依耽嗜 (yǐ dān shì) — literally "relying-on attachment-to-relish and abiding there." One sentence definition: a way of *abiding* in which the mind *relies upon* (依) love-attachment (耽嗜) to the objects that come through the six outer sense doors (外門境界), and stays there; it is the structural opposite of 依出離 (yǐ chūlí, "relying on renunciation/departure") and is one of the four traits that make anything count as *世間* (the "world," i.e., the conditioned, samsaric realm).
这个概念在说什么
一、关键就在那个「依」字
Most people, hearing "attachment" (執著、貪愛、沉溺), think of a single strong feeling — wanting something badly, then grabbing it. 依耽嗜 points to something more structural: it is the relying-upon that comes *before* the feeling, the basic stance the mind takes. The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra (《瑜伽師地論》, T1579) defines it in one line: *"外門境界愛著隨故，名依耽嗜"* — "Because it follows along with love-attachment to objects that come through the external doors, it is called 'relying on attachment.'" The little word 隨故 ("follows along," "tracks with") is doing heavy work here: 依耽嗜 is not the moment of craving, it is the *continuous tracking* of the mind that has made those outer objects its resting-place. The mind has set up shop there.
And it is the *flip side* of 依出離 — "relying on renunciation," the structural stance of the mind that uses sensory experience as material for letting go. The two cannot both be true of the same mind at the same time. To see why this matters: liberation is not described here as "having no cravings" but as the mind having *switched its foundation*. Once the foundation is switched, the same objects can pass through the senses without the mind relocating to them.
二、什麼算「世間」——四個條件缺一不可
The text says: *"若法有漏、有諍、有愛味、依耽嗜，如是一切名為世間"* — any dharma (thing, phenomenon, mental state) that is *tainted* (有漏), *contention-laden* (有諍), *savoring* (有愛味), and *relying on attachment* (依耽嗜) — all of these together are called "the world." 依耽嗜 is one of four pillars; take any one away and you no longer have "the world." This is why the concept is more than a feeling: it is a structural criterion for what counts as samsara.
A quick map of the four:
| Trait | What it captures | |---|---| | 有漏 *tainted* | leaking, dripping out through the sense doors; never retaining | | 有諍 *contention-laden* | generating conflict, opposition, dispute with self and other | | 有愛味 *savoring* | tasting the object with relish, enjoying it as flavor | | 依耽嗜 *relying-on attachment* | using those objects as the mind's actual dwelling-place |
The first three can already be present in a moment; the fourth is the *ongoing stance* that keeps recycling them. So if you have a flash of enjoyment but your mind does not move in to live there, you have not yet entered 依耽嗜.
三、五相：染法不是一個點，是一整個支架
The text then takes 依耽嗜 and analyzes it through five aspects — 事 / 因緣 / 自性 / 助伴 / 等起 — corresponding, in a Yogācāra analysis, to *object-matter / cause-and-condition / own-nature / companions / what arises from it*. For "依止耽嗜諸法" (the dharmas that *rely on* attachment), they are spelled out as follows:
- 事 *the object-matter*: the five appropriated aggregates (*五取蘊*) bound to the desire-realm (欲界繫). Note: it is the *full* five aggregates, not just the body — mind, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness are all included, and all are "appropriated" (取) precisely because the mind has set up residence in them. - 因緣 *cause-and-condition*: the five delightful sense-objects (五妙欲) that *feed* (*順*) desire-greed — visible forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles that draw desire forward. - 自性 *own-nature*: desire-greed (欲貪) itself, taking those objects as its condition and its object. - 助伴 *companions*: the wrong-aspiration (邪願) and desire-discernments (諸欲分別) that arise together with *unwholesome, non-reflective thought-application* (不如理作意). These are not greedy feelings alone — they are the cognitive narratives, plans, rationalizations, daydreams that ride along with greed. - 等起 *what arises from it*: the *five black categories* (五種黑品) — the suite of unwholesome results that spring up when this whole structure is running.
Each of these five has a *mirror* in the "relying on renunciation" column. 依耽嗜 is the whole architecture, not the chimney. The classical entry calls it the "structure-of-defilement" framework for that reason.
四、耽嗜、耽著、貪、欲——同一片土壤，挖出不同土層
Here is where the vocabulary gets surgically precise, and where casual readers often flatten everything into "wanting things."
