Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
My understanding of upadana
Jason
God EmperorArrakis Moderator
The Buddhist concept of "clinging"
All,
I have been thinking about this subject for sometime and I figured I would share some of my thoughts with you. An article I read by Thanissaro Bhikkhu directly inspired much of this thinking: The Weight of Mountains
First, what is upadana? Upadana is the Pali word for clinging. The Suttas tells us this about clinging:
“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."
~ From the Sammaditthi Sutta: MN XIIII.34
It is also ninth on the list of paticca-samuppada (Dependent co-arising).
However, many people do not also know that upadana has another meaning. Upadana also means sustenance. This to me implies that the very act of clinging feeds our cycle of becoming.
Most people have trouble understanding this concept from a Buddhist standpoint. People often take it as meaning they should give up everything completely. All possessions, relationships, likes, dislikes, etc. must be discarded. That is not a correct understanding of this idea. 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 process itself, not throw away all of our belongings.
Clinging is when our sense of self (ego or identity if you prefer), creates the illusion of need through its craving (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 "Self" is a security blanket. The mind and body use many things effectively for this purpose.
There is rarely a moment when the mind is not clinging to this or that in one or more of the four ways. Our identity jumps from one thing to another, wherever the clinging is strongest. Our sense of self, what we really take as us, changes each and every second - and yet we like to see it as a continuous identity. It desires permanence and yet its very nature of clinging causes it to be impermanent! Change is a fact of nature (anicca). All things are in a perpetual state of change, but the problem is that our sense of self ignores this truth. The whole time, from birth to death, we still think that this "I" has remained the same. Now, we might know that some things have changed (our likes and dislikes, our age, the amount of wrinkles we have, etc.), but we still feel as if we are still us, you see? We have the illusion that our identity is “us”, and even if “it” changes we are still “us”... It really makes no sense when you think about it.
Our "Self", which is nothing more than an object of clinging, is what we take as our identity isn't it? We even cling to our names. "I" am Elohim. "I" am Jason. Nevertheless, if we hear a name that we may like better ("I" am now Derwin Pennywinkle) we will cling to that. We will get upset if someone calls us by our other name. Why is that? Clinging is why. Clinging gives rise to the sense of ownership, a sense of “mine”. Our minds are like those horrid glue traps for rats. Whatever is stuck in there becomes a part of it, even though they are truly two separate things.
All of this clinging is unhealthy for our minds. The weight of all these things that we pick up internally creates huge mountains, which we then must carry around with us. They oppress our heart, they cloud our judgment, and they cause us suffering. How much suffering you may ask? Well, upadana also means sustenance. So all of this clinging, this huge mountain which we have built over lifetimes, actually feeds the conditions for becoming and, through becoming, birth, aging, death, and the entire mass of suffering & stress.
Now we see why it is so important in Buddhist thought! It is the very food in which our cycle of becoming feeds upon! (It is not the action itself that feeds becoming mind you, but it is the process of clinging that acts as the fuel.)
Meditation, concentration, and objective contemplation of dukkha are excellent methods of practice for developing insight into this truth. Once we really begin to see the stress and danger that is hidden within the things we cling to we will become less passionate about clinging to them. We will remove their appeal and cease to be blind to our predicament. (It's the trick most magicians use isn't it? They divert your attention away from "the change" that's taking place i.e. card tricks.) The real dilemma is that if you remain infatuated with your objects of clinging you will never be able overcome them, yet the desires for pleasure and happiness are the driving force in our lives. Addictions can be full of pleasure of course, but only if those addictions are constantly sustained.
We are simply slaves to our craving, and mindfulness is our best weapon. Constant attention and awareness of these things sheds the light of wisdom into the dark corners of our minds. We can practice so as to see them in action, actually following the processes themselves. Wisdom arises through this act of awareness. It is by this objective observation that we see things not as we perceive them, but as they really are.
We are “alive” with the fires of becoming.
