Some thoughts on the Buddhist concept of clinging.

It's a common misunderstanding that, in Buddhism, attachment or clinging is the cause of suffering. But the second Noble Truth actually states that the origination of suffering (dukkha) is "the craving [tahna] that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming" (SN 56.11). As Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains in Wings to Awakening:

Craving for sensuality, here, means the desire for sensual objects. Craving for becoming means the desire for the formation of states or realms of being that are not currently happening, while craving for non-becoming means the desire for the destruction or halting of any that are. "Passion and delight," here, is apparently a synonym for the "desire and passion" for the five aggregates that constitutes clinging/sustenance [III/H/ii].

Upadana is the Pali word that's generally translated as "addiction," "attachment" or "clinging," and which can also mean "the act of taking sustenance" (which is why clinging is often described as the feeding habits of the mind). In MN 9, clinging is defined as:

"And what is clinging, what is the origin of clinging, what is the cessation of clinging, what is the way leading to the cessation of clinging? There are these four kinds of clinging: clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rituals and observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self. With the arising of craving, there is the arising of clinging. With the cessation of craving, there is the cessation of clinging. The way leading to the cessation of clinging is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration."

Much like the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, who we're told in Plato's dialogue Cratylus believed that all things flow and nothing stands (401d), the Buddha observed the characteristic of impermanence that's inherent to all conditional things as well. In Buddhist philosophy, all things that are conditional, or in other words all things that arise from causes and conditions, are seen to be impermanent, subject to cessation, to dissolution. In the discourses of the Buddha that are preserved in the Pali Canon, this idea is presented in numerous ways, with the basic formula being, "Whatever is subject to arising is all subject to cessation" (SN 56.11). Everything in this world is in a state of flux, i.e., nothing in this world remains unchanged, and it's precisely because of this characteristic of existence that attachment gives rise to suffering.

To begin with, what is attachment? Attachment involves clinging to some object of sensory contact (forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations or ideas) due to of some degree of gratification and pleasure derived from that object. When pleasant feelings arise, our initial reaction is to grasp at that pleasure and cling to whatever it is that happens to give rise to such pleasant feelings. Therefore, with the presence of attachment, the object of contact along with the corresponding feeling associated with that contact becomes essential to our experience of happiness.

How, then, does attachment give rise to suffering? The Pali word dukkha, often translated as "suffering," is philosophically complex. The Buddha detailed three types of suffering, one of which is called viparinama-dukkha—the suffering that results from change. Suffering of this kind arises when either the object of contact or the pleasant feelings that arise changes in some way, whereby the gratification and happiness that's dependent upon those conditions ceases, thus giving rise to unhappiness. Hence, separation from that which makes us happy is suffering.

This particular form of suffering isn't as obvious as the suffering experienced in the form of physical pain, but it's a sense of sorrow that one experiences when the moments of happiness, moments of sensual gratification and pleasure, fail to last. Therefore, unlike the unhappiness that arises when we experience something unpleasant, the suffering that results from change arises because a particular form of gratification and pleasure that we've become accustomed to producing an emotional state of happiness fades away.

The way I see it, the human organism is a complex assortment of mental and physical processes, and since one of the underlying motivations behind our actions is the desire for happiness and pleasure, it's no wonder that the ever-changing circumstances in life are sometimes so hard for us to bear. But most people have trouble understanding the teachings on clinging from a Buddhist standpoint. People often take it to mean that they should give up everything completely—that all possessions, relationships, likes, dislikes, etc. must be discarded. That's not a correct understanding of this concept, however. How can you discard a feeling for example? Is it any more possible to get rid of your brain? Ha, imagine that! No, to truly become free of "clinging" we need to understand the mental process itself, not throw away all of our belongings.

Clinging in this context is basically when our sense of self (our ego or sense of identity if you prefer) creates the illusion of need through its craving (i.e., want or desire to the Nth degree). In the simplest of terms, clinging is our security blanket in life. Anything that comforts, protects or gives rise to a continuation of the our sense of self is a security blanket, and the mind and body use many things effectively for this purpose.

