What is the difference between desire, attachment and clinging?

[Tomás ESP]

From the three poisons (desire, hatred and delusion) I have read different translations of the first one.

Attachment and clinging make sense to me. If I feel like I need things to go my way and they don't, then clearly there will be suffering. I do not think the same would happen with desire. In fact, from a biological perspective, I doubt one could live without desire. We wouldn't eat, walk, practice, etc. I can understand that one can transcend desire and be okay with whatever outcome occurs, but I still think that person would have a basic sense of desire.

The same as when the Buddha made a difference between the first arrow of pain and the second of suffering. I feel like desire is the first arrow, mostly unavoidable (I understand it can be lessened to a great extent) and then attachment and clinging would be the second one, which would be completely optional.

With metta.
Gassho, Tomás
Sat&LaH

(Sorry for going over 3 lines).

[Jundo]

Hi Tomas,

Although some schools of Buddhism would argue that a "Buddha" is beyond all desire and attachment whatsoever, I will say that all human beings (even a Buddha) need some desires and attachments to things in life in order to survive, such that the problem is one of degree. Is it excess desire, in which the degree of desire becomes unhealthy, an addiction, a matter of extreme disappointment and frustration when not fulfilled? Is our sense of connection and love of things and people in our life so extreme that it become clutching?

One aspect of Zen practice is that we can learn to desire lightly and in moderation, and to feel connection and love that does not reach the point of a sick clinging or imprisonment.

As well, in Zen practice, we can encounter total satisfaction and freedom from all desire AND moderate desires AT THE SAME TIME, as if experiencing life two ways at once. Likewise, one can lightly hold, love and cherish people and things in life AND be beyond any view of people or things at all AT ONCE. Thus, one experiences desire-without-desire, attachment-free-of-attachment as one.

I am not sure if my descriptions will be clear.

(apologies, needed to speak a bit long)

Gassho, J

STLah

[Tomás ESP]

Thank you for this wonderful and clear explanation Jundo. This question came to mind because the health situation of my mother is worsening and I feel a sincere desire that she suffers as least as possible and feel much love for her. And I feel like this is a healthy desire.

Gassho, Tomás
Sat&LaH

[Kyonin]

Hola de nuevo, Tomás

I guess that we humans need a little desire to get things done and to take care of ourselves. Desires and wants become a problem when we develop an obsession towards them. So I'd be mindful of that, while walking one step at a time in this life.

Gassho,

Kyonin
Sat/LAH

(¡Saludos desde México!)

[Tomás ESP]

Hola de nuevo, Tomás

I guess that we humans need a little desire to get things done and to take care of ourselves. Desires and wants become a problem when we develop an obsession towards them. So I'd be mindful of that, while walking one step at a time in this life.

Gassho,

Kyonin
Sat/LAH

(¡Saludos desde México!)

Hola Kyonin!

Thank you very much for the advice. Walking one step at a time sounds good. It is exactly what I feel doing in these personal difficult moments.

Gassho, Tomás
Sat&LaH

[Bion]

I’d say desire is when you want something to satisfy a craving and attachment is the state we put ourselves in through clinging, or a refusal to let go of the ego and its desires.

[emoji1374] SatToday lah

[Jundo]

Tomas,

More than the South Asian Buddhists who seemed to reject most desires as "the root of all suffering," the Mahayana folks (and especially the Japanese) seemed to have an earthier approach, more appreciative of life and desires, especially for lay folks outside a monastic setting. So, desire itself is not a bad thing. Sex is a perfect example. South Asian Buddhists did not seem so comfortable with sexuality, celebrating celibacy. Japanese Buddhists believe that sex is natural and fine, in its place and time. So, for example, there is a big difference between ordinary sexual desires and sexual addictions, such as watching porno morning until night as a compulsion, and running from one meaningless affair to another to fill a bottomless depression and boredom within, or engaging in violent sex. Got the difference? Have sexual desires, enjoy sex, there is a time for sex, but do not be a prisoner of sex and excess. Likewise for eating, drinking alcohol, sleeping and the like.

Attachments are similar, and in the northern Buddhist traditions it is not being "detached," numb and cold. One can have passions too, and savor life, but in their place. One sees a flower, profoundly appreciates the beauty of the flower and is so emotionally moved in that moment, then moves on. A good example would be a child in a family who is about to go off to college (like in our family): One loves the child, savors having the child in the house (both the good days and bad ), enjoys the family ... but, when the time comes for the child to leave, the parent lets go. One does not cling to the child so much that one refuses to let them walk out the door. While it is natural to grieve and miss them, one does not do so to the point of destructive depression and an inability to move on.

So, a matter of degree.

Also, one knows that unique flavor of a Buddha's Eye in which all is fulfilled, nothing is lacking, there is no place to go and nothing in need of desire. We taste this in the completion of Shikantaza. Thus, desire AND no desires TOGETHER in the same instant. Desire for things YET no things to be desired AT ONCE AS ONE.

(Sorry, ran long ... a bit attached to my words. )

Gassho, J

STLah

[Tomás ESP]

.

Gassho, Tomás
Sat

[Inshin]

From the three poisons (desire, hatred and delusion) I have read different translations of the first one.

Attachment and clinging make sense to me. If I feel like I need things to go my way and they don't, then clearly there will be suffering. I do not think the same would happen with desire. In fact, from a biological perspective, I doubt one could live without desire. We wouldn't eat, walk, practice, etc. I can understand that one can transcend desire and be okay with whatever outcome occurs, but I still think that person would have a basic sense of desire.

The same as when the Buddha made a difference between the first arrow of pain and the second of suffering. I feel like desire is the first arrow, mostly unavoidable (I understand it can be lessened to a great extent) and then attachment and clinging would be the second one, which would be completely optional.

With metta.
Gassho, Tomás
Sat&LaH

(Sorry for going over 3 lines).

What you describe seems to me more like a life force : as humans we have certain needs that need to be fulfilled for our survival. Hunger causes certain chemicals to be produced in the brain and that's how emotions form (anger in my case), and desires appear (do I want risotto or pasta). For me this is where my practice takes place : do I become rude by allowing the anger to take over and cause suffering for myself and others or do I choose to acknowledge it, let it be and let it go without engaging with it as I would have done during zazen?

Metta for your mother and yourself.
Gassho
Sat