This knowledge is one of the tools that the Buddha is trying to give us. Ignorance is what is trapping us in our habitual patterns of birth, ageing, sickness, and death, and wisdom is what can free us from our habitual patterns of birth, ageing, sickness, and death. The fuel for this ignorance is clinging. To allow a fire to die down you must first remove its fuel. Once the fires of becoming have been calmed, they can be extinguished with much more ease.
“The All is aflame. Which All is aflame? The eye is aflame. Forms are aflame. Visual consciousness is aflame. Visual contact is aflame. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on visual contact, experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain, that too is aflame. Aflame with what? Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of delusion. Aflame, I tell you, with birth, aging, & death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs.
The ear is aflame. Sounds are aflame...
The nose is aflame. Aromas are aflame...
The tongue is aflame. Flavors are aflame...
The body is aflame. Tactile sensations are aflame...
The intellect is aflame. Ideas are aflame. Mental consciousness is aflame. Mental contact is aflame. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on mental contact, experienced as pleasure, pain or neither pleasure nor pain, that too is aflame. Aflame with what? Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of delusion. Aflame, I tell you, with birth, aging, & death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs.”
~ S XXXV.28
I hope that you have found this interesting enough to actually read.
Jason
0
Comments
Jason,
I read it!
Now I've got some questions...
So, upadana can mean craving or sustenance. But what are we feeding? Is upadana something we don't want in either respect? We don't want craving and we don't want sustenance for our craving??? And if that is the case, then how does the whole "sustenance" thing help us "become"? It sounds more like it hinders?
In any case, right now I'm thinking either upadana = bad OR craving =bad, but sustenance to "become" = good - although they both are described with the same word.
Secondly, what is wrong with the concept of "I"?
Buddha knew who he was and who he had been.
Is it wrong to have a sense of self? Because as long as we are conscience - we're going to relate to this world in the sense of I.
We are basically the sum of our experiences. While some of these experiences may cause us to create pride, boastfulness, anger, hurt, lust, greed, etc - we still are who we are and will continue to be who we are until we die.
I can understand getting rid of the sense of "self" or "ego" when it comes to the point of "what about me?" or "how dare they!" when it comes to our self image and when we think people are judging or critiquing us - and our feelings or perception of how "important" we perceive ourselves.
Maybe you could shed some light?
-bf
Upadana means clinging and sustenance.
Clinging is the sustenance for becoming.
Becoming is another way of articulating the "cycle of death and rebirth".
"What human beings perceive as reality is nothing more than artificially manufactured distinctions between things which in turn re-combine into a sense of “I” and “it/them.” From the practical standpoint of everyday living and functioning within the confines of the mundane, these constructs are absolutely necessary. As conventional designations, however, their provisional descriptions have no bearing whatsoever on Ultimate Reality. When taken for the real, they become objects of clinging and therefore fuel for rebirth. Clinging to these fabrications both fuels the cycle of becoming and gives rise to quarrels and disputations."
~ Jeffrey Dippmann on the work of Sengzhao
Conventional use of our personalities is a function of survival, as well as convenience. However, clinging to our personalities as "me" or "mine" gives continued fuel for becoming. Just as we can "feel" and yet our feelings are not "us". The sense of self ("I") is merely another mental process, or function of the mind if you will. In the Ultimate sense it is not "us". When we cling to the "I" as being "us" (seeing it as being me or mine in some way) we cling to impermanence, as well as something that is not-self. It becomes a sort of a false refuge that we delude ourselves into thinking is something stable, permanent, or a "Self". In truth it is none of these things. It is dukkha, anicca, and anatta.
There is a point when serious practice can break down our preconceived notions about "I". Consistent exposure to the truth due to objective contemplation and meditation will erode this false sense of self so that we may see just what is really there, or perhaps better put, we experience the answer to - Who am "I"?
Once we are able see this clearly we can drop our "clinging" all together.