There's rarely a moment when the mind is not clinging to this or that in one or more of the four ways (MN 11). Our identity jumps from one thing to another, wherever the clinging is strongest. Our sense of self is something which is always in flux, ever-changing from moment to moment in response to various internal and external stimuli, and yet at the same time, we tend to see it as a static thing. It's as if our sense of self desires permanence, but its very nature causes it to change every second!

Change is, of course, a fact of nature. All things are in a perpetual state of change, but the problem is that our sense of self ignores this reality on a certain level. From birth to death, we have the tendency to think that this "I" remains the same. Now, we might know that some things have changed (e.g., our likes and dislikes, our age, the amount of wrinkles we have, etc.), but we still feel as if we're still "us." We have the illusion (for lack of a better word) that our identity is who we are, a static entity named [fill in the blank], and we tend to perceive this as being the same throughout our lives.

For example, we cling to our names. "I am Jason." Nevertheless, if we hear a name that we like better, a nickname perhaps, we'll cling to that. We may even get angry if someone calls us by a different name. "I'm not James, I'm Jason!" It's clinging that gives rise to this sense of ownership, this sense of "mine." With the presence of clinging, our mind is like one of those horrid glue traps for rats. Whatever gets stuck in there becomes a part of it, even though they're truly two separate things. (Just as we can "feel" and yet our feelings are not "us.")

That said, the conventional use of personality is a function of survival, as well as convenience. However, clinging to our personalities as "me" or "mine" is seen as giving continued fuel for becoming (bhava), i.e., a mental process of taking on a particular kind of identity that arises out of clinging. Our sense of self, the ephemeral "I," is merely a mental imputation — the product of what the Buddha called a process of "I-making and my-making" — and when we cling to our sense of self as being "me" or "mine" in some way, we're clinging to an impermanent representation of something that we've deluded ourselves into thinking is fixed and stable. It becomes a sort of false refuge that's none of these things.

So from a Buddhist perspective, all of this clinging is unhealthy for our mind. The weight of all these things we pick up internally creates huge burdens, burdens which we then must carry around with us. They oppress our heart, they cloud our judgment and they cause us suffering.

Conversely, meditation and contemplation are seen as excellent methods for developing insight into this mental process. From the Buddhist point of view, we're basically slaves to our craving, and mindfulness is our best weapon. Constant attention and awareness of these things is said to help shed light into the dark corners of our mind. Meditation allows us to see these mental processes in action, and once we begin to see the potential stress and danger that's hidden within the process of clinging, we become less passionate about it. We remove its appeal and cease to be blind to our predicament. Dispassion is then said to lead to relinquishment — to letting go of our craving fully — thereby ending our mental addictions and enabling us to enjoy life with a truly free heart.

At least that's what I make out of it.

It's a common misunderstanding that, in Buddhism, attachment or clinging is the cause of suffering. But the second Noble Truth actually states that the origination of suffering (dukkha) is "the craving [tahna] that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming" (SN 56.11). As Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains in Wings to Awakening:

Craving for sensuality, here, means the desire for sensual objects. Craving for becoming means the desire for the formation of states or realms of being that are not currently happening, while craving for non-becoming means the desire for the destruction or halting of any that are. "Passion and delight," here, is apparently a synonym for the "desire and passion" for the five aggregates that constitutes clinging/sustenance [III/H/ii].

Upadana is the Pali word that's generally translated as "addiction," "attachment" or "clinging," and which can also mean "the act of taking sustenance" (which is why clinging is often described as the feeding habits of the mind). In MN 9, clinging is defined as:

"And what is clinging, what is the origin of clinging, what is the cessation of clinging, what is the way leading to the cessation of clinging? There are these four kinds of clinging: clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rituals and observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self. With the arising of craving, there is the arising of clinging. With the cessation of craving, there is the cessation of clinging. The way leading to the cessation of clinging is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration."

