At the risk of being overly simplistic, it seems that Mahayana traditions have dedicated their intellectual efforts to developing the idea of **Emptiness (śūnyatā)**, starting from Nagarjuna, through Dogen, and extending to the modern Kyoto School. - As you might notice, these examples are biased towards the Japanese branch, which I'm personally more interested in, but other examples also exist, of course. I was trying to locate medieval or modern Mahayanic systematic discussions of **Upādāna** and **Taṇhā**. I was hoping that these ideas were discussed and interpreted in light of the emptiness idea. However, it seems that they have lost intellectual focus. - If it's indicative of anything, the Wikipedia page for Upādāna says the Japanese is "shu", and the one for Taṇhā says the Japanese is "katsu ai". But I couldn't find any meaningful results using these terms in the context of Buddhism. Are there any notable examples of systemaic discussions of Upādāna and Taṇhā in Mahayana Buddhism (particularly within Japanese traditions)?

How does craving (taṇhā) manifest with respect to neutral feelings? In Dependent Origination (or dependent co-arising, however you'd like to call it), it is said that Craving (taṇhā) follows on the heels of Feeling (vedanā). Feeling, in general, is of 3 main types: pleasant, unpleasant, neutral. I do see how craving/aversion manifests with respect to both pleasant and unpleasant feeling. But how does it relate to neutral feeling? How is it that I either lust after or try to avoid something that is truly neutral?

From craving, there arises clinging, then from clinging, there arises existence or becoming, and then from becoming, we get the birth of the self-identity or self-habit. But how does craving really cause self-identity or self-habit? How are they connected? Does self-identity or self-habit arise out of a collection of likes and dislikes? How is that so?

I've heard that patience has a big place in Buddhism. It is especially very important for monks. I can think two ways of patience. 1. When we get angry, we have to have patience to avoid bad consequences. 2. Most of practises in buddhism don't give us a result immediately. So we have to have patience to see a result. (Delayed gratification) What are the teachings of the Buddha about patience ? I can think of case 1. But I want to know about case 2. If a person is unable to delay gratification (not only in Buddhist practises), does it means that the person has excessive clinging? (Is it a characteristic of that kind of person ?)

In essence, the concepts of - eight worldly winds - tanha - upadana seem to describe the same phenomena. Is there a specific reason that they are described separately?

Let's say a person has a craving to eat a slice of cheesecake. This is obviously a sensual craving (*kama tanha*). The mental defilement (*kilesa*) to get a slice of cheesecake and eat it, is greed (*lobha*). However, eating a slice of cheesecake (that was not stolen) does not break any of the five precepts . It also does not violate Right Speech , Right Action and Right Livelihood , to the best of my understanding. Questions: 1. Are there any karmic consequences from the harmless consumption of a slice of cheesecake? And why? 2. Should lay people forcibly suppress all their cravings (which includes the craving to eat a slice of cheesecake) or only those that violate the five precepts, Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood? And why? 3. Should monks forcibly suppress all their cravings (which includes the craving to eat a slice of cheesecake) or only those that violate the five precepts, Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood? And why? 4. For questions #2 and/or #3 above, if your answer was "no" to forcibly suppressing all cravings, then I guess entertaining and fulfilling such a craving (to eat a slice of cheesecake) is ok. Is that so? 5. Are there any negative consequences with respect to forced suppression of all cravings (including harmless ones)?

The above mentioned technical terms are respectively translated as Craving for Becoming (something) & Craving for Non-Becoming/Getting Rid Off. Above said, how do we know that we're in Craving for Becoming (or not) whenever we're cultivating good? One of the limbs of the N8P, that is, 'bhavana', is about active cultivation. Where is the difference between the two? Similarly, if we do virtuous acts and reflect on those acts regularly, the perception of a 'virtuous person' increases as well, doesn't it? This too, then, is Bhava Tanha? Now with Vibhava Tanha: Suppose I am overweight and must lose weight immeditately; is the 'getting rid' of my body fat then considered vibhava tanha and at the same time 'bhava tanha' (becoming a skinny person)? Finally, when do we exactly know whether something is bhava tanha or kusala chanda? Is it primarily our motivation, i.e., in this case, for whom we're losing weight/what motivation causes us to lose weight, or is it something that we can't avoid at all, since 'identity birth(s)' ('I am this', 'I am not this') exists in everyone except in a fully enlightened being.

