaps you could describe how you see it, so in the future we might understand each-other’s viewpoints better?

15

Definitely (although once DO starts, it will/can circle round. It circles around in a linear manner).

Sense-impression is the condition of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving. Feeling is the condition of craving, and craving is the condition of clinging. SN 12.12

:seedling:

My viewpoint is DO primarily describes how suffering (sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair) originates, similar to the 2nd noble truth. I have never read in the suttas the Buddha said his explicit purpose in teaching DO was to explain how rebirth happens without a soul. I have only read DO explains how ‘birth’ (jāyatī), ‘rebirth’ (uppajjati) & suffering happens.

From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering. SN 12.2

Monks, before I attained supreme Enlightenment, while I was still a Bodhisatta, the thought occurred to me: 'This world, alas, has fallen into sore distress… Surely there must be some way of release discoverable from this suffering,…‘Conditioned by ignorance are the formations, conditioned by the formations is consciousness… So there comes about the arising of this entire mass of suffering…by the ceasing of ignorance comes the ceasing of the formations… So comes about the cessation of this entire mass of suffering.’ SN 12.10

:seedling:

The logic of this eludes me since, if there was the perception of no-soul (anatta), would not D.O. end (cease; nirodha)? How can D.O. demonstrate emptiness (sunnata), when D.O. arises from ignorance & sunnata arises from enlightenment?

In respect to ‘rebirth’, my reading of D.O. is when ignorant views of ‘self’ (‘atta’) continue to arise, ‘rebirth’ will continue to happen. For me, DO describes how rebirth happens with (the view of) a soul (atman).

:seedling:

Anyway, I am satisfied with the attachment (upadana) matter. My view is the ignorant mind attaches to/grasps the six sense spheres, feelings & cravings in the forms of sensual grasping, view grasping, rules grasping &/or self-view grasping.

Thank you for your inputs. D.O. is an awesome topic for discussion. :slight_smile:

16

This, in my view, is a very pernicious view and goes against the very core of DO. Each and every link shows the inter connection between links ie conditioned by ignorance is formations etc. This itself, that specific conditionality itself, shows that there is no doer anywhere in the 12 links but just the conditionality throughout. MN.38 might help you to understand this better.
With Metta

2 Likes
17

Imo, it is very problematic accusing people of having a very pernicious view because, in the wash-up, it will either be yourself or the other that will have the very pernicious view.

I posted:

For me, DO describes how rebirth happens with (the view of) a soul (atman).

What I posted seems to conform with MN 22, which states:

And how is the bhikkhu a noble one whose banner is lowered, whose burden is lowered, who is unfettered? Here a bhikkhu has abandoned the conceit ‘I am,’ has cut it off at the root…so that it is no longer subject to future arising (‘rebirth’).

For D.O. to arise, surely there must be ‘self-view’. When ‘self-view’ ends, surely D.O. ends.

Let us refer to the suttas again, from Sutta Central:

And what is clinging? There are these four kinds of clinging: clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and vows, clinging to a doctrine of self. This is called clinging. SN 12.1

Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed … regards form as self. That regarding, bhikkhus, is a formation. That formation—what is its source, what is its origin, from what is it born and produced? When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a feeling born of ignorance-contact, craving arises: thence that (self) formation is born. Thus, bhikkhus, that (self) formation is… dependently arisen… SN 22.81

Having thus abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he does not delight in that feeling, welcome it, or remain holding to it. As he does not do so, delight in feelings ceases in him. With the cessation of his delight comes cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation of being; with the cessation of being, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering. MN 38

It seems impossible for D.O. to arise without self-view. If D.O. shows there is no ‘selfing’ anywhere, why do the suttas report the Buddha often advising to give up ‘self-view’, such as?

When he attends unwisely in this way, one of six views arises in him. The view ‘self exists for me’ …or the view ‘no self exists for me’ … ‘I perceive self with self’ …‘I perceive not-self with self’ … ‘I perceive self with not-self’ … ‘It is this self of mine that speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions; but this self of mine is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity.’ MN 2

:seedling:

Did not the 1st words of the Buddha reveal the “doer”, namely, ‘craving’ (‘tanha’):

O house-builder, you are seen! You will not build this house again. For your rafters are broken and your ridgepole shattered. My mind has reached the Unconditioned; I have attained the destruction of craving. Dhp 154

‘Ignorance’ also appears to be the ‘doer’:

Bhikkhus, ignorance is the forerunner in the entry upon unwholesome states, with shamelessness and fearlessness of wrongdoing following along. SN 45.1

:seedling:

I get the impression you are treating D.O. as some kind of holy & sacred object. To me, D.O. sounds like Mara; like Satan. D.O. is called ‘the wrong way’ in SN 12.3. Let us quote again:

“And what, bhikkhus, is the wrong way? With ignorance as condition, … formations come to be; with … formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. This, bhikkhus, is called the wrong way.

“And what, bhikkhus, is the right way? With the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of … formations; with the cessation of … formations, cessation of consciousness…. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering. This, bhikkhus, is called the right way.” SN 12.3

:seedling:

My impression is the word ‘kamma’ means ‘doing’ or ‘deed’. Are you suggesting there is no such thing as kamma & also no cause (‘doer’) of kamma? :neutral_face:

18

Hi Deeele,

I am not sure if the abandonment of self-view is sufficient for the end of D.O.

Definetely, suffering perpetuating D.O. ends with the erradication conceit (mana) and ignorance (avijja), for this is the threshold arahants cross.

1 Like
19

Is this suggesting there is a D.O. that ends at craving, i.e., without ‘birth’? There are many D.O. formulas in the suttas with different starting points (for example, some formulas begin at sense contact). However, are there any D.O. formulas that end at craving in the suttas?

For example, does the 2nd noble truth exclusively identify craving (‘tanha’) as the sole culprit?

Also, if the eradication of self-view does not end D.O., how did the five arahants come to fruition after the 2nd sermon at SN 22.59 about not-self (anatta) was spoken?

20

First of all I am sorry if I offended you or hurt your feelings in anyway. That was not my intention. In fact I used the words “In my view” to forestall such a reaction.
Having said that I will explain my position as follows.

Self view itself is pernicious and that is why we are all still in samsara. When a Buddha arises in the world he discovers the lost path and shows it to people using the DO as an illustration so that those with intelligence understands it, practice accordingly and end the journey through samsara. So DO is not something that arises because of self view but it is something that is always there as a universal truth but only a Buddha can discover it. It is the self view that arises due to lack of understanding of the DO.

Tanha is the 8th link in DO which means it is a product of ignorance.

Definitely so. It is the maker, the doer. Ignorance can only be eradicated by understanding the DO itself.

Quite frankly I do not know why it is called the wrong way. But my guess is this. DO needs to be understood in whole exactly as in SN 12.3. What is the point if someone knows only the “wrong way” and not the “right way”. Then he would be lost without a solution. So here, The Buddha goes beyond a mere explanation and shows how one should practice to cease ignorance leading to that cascading effect as shown in the “right way”.

Kamma is intention ( Chetana hum bhikkawe kamman vadami). Having intended one acts by body, word and mind. There is definitely kamma and in the final analysis there is no doer of kamma because it again boils down to conditionality.
With Metta