Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

What is the reason for attachment ? is it to try to escape dukkha ?

do we eat to escape dealing with reality ? sleep to escape reality (reality = dukkha) ? listen to music to escape reality ?

and if its not the reason than why do we attach to things ?

Attachment arises dependent on craving. Craving arises dependent on feeling. When experiences give rise to a pleasant feeling, that is the condition for the arising of craving. When craving is present, that is the condition for the arising of attachment.

See SN 12.2

SN 12.2: Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta wrote: From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.

Pleasant things all have their allure, but they also have their drawback. See MN 13 for a discussion about the allure and drawback of various experiences.

Regarding the drawback, one of the problems with seeking happiness in pleasant experiences of the senses is that they are all inconstant. Because they are inconstant, separation will be experienced. Separation from the dear is painful. See SN 56.11

SN 56.11: Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta wrote: Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.

Thus, subduing of passion is taught to stop creating the pains associated with losing what is desired:
AN 6.63

AN 6.63: Nibbedhika Sutta wrote: The passion for his resolves is a man's sensuality,
not the beautiful sensual pleasures
found in the world.
The passion for his resolves is a man's sensuality.

The beauties remain as they are in the world,
while the wise, in this regard,
subdue their desire.

ok good posting thanks that answers my question - i forgot completely about dependent origination - guess i got some reading to do

But i guess what i should have asked is :

when i have have some work to do which i dont like or is very hard to do - i start to get hungry and sleepy and want to listen to music - and do everything to avoid it -

how is this explainable in buddhism ? what is the reason for this ?

purple planet wrote: when i have have some work to do which i dont like or is very hard to do - i start to get hungry and sleepy and want to listen to music - and do everything to avoid it -

how is this explainable in buddhism ? what is the reason for this ?

Greed, aversion, and delusion. There is delusion in not understanding the nature of cause and effect well enough to see that doing the work is more beneficial than sleeping, eating, or listening to music. There is aversion to the unpleasant experiences associated with the work. There is greed for pleasant experiences associated with hunger, sleep, and listening to music. In a normal deluded state the mind simply runs away from unpleasant experiences and towards pleasant experiences like a magnet being pulled and pushed around. Focusing more on long term consequences when making decisions and less on the short term can help overcome this tendency.

delusion is always there - so what happens is i get - high aversion - which gives rise to high greed then

purple planet wrote:how is this explainable in buddhism ? what is the reason for this ?

Unpleasant feeling gives rise to aversion, and/or gives rise to craving for something else that the mind thinks will provide a distraction from or substitute for what you're averse to.

Unpleasant feeling gives rise to aversion, and/or gives rise to craving for something else that the mind thinks will provide a distraction from or substitute for what you're averse to

strong feeling - strong aversion - strong greed

aversion always leads to greed ?

can it be seen that aversion and greed come together always? ( positive feeling - greed for more, aversion from what i got

negative feeling - aversion from now, greed for better )

purple planet wrote: aversion always leads to greed ?

They're almost the same thing. We split present experience and our concepts of future possibilities up into three categories: "things I want", "things I don't care about", and "things I don't want". Aversion is what compels action to avoid "things I don't want" in favor of "things I want" or at least "things I don't care about". Greed is what compels action to seek "things I want" over "things I don't care about" and "things I don't want".

This corresponds to the three feelings: pleasant, painful, and neither. Greed seeks the pleasant, and aversion avoids the painful.

Another way of viewing this: greed is aversion to what isn't liked, and aversion is greed for what isn't disliked.

purple planet wrote:aversion always leads to greed ?

can it be seen that aversion and greed come together always? ( positive feeling - greed for more aversion from what i got
negative feeling - aversion from now greed for a better feeling )

More or less if you think about it.

However, in a particular moment of experience, I'd say there is one or the other: one's mind can't be greedy and hating at the same time. Like if you're indulging in some sense pleasure there is the underlying tendency of greed. Or if you're in pain from some disease there is the underlying tendency to aversion. You're not being averse while you're enjoying the sense pleasure and you're not being greedy when you're being averse to the pain in that moment. However, a moment later there could be aversion to something else or greed for something else. One way or another, it's all too easy to swing from one end to the other like a pendulum.

Just contrast how you've felt when you've really wanted something and how you've felt when you've really hated someone. They're different feelings, different minds.

so every time the two rise together ( even if i might see them as one)

are they allmost the same thing or the same thing - that its just better to separate them and not treat them as one but they are the same thing - like cold is the lack of hot - and they both can be called different levels of heat

so is there some similar measurement for aversion and greed - maybe satisfaction level ?

edit :

or equanimity maybe?

- this is not a good example cause equanimity is the opposite of both greed and aversion

(hi mkoll not ignoring your posts - its just i saw it after posting - it happened only with you i think 3 times already - weird - so you think they happen one after the other?)

purple planet wrote:aversion always leads to greed ?

can it be seen that aversion and greed come together always?

They are two sides of the same coin.

would you call the coin satisfaction ?

edit :

or equanimity maybe?

- this is not a good example cause equanimity is the opposite of both greed and aversion

purple planet wrote:would you call the coin satisfaction ? or equanimity maybe?

I would call the coin delusion. It's through the delusion that the inconstant feelings associated with sensory objects are seen as worthy goals in their own right and thus that greed and aversion arise.

purple planet wrote:(hi mkoll not ignoring your posts - its just i saw it after posting - it happened only with you i think 3 times already - weird - so you think they happen one after the other?)

Yes, they're different mental states. And I cite the Satipatthana Sutta as evidence for this.

"Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu understands

the consciousness with lust, as with lust; the consciousness without lust, as without lust;

the consciousness with hate, as with hate; the consciousness without hate, as without hate

"Here, O bhikkhus, when sensuality is present, a bhikkhu knows with understanding: 'I have sensuality,' or when sensuality is not present, he knows with understanding: 'I have no sensuality.' He understands how the arising of the non-arisen sensuality comes to be; he understands how the abandoning of the arisen sensuality comes to be; and he understands how the non-arising in the future of the abandoned sensuality comes to be.

When anger is present, he knows with understanding: 'I have anger,' or when anger is not present, he knows with understanding: 'I have no anger.' He understands how the arising of the non-arisen anger comes to be; he understands how the abandoning of the arisen anger comes to be; and he understands how the non-arising in the future of the abandoned anger comes to be.

Again, when one thinks about them reflectively, they can be conceptualized or be made metaphorical, i.e. as two sides of the same coin or as feeding into each other. But the reality of experience is that they are two different mental states, as described in the Satipatthana Sutta.