For most people it's not readily discernible why sense pleasures are unsatisfactory. In general, a lot of people know intellectually that sense pleasures are impermanent, and that virtuous thinking & acting is what makes life fulfilling. Craving as a feeling, on the other hand, when investigated, is stressful because it disturbs the stillness of the mind. Okay, enough of rambling: From a Dhammic point of view the maxim "a little of what you fancy does you good" therefore doesn't hold true, does it? Since craving of any sort cannot permanently be ceased by means of giving into it (actually it usually grows stronger), one is advised to change one's attitudes towards it and, as best as one can, abstains from it. Am I comprehending this correctly? Thanks

What is the difference between Tanha and Upadana? Why Buddha did not say Tanha Paccaya Bhava (instead of Upadana Paccaya Bhava)? And there are three kinds of Tanha in Sutta (Kama, Bhava, Vibhava): please explain how these three link to Upadana? --- I read the topic https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/17746/254 but that does not answer my question -- I want answers which specifically discuss this in line with three categories of Tanha with Upadana in Dependent Origination. Please give me a practical answer than a technical answer which are found in many places.

Below, it says that "craving" is the habit of reifying things, resulting in the notion that we need ever-increasingly more things to live happily. How could craving (tanha) be the habit of reification (papanca)? How does it link? From Piya Tan's commentary of Cetana Sutta (SN 12.38-40) : > What is interesting here is Mahā Cunda’s statement (from MN 144 ) > that rebirth and suffering are rooted in "emotional dependence" > (*nissita*), which the Majjhima Commentary explains as arising on > account of craving and view (MA 5:83). **"Craving" is the habit of > reifying people, things and ideas, resulting in the notion that we > need "more and more" to live happily;** "view" is the delusion that > sustains and moves craving, and its necessary opposite, hate.

I have a lot of trouble dealing with rebirth, mostly because of my previous "skeptic" past. However, buddhism has helped me a lot to open my mind and to get detached from any point of view that might be incompatible with the wisdom shown by the practice of the Dhamma. This aperture to new perspectives has made me reconsider the possibility of rebirth. Thus, my question. From the point of view of paticcasamuppada, ignorance and craving are prerequisites for rebecoming. But why would the universe and its underlying mechanisms and laws care about our ignorance, intentions and desires? Isn't this a kind of anthopocentric view? Why does uprooting ignorance and craving stop the rebirth process?

Is there will power & endurance required in order to renounce worldy pleasures? I am particularly speaking of those people who did not experience (profound) meditative bliss à la sukha or various jhanic states yet. Regards

Further to [these comments](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3545/if-theres-nobody-to-get-enlightened-why-bother/3550?noredirect=1#comment29427_3550) , why do the Noble Truths talk about 'craving', specifically, instead of about 'attachment'? Wouldn't they make as much sense, or even make more sense, if they identified attachment rather than craving as a condition for the types of suffering which are mentioned in the first noble truth?

