Can we define craving without mentioning self?

Question

Namo Buddhaya.

According to the Mahayana Pratityasamutpadavibhanganirdesa Sutra, there are three cravings: craving for the sense-realm, craving for the form-realm, and craving for the formless-realm. But I couldn't find any definition of craving itself in the scriptures.

I am trying to understand what is craving by reading or finding the examples of craving.If you give examples of craving then you will find that craving can not be defined without mentioning self or I. For example I want ice cream , I am good , I am bad, I am good because of this, I am bad because of this, I love music, I want to watch movies, I want to travel etc...

Therefore it seems to me that non-understanding of anatta is at the root of craving. In other words if I declare the aggregates as worthless then then there will be revulsion and dispassion which is nothing but the end of craving. Further I can say that practice of anatta directly leads to cessation of craving.

I have two questions in this regard:

1. Can we define craving without mentioning self?

2. Is it true that practice of anatta directly leads to cessation of craving?

Answer 1

When the thought arises: "I want ice cream", the "want" is fueled by craving (tanha) but the arising of the idea of "I" is attachment (upadana) and becoming (bhava) rather than craving (tanha). The Mahayana sutra you are studying says:

There are four attachments: attachment to sense pleasures, attachment to views, attachment to virtue and practice, attachment to self-theories.

The Pali suttas distinguish between craving and becoming, as follows:

The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving to be, craving not to be: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One.

MN 44

For self-identification or suffering to arise, craving alone is not enough. As described in MN 44, above, for self-identification or suffering to arise, the craving must lead to new becoming (bhava). The idea of 'I' or 'I exist' is becoming.

Here, suttas such as SN 12.12 and MN 148 clearly explain the idea of "I" arises after the arising of craving and that there can be craving without the idea of "I". Therefore, craving can be defined without mentioning self, as follows:

Venerable sir, who craves?

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “I do not say, ‘One craves.’ Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, ‘Venerable sir, with what as condition does craving come to be?’ this would be a valid question. To this the valid answer is: ‘With feeling as condition, craving comes to be; with craving as condition, clinging; with clinging as condition, becoming…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.’

SN 12.12

It follows the non-understanding of anatta is not at the root of craving; even though the realisation of anatta, together with the realisation of impermanence (anicca) & unsatisfactoriness (dukkha), will end craving.

If the mind realises the aggregates as 'worthless' (as described in SN 22.95) there will certainly be revulsion and dispassion which is nothing but the end of craving. However the realisation of the aggregates as "worthless" is not 'anatta'. It is 'unsatisfactoriness' ('dukkha'). In other words, ideas of "I" could still possibly arise even though the aggregates are declared as worthless (asāra).

Answer 2

An example is there in the paticca-samuppada itself.

Vedana Paccaya Tanha

Feeling gives rise to craving. So in reality there's no "I like icecream".

It should be

• liking arises due to taste
• liking arises due to sight
• liking arises due to sound etc.

There's no practicing Anatta. You practice mindfulness and the Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta natures are revealed. Practicing the noble eightfold path leads to the cutting off of craving and cessation of suffering. Mindfulness is a part of the noble eightfold path.