I hope that this help.
Jason
When you were speaking of "becoming" - I was taking that as a good thing. That "becoming" was the process of "awakening".
It sounds more like "becoming" is being used in more of Hindu aspect/belief regarding the continuing cycle of rebirth and reincarnation - which at the time of Siddartha - people didn't want to come back anymore. They wanted the cycle of suffering in these "lifes" to stop.
Do I have it right?
-bf
Perhaps these can be of benefit. I especially recommend that you read the entire Maha-nidana Sutta (link provided). It is a very important and insightful outline of paticca samuppada (dependent co-arising) and anatta (not-self).
"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for birth?' one should answer, 'There is.'
"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does birth come?' one should say, 'Birth comes from becoming as its requisite condition.'
"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for becoming?' one should answer, 'There is.'
"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does becoming come?' one should say, 'Becoming comes from clinging as its requisite condition.'
- Maha-nidana Sutta: DN XV
[The Buddha:]
Over and over, the seeds all get planted;
Over and over, the rain-god sprinkles rain.
Over and over, the farmer farms the field;
Over and over, the food grows in the realm.
Over and over, beggars do their begging;
Over and over, the givers give out gifts.
Over and over, the giver who has given;
Over and over, goes to a better place.
Over and over, he tires and he struggles;
Over and over, the fool goes to the womb.
Over and over, he's born and he dies;
Over and over, they bear him to his grave.
But one who's wisdom is wide as the earth
Is not born over and over,
For he's gained the path
Of not becoming over again.
- Udaya Sutta SN VII.12
Oh, and there are major differences between how ancient Brahminism, Hinduism, and Buddhism saw these things. Brahmins for example believed in the atman, or soul, which reunites with the eternal Brahma. They often believed in things like ritual purification i.e. bathing in the Ganges which was held as sacred. The Buddha taught that purificatioin came from pure thoughts and deeds, not from cleaning the filth off of the body. Buddhism was the first known belief system which denies this "soul" and posits that what we see as a "person" is really a collection of five aggregates. Buddhism is unique in describing the human condition by its mental and physical processes and not in terms of a hidden "self". But, that is an entirely different discussion altogether! (One in which I won't dare to tread beyond what I have already mentioned. It can get awfully messy! I personally feel that I don't know enough about either Brahminism or Hinduism to do them justice.)
Jason
Thanks for the info. I will definitely read up on it this weekend.
I think one thing that may cause some confusion around here is with "n00bs" interacting with people that have a pretty broad depth of knowledge in the various suttas and such.
So, like the person that first joins a Christian church and has no knowledge of Christianity - starts hearing people talk about "communion" or someone makes mention of the "fishes and the loaves" and "eating someone's body" - they're going..."Huh? I didn't know we had to eat someone!"
I think part of my confusion is not knowing various terms (like becoming being a repeated cycle that a person does NOT want to continue in) and trying to come up to snuff.
Thanks for the time and all the info. I appreciate it.
-bf
That is a very good point. Perhaps we should start an advanced Buddhism discussion thread or something, as well as restart the old Pali/Sanskrit word thread Brian started: What language IS this?.
I truthfully have a hard time trying to explain anything without going into indepth ideas and related Suttas. I have found that the human mind is not so easily "corrected". For example, you got angry at someone and yelled at them. Later on you think, "Oh man, I was sooo mean. I'll ask my Buddhist friends how to fix that." So, you get some good advice, but that advice is hard to recall the next time you get angry. Usually, as it often does, the anger just takes over and you associate that angry state as "I am angry." You then get discouraged thinking, "Ah it didn't work! I still got angry! Buddhism sucks."
As it turns out the mind is very complicated and intricate. There are so many different aspects and processes that we overlook almost every waking moment. I have found it quite a challenge to sum up these theachings in nice, simple modern-day phrases.
Alas, I end up losing my audience. Hahahaha. Oh well, try try try again.
Jason