Much like the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, who we're told in Plato's dialogue Cratylus believed that all things flow and nothing stands (401d), the Buddha observed the characteristic of impermanence that's inherent to all conditional things as well. In Buddhist philosophy, all things that are conditional, or in other words all things that arise from causes and conditions, are seen to be impermanent, subject to cessation, to dissolution. In the discourses of the Buddha that are preserved in the Pali Canon, this idea is presented in numerous ways, with the basic formula being, "Whatever is subject to arising is all subject to cessation" (SN 56.11). Everything in this world is in a state of flux, i.e., nothing in this world remains unchanged, and it's precisely because of this characteristic of existence that attachment gives rise to suffering.

To begin with, what is attachment? Attachment involves clinging to some object of sensory contact (forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations or ideas) due to of some degree of gratification and pleasure derived from that object. When pleasant feelings arise, our initial reaction is to grasp at that pleasure and cling to whatever it is that happens to give rise to such pleasant feelings. Therefore, with the presence of attachment, the object of contact along with the corresponding feeling associated with that contact becomes essential to our experience of happiness.

How, then, does attachment give rise to suffering? The Pali word dukkha, often translated as "suffering," is philosophically complex. The Buddha detailed three types of suffering, one of which is called viparinama-dukkha—the suffering that results from change. Suffering of this kind arises when either the object of contact or the pleasant feelings that arise changes in some way, whereby the gratification and happiness that's dependent upon those conditions ceases, thus giving rise to unhappiness. Hence, separation from that which makes us happy is suffering.

This particular form of suffering isn't as obvious as the suffering experienced in the form of physical pain, but it's a sense of sorrow that one experiences when the moments of happiness, moments of sensual gratification and pleasure, fail to last. Therefore, unlike the unhappiness that arises when we experience something unpleasant, the suffering that results from change arises because a particular form of gratification and pleasure that we've become accustomed to producing an emotional state of happiness fades away.

The way I see it, the human organism is a complex assortment of mental and physical processes, and since one of the underlying motivations behind our actions is the desire for happiness and pleasure, it's no wonder that the ever-changing circumstances in life are sometimes so hard for us to bear. But most people have trouble understanding the teachings on clinging from a Buddhist standpoint. People often take it to mean that they should give up everything completely—that all possessions, relationships, likes, dislikes, etc. must be discarded. That's not a correct understanding of this concept, however. How can you discard a feeling for example? Is it any more possible to get rid of your brain? Ha, imagine that! No, to truly become free of "clinging" we need to understand the mental process itself, not throw away all of our belongings.

Clinging in this context is basically when our sense of self (our ego or sense of identity if you prefer) creates the illusion of need through its craving (i.e., want or desire to the Nth degree). In the simplest of terms, clinging is our security blanket in life. Anything that comforts, protects or gives rise to a continuation of the our sense of self is a security blanket, and the mind and body use many things effectively for this purpose.

There's rarely a moment when the mind is not clinging to this or that in one or more of the four ways (MN 11). Our identity jumps from one thing to another, wherever the clinging is strongest. Our sense of self is something which is always in flux, ever-changing from moment to moment in response to various internal and external stimuli, and yet at the same time, we tend to see it as a static thing. It's as if our sense of self desires permanence, but its very nature causes it to change every second!

Change is, of course, a fact of nature. All things are in a perpetual state of change, but the problem is that our sense of self ignores this reality on a certain level. From birth to death, we have the tendency to think that this "I" remains the same. Now, we might know that some things have changed (e.g., our likes and dislikes, our age, the amount of wrinkles we have, etc.), but we still feel as if we're still "us." We have the illusion (for lack of a better word) that our identity is who we are, a static entity named [fill in the blank], and we tend to perceive this as being the same throughout our lives.

For example, we cling to our names. "I am Jason." Nevertheless, if we hear a name that we like better, a nickname perhaps, we'll cling to that. We may even get angry if someone calls us by a different name. "I'm not James, I'm Jason!" It's clinging that gives rise to this sense of ownership, this sense of "mine." With the presence of clinging, our mind is like one of those horrid glue traps for rats. Whatever gets stuck in there becomes a part of it, even though they're truly two separate things. (Just as we can "feel" and yet our feelings are not "us.")