Sorry for the phrase 'not giving a f*ck'. I was thinking about using the word anger. But that doesn't cover what I am about to write. Last weekend I noticed some strong internal movements. I was soo tired of seeking/craving/desiring brought forth by some imagined future goals and self, that a voice in my mind awoke that crushed every motion that was doing this seeking/craving/desiring. E.g. 'Shall I make a coffee', was responded to by 'I do not need to feel happy. F#ck happiness I am tired of this all'. The same with a hot shower. The "aahh... this is nice" moment of a hot shower that I used to have was not allowed by this voice. So the shower was ice cold. And more of this, no cookies anymore, f*ck the nice taste of chocolate, fat and sugar. I do not need it. There was a lot of hate and anger involved. Not towards people or the world around me, but directed to a part of my self. I knew this was not equanimity. This could not last. Though there were moments where there was no craving, nor the presence of the voice that crushed them. And in these moments, although very briefly, I experienced a level of detachment and freedom I have never experienced before. And it was full of joy. Although the joy was quickly picked up by the craving crushing voice, which seemed to be afraid of any joy. While it should only target the (sensual pleasing) joy, like sugar, coffee, chocolate, etc, you get the point. I felt like I woke up, literally. No coffee anymore wakes the mind up to produce activity that induces wakefulness, because there is no other way. No eating just for pleasure drove me towards sports to feel content. No hot shower, but just an ice cold one, to get the job of washing myself done, woke by body up intensely, etc. With everything newly learned, I see sort of a sinus wave moment, where there is almost all the time under- and overshoot. And with time, it stabilizes to an equilibrium because learning is involved. Although the craving crushing voice is tiring me as well, it has a positive effect. **The question** I can't find any literature on this process. I can imagine that the process to reach the cessation of Taṇhā is quiet similar among people. In other words, the not giving a f*ck attitude is probably experienced by a lot of people before Taṇhā ceased. Is there any literature that zooms in on this? And with zoomed in I mean, not the noble eightfold path that covers a whole lot. But specifically this attitude?

This is from the Bhikkhuni Sutta AN 4.159 "Taṇhā sambhuto ayaṃ bhagini kāyo, taṇhaṃ nissāya taṇhā pahātabbā" "'This body, Sister, comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' (Translation from Access To Insight) Now this tanha, is it a kaama tanha, bhava tanha, vibhava tanha, any of them, or something other than them? This is more of an academic question so, please answer when time permits. Thank you in advance. With metta.

If one of the goals to becoming enlightened is to lose all craving, desire or Tanha how is one to do that without the craving, desire or tanha to do just that. In other words, is wanting to eradicate all craving and desires a craving or desire itself?

From my perspective, the two biggest obstacles to to perfect understanding of Dharma is the apparent contradictions between "Tanha" and "Right Aspiration" and Anatta vs Buddha's condemnation of nihilism (SN 1.96: “The nihilist…goes to terrible hell…from darkness to darkness”) and his teachings on rebirth. Tanha, "thirst" (desire) is given as the primary cause of Dukkha and yet "right Aspiration" (basically desire) is part of the 8 fold path. Clearly Buddha did not condemn "desire" if you define it as wanting something you don't have. So what distinguishes between the two? Anatta doctrine held by some Buddhist, that there ultimately is no-soul or self and nothing really "exists" but is empty of inherent existence and therefore insubstantial and suffering is basically nihilist. This contradicts Buddha's teaching on rebirth and Nirvana (the unborn, unmade, unconditioned etc. makes liberation from the born, made, conditioned possible). No matter how you want to spin it, if your position is that the soul does not exists and there is no self outside of conditioned existence, then you are doomed to the grave and there is zero possibility for enlightenment or liberation from Samsara because how can an "illusion" that doesn't exists be "enlightened" or "saved"? The only option for a mind made illusion is to simply cease to exist once the causes that create the illusion (the body 5 kandas etc.) dies. You just fade to black, no karma, no rebirth, no Nirvana, no enlightenment no nothing. How do you resolve this seeming contradiction?

Is wishing for a pain to go away an instance of aversion(Dosa) or an instance of craving(Lobha)? Or both working in tandem? ex: leg pain while doing sitting meditation. Aversion is obvious, if the pain becomes unpleasant. But there is also the wanting for it to disappear(Vibhava Tanha ) or the desire for the non painful state. An Abhidhamma answer would be much appreciated.