When it comes to translation of Buddhist terms and ideas, I can think of an even more massive fail. I have been thinking about the word attachment in relationship to Buddhist meditation and the practice of Buddhism. I think it's just about the worst translation imaginable, and has probably turned countless people away from Buddhism. Upadana is the Sanskrit/Pali word, and I feel that the words fixation, grasping, or obsession get at the meaning much more insightfully.
Last week at the Interdependence Project, Dr. Miles Neale defined attachment as: "exaggeration of the positive qualities of the object of our mind." This was a provocative and interesting definition to contemplate.
My main problem with the word attachment is that it refers not so much to a problematic state of mind, but the state of circumstances of our life. In psychology, attachment theory is the study of human beings and their relationship structures throughout life. To be a human is to have attachments, such as family, friends, career, school, whatever. To me, the word just reminds us of our web of circumstances. To say that the cause of our suffering is our external circumstances flies in the face of everything Buddhist practice is trying to get us to realize.
Shambhala teacher Pema Chodron has done wonderful work reframing and deepening our understanding of this key Buddhist idea using the Tibetan word for upadana (dzinpa or shenpa). She introduces the concept of "getting hooked" as an experiential way to meditate on this core cause of suffering.
What do you think? Can we detach ourselves from the word "attachment?"
My main problem with the word attachment is that it refers not so much to a problematic state of mind, but the state of circumstances of our life. In psychology, attachment theory is the study of human beings and their relationship structures throughout life. To be a human is to have attachments, such as family, friends, career, school, whatever. To me, the word just reminds us of our web of circumstances. To say that the cause of our suffering is our external circumstances flies in the face of everything Buddhist practice is trying to get us to realize.
Shambhala teacher Pema Chodron has done wonderful work reframing and deepening our understanding of this key Buddhist idea using the Tibetan word for upadana (dzinpa or shenpa). She introduces the concept of "getting hooked" as an experiential way to meditate on this core cause of suffering.
What do you think? Can we detach ourselves from the word "attachment?"
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Oh, in that context I agree with you. As Joko Beck says, we don't make attachments/delusions go away - we just see them for what they are.
The relationship or circumstance in real life produced this consciousness that recognizes the self and the world that is outside the self. But that self went further and forgot how that self was generated.
holy cow, this is a good post.
Wow. I couldn't agree more that the word attachment can be more helpfully defined as fixation, grasping, or obsession. That's right on target. Especially like this definition of attachment: "exaggeration of the positive qualities of the object of our mind."
damn, that's good stuff.
thanks.
Yes I agree, because if we try to free ourselves of attachment we might resist fully being with our current human experience (which is aversion). But if we try to free ourselves of clinging, that can only be good! (ie reduce suffering)
Hi. I wrote an essay on a related topic (available through the link) and would appreciate comment from interested readers. Thank you.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.