That said, the conventional use of personality is a function of survival, as well as convenience. However, clinging to our personalities as "me" or "mine" is seen as giving continued fuel for becoming (bhava), i.e., a mental process of taking on a particular kind of identity that arises out of clinging. Our sense of self, the ephemeral "I," is merely a mental imputation — the product of what the Buddha called a process of "I-making and my-making" — and when we cling to our sense of self as being "me" or "mine" in some way, we're clinging to an impermanent representation of something that we've deluded ourselves into thinking is fixed and stable. It becomes a sort of false refuge that's none of these things.

So from a Buddhist perspective, all of this clinging is unhealthy for our mind. The weight of all these things we pick up internally creates huge burdens, burdens which we then must carry around with us. They oppress our heart, they cloud our judgment and they cause us suffering.

Conversely, meditation and contemplation are seen as excellent methods for developing insight into this mental process. From the Buddhist point of view, we're basically slaves to our craving, and mindfulness is our best weapon. Constant attention and awareness of these things is said to help shed light into the dark corners of our mind. Meditation allows us to see these mental processes in action, and once we begin to see the potential stress and danger that's hidden within the process of clinging, we become less passionate about it. We remove its appeal and cease to be blind to our predicament. Dispassion is then said to lead to relinquishment — to letting go of our craving fully — thereby ending our mental addictions and enabling us to enjoy life with a truly free heart.

At least that's what I make out of it.

A subject dear to my heart at the moment.
Thank you for sharing, thank you very much.

Holy crap, Jason!
What a fantastic post.
Thank you so much.

(Does that count as swearing?)

@Jason I can't thank you enough for your thoughts here. I want to bump this as it was such a help to me just now.

As the others have said, great insight you have shared. This helps me a great deal right now. Thank you.

Jason said:

The Buddha detailed three types of suffering, one of which is called viparinama-dukkha—the suffering that results from change.

i would suggest Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation in his new SN, which translates this as "suffering about change". suffering does not result from change unless there is attachment.

for example, now, as i type on this computer, the clouds in the sky are probably changing but this is not resulting in suffering

viparinama-dukkha means "suffering about change", i.e., when the mind obsesses about change, loss, etc

regards :)

Jason said:

This particular form of suffering isn't as obvious as the suffering experienced in the form of physical pain, but it's a sense of sorrow that one experiences when the moments of happiness, moments of sensual gratification and pleasure, fail to last.

there is a leap here from attachment (9th link of D.O.) to aging-death-sorrow-lamentation, pain, grief & despair (12th link of D.O.)

attachment itself is dukkha because the mind itself is not free. for example, we grasp a heavy weight in our hand; the hand is clenched tight and weighed down; thus strained & burdened. this burdensomeness & heaviness is dukkha

similarly, buddha taught: "the five aggregates are heavy loads when the "person" foolishly shoulders them...carrying such weights is suffering in the world...tossing away these burdens is bliss..." (Bhara Sutta)

similarly, buddha taught: "construing self" (attachment) is a disease, is a tumour, is an arrow (MN 140)

regards :)

WallyB said:

viparinama-dukkha means "suffering about change", i.e., when the mind obsesses about change, loss, etc

the Nakulapita Sutta may also be referred to. it clearly distinguishes between attachment & change. the Nakulapita Sutta advises there is change with dukkha & change without dukkha

My understanding of the suffering of change, or about change. Is that what we normally define as pleasure falls into this realm. For example, we've been on our feet all day so we sit down and feel the pleasure of taking a load off. This feeling isn't a true source of happiness though, if it were then the longer we sat the happier we'd be. What happens though is after some time the relief from the previous state is resolved and what was pleasurable before changes into suffering, we get hemmoroids or gain weight or other problems from sitting all the time. I think any pleasurable activity can be classified as change from one state to another. Boredom to excitement, hungry to full, craving to fulfilling that craving.