The text offers a *time-based* distinction that is easy to miss. Across the time-positions of 未得 (not yet obtained), 已得 (already obtained), and the three tenses 現在 / 過去 / 未來 (present / past / future), the same energy of pulling-toward gets different names:
- 欲 (*yù*, desire): directed at the *not-yet-obtained* and the *already-obtained* — wanting to *acquire* and wanting to *enjoy*. This is the *forward-reaching* energy. - 貪 (*tān*, greed): directed at the *enjoyment* of what is already obtained — *clinging to the savor of use*. Once you have it, you grip its taste. - 耽著 (*dān zháo*, firm-clinging): *already obtained, firmly held, doing nothing else with it* — *"堅執已得，無所營為"* (firmly holding what's obtained, doing nothing further). The mind has settled into the object like a barnacle. - 耽著而住 (firmly clinging *and abiding there*): *clasping what is obtained and not letting go* — *"得已抱持而不捨"*. This is the verb-form that the entry's title 依耽嗜 directly echoes. The "abiding" (住) is part of the definition, not an add-on. - 耽嗜 (*dān shì*, attachment-relishing): broader term covering the whole complex, especially the *ongoing taste* of being so oriented. - 親昵 / 愛樂 / 耽嗜 map onto 現在 / 過去 / 未來 in the text's classification — present intimacy, past fondness, future relish.
The entry itself warns: *"耽嗜、耽著、愛味、貪嗜、染著 義近而分工不同"* — these words are near-synonyms that *divide the labor*. They are not interchangeable. So when we read 依耽嗜 in the title, we should hear the *whole time-spanning structure*: wanting what isn't here, enjoying what is here, holding what has been here. 依耽嗜 is the mind that has made all three tenses its home.
五、六處配染——同一個感官，不同的染污叫不同的名字
The six sense-bases (六處) are also paired with defilements, by the *tone* of the feeling (受) that arises through them:
- A sense-object producing *pleasant feeling* (順樂受) → the defilement paired with it is called 味 (*wèi*, savor). - Producing *painful feeling* (順苦受) → the defilement is 結 (*jié*, tie/knot) — hatred. - Producing *neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling* (不苦不樂) → the defilement is 合 (*hé*, fusion) — ignorance. - And the *present-moment* (現在) six sense-bases, when they carry *clinging-staining* (耽染), are called 執著 (*zhízhuó*, attachment).
Why this matters for 依耽嗜: the classical concept is alert to the fact that *neutral feeling* is the easiest place for clinging to hide. Pleasant feeling gets blamed because it is loud; painful feeling gets blamed because it is sharp; but the bland middle, where we drift through apps, through routines, through small talk, is where 耽染 quietly lives. The text names it 合 — *fusion*. We don't even notice we have fused with it.
六、識的妄分別、等至的愛味、四食的染著——它不是只發生在慾望的場合
Three further places the text makes 依耽嗜 explicit:
(a) Through consciousness itself. *"依耽著識，發生種種妄分別貪"* — "Relying on a firmly-clinging consciousness, all kinds of greed from false discrimination arise." In other words, the *false discriminations* (妄分別) — the narratives, projections, comparisons, schadenfreude, self-pity — are not separate from attachment. They are attachment's *cognitive output*, generated by a consciousness that has already moved in to the objects.
(b) In meditative attainments. Even in samādhi, 依耽嗜 has a name: 愛味等至 ("relishing-attachment samādhi"). It has three temporal modes: *after emerging from concentration, taking it to be pure* (出已計為清淨); *while not yet attaining, chasing it* (未得追求而生); *having attained it, currently savoring it* (已得現行愛味). Liberation-paths and worldly-meditation are not distinguished only by depth of concentration but by *whether the mind has relocated into the concentration* — the same 依/住 structure.
(c) In the four kinds of sustenance (四食). Two defilements correspond to ordinary sustenance: *focused-hope-with-joy-staining* (專注希望俱行喜染) and *the staining that arises from pleasant-contact-as-food* (隨順樂受觸食因緣多生染著). Eating, looking, listening, thinking — the staining is *built into* the way we receive sustenance, not added on afterward.
七、那棵把善苗悶死的樹樁——最極愛味心株覆事
The metaphor the entry leaves us with is sharp: 最極愛味心株覆事 — "the matter of the most-extreme-relishing heart functioning as a stump-covering." A stump in the field, if you don't pull it, covers the ground so completely that nothing beneath it can grow. *That* is what a mind structured by 依耽嗜 does to its own seeds of virtue. The problem is not that the mind feels pleasure; the problem is that the very pleasure-stance *prevents* further growth. This is why 依耽嗜 sits at the foundation-level, not the symptom-level.
生活里的走查
Let us walk through a single contemporary scene — late evening, the second hour of scrolling on the phone — and trace 依耽嗜 through it, layer by layer, *using only the classical definitions above*.
It is 11 p.m. You told yourself at 10:30 that you would stop after one more video. You are now in the third "one more."
1. The four traits of "world" are in place.
- 有漏 *tainted*: you can feel the energy leak — a faint guilt, an inability to mark where the last 90 minutes went. - 有諍 *contention-laden*: there is a tiny inner dispute running, "responsible-you vs. entertained-you," producing the low-level background friction of every compulsive session. - 有愛味 *savoring*: there is pleasure — the soft, scrolling, time-dissolving pleasure. The text names this kind of defilement 味 in the six-base mapping. - 依耽嗜 *relying-on attachment*: the *abiding* part. You have set up shop. Your awareness has moved *into* the phone-screen as its temporary home. This is the part that is harder to feel than the pleasure but more structurally important.
2. The five-aspect scaffold is fully running.
- 事 *object-matter*: it is not just your eyes. The five aggregates are all appropriated — your *feeling-tone* (受) has gone soft, your *perception* (想) has narrowed to "swipe / pause / swipe," your *volition* (行) has bent itself to "one more," your *consciousness* (識) has become a screen-monitoring consciousness. The full 欲界繫五取蘊 are in the picture. - 因緣 *cause-and-condition*: the five desirable objects are streaming in — *visible forms* (thumbnails), *sounds* (audio), even *tangibles* (the cool glass under your thumb). They are 順欲貪 — they are *feeding* the desire-greed precisely by being endless. - 自性 *own-nature*: 欲貪 itself, taking the screen as object, is running quietly. - 助伴 *companions*: the *unwholesome mental formations* are not just greedy feelings — they are the 邪願 (wrong aspiration, "I'll just watch until I find a good one and then stop") and the 諸欲分別 (desire-discernments — "this one is interesting, this person is doing better than me, this is what my life should look like"). - 等起 *what arises*: black-category consequences — broken sleep, mild shame in the morning, a slightly weaker ability to *choose* the next scroll-less evening.
3. The time-based vocabulary is also live.
- 欲 *desire* at 未得: the next post. The pull is forward, *I haven't yet seen this*. - 貪 *greed* at 已得: the post you are now watching, enjoying its savor. - 耽著 *firm-clinging* at 已得 + 現在: you are *firmly holding what's obtained, doing nothing further with it*. The text's exact phrase: *"堅執已得，無所營為"* — you are not even enjoying now; you are *sitting inside* what has been obtained. The screen has become the barnacle's rock. - 耽著而住 *firmly-clinging and abiding there*: the 住 is the part. You have *abided* in the phone. You are no longer passing through; you are living there. - 耽嗜 across the three tenses: 親昵 with the present screen, 愛樂 with the memory of last night's great video, 耽嗜 with the imagined next hit. All three times are recruited.
4. The 六處 mapping confirms where the clinging hides.
The pleasure from the screen is named 味 (savor). But more interestingly, the *neutral* feeling — the vague, no-particular-emotion drift through posts that are not even especially good — is named 合 (fusion). That is the place 依耽嗜 most easily hides in contemporary life: not in hot desire, but in the *fused-with* neutral state where you don't even feel like you are choosing. *合* means you have *fused* with the object; you and the screen have become one situation.
5. The consciousness is producing false discriminations.
*"依耽著識，發生種種妄分別貪"* — the consciousness, having moved in, is *producing* the thoughts. "I'm just decompressing." "Everyone does this." "I deserve this after today." These are not neutral observations; they are 妄分別貪 — false-discriminating-greed — generated *by* the relocated consciousness. They are