So idk maybe attachment plays in there somewhere, I haven't really thought it through that much but I don't think its just about attachment. Maybe without attachment to the former mind there's no craving for the latter and thus no need to fulfill that urge?

person said:

My understanding of the suffering of change, or about change.

it is best to let go of attachment to translators. it is suffering "about" change. there is no such thing in experienceable reality as suffering "of" change. when the clouds in the sky change, there is no suffering (unless we have craving for & attachment to a sunny day)

please note the 2nd characteristic called dukkha means "unsatisfactoriness". it does not mean "suffering". impermanent things possess inherent unsatisfactoriness or inability to permanently satisfy (but they are not suffering unless attached to)

if we crave for impermanent & unsatisfactory things to satisfy us permanently, there will be suffering

if we understand impermanent & unsatisfactory things cannot satisfy us permanently, there will be no suffering (or craving or attachment) in relation to inherently unsatisfactory things

regards :)

I think we're in agreement I was just stating my way of understanding the concept. To me it doesn't really matter if we call it of change or about change as long as the understanding is correct.

A vivid example of attachment as dukkha is sexual or personal possessiveness

We love a certain man or woman so possessively that each time we see them with another person we can't stand it

Separation (and sorrow) not need to occur to understand the dukkha of the mere attachment

The attachment of sexual possessiveness is a vivid example of what dukkha mere attachment can be

Regards

I disagree.
Jealousy is a fear of loss.
a fear that the object of our affection will be lost to us.
which would mean a change to our state of happiness.

All attachment is fueled by defilement. Defilement is greed, lust, love, hatred, anger, fear, jealousy, confusion, etc

However, it was interpretated above that the dukkha resulting from change manifests from the actual loss and resultant sorrow

I am suggesting to investigate the attachment itself

Thankyou OP. The 12 links describe how the whole process unfolds well I think.

person said:

if we understand impermanent & unsatisfactory things cannot satisfy us permanently, there will be no suffering (or craving or attachment) in relation to inherently unsatisfactory things

:thumbsup: same if you substitute satisfactory instead of unsatisfactory - in my mind this fits as attachment is the only part of the equation that is in our control (and manipulating it does not affect the overall balance of the equation) - thus it is the only part that truly leads to suffering in us (as it is the part that we can change to eliminate suffering)

@jason: Thanks for this post.

My understanding is : the root of all problems is the ignorance (avidya - absence of knowledge ) in the wrong belief of 'I' at the first place. If this wrong view of 'I' is removed, then all attachments and aversions automatically will be removed.

misecmisc1 said:

@jason: Thanks for this post.

My understanding is : the root of all problems is the ignorance (avidya - absence of knowledge ) in the wrong belief of 'I' at the first place. If this wrong view of 'I' is removed, then all attachments and aversions automatically will be removed.

Which is the first of the twelve links. I think that if you start to break the chain then subsquently the other links soon do not arise.

ThailandTom said:

misecmisc1 said:

@jason: Thanks for this post.

My understanding is : the root of all problems is the ignorance (avidya - absence of knowledge ) in the wrong belief of 'I' at the first place. If this wrong view of 'I' is removed, then all attachments and aversions automatically will be removed.

Which is the first of the twelve links. I think that if you start to break the chain then subsquently the other links soon do not arise.

My understanding of Buddha's teachings of DO: the beauty of DO is in the fact that if any one of the 12 factors are:
1. rightly understood in view of the 4 queries: what is, what is the origination of, what is the cessation of, what is the path leading to cessation of
2. rightly worked out : in answer of these 4 queries
3. right result is attained because of step 2 above for these 4 queries
will result into the breakdown of the complete fetter of DO.

Glad someone found this post interesting enough to read, and even helpful. :)

WallyB said:

Jason said:

The Buddha detailed three types of suffering, one of which is called viparinama-dukkha—the suffering that results from change.

i would suggest Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation in his new SN, which translates this as "suffering about change".

I think either translation is sufficient as long as the context is clear.

suffering does not result from change unless there is attachment.

Certainly, hence my statement, "Everything in this world is in a state of flux, i.e., nothing in this world remains unchanged, and it's precisely because of this characteristic of existence that attachment gives rise to suffering." No attachment, no suffering.

I was simply trying to tackle the issue from the point of view of our sense of self in order to illustrate the concept of attachment/clinging in a more experiential and less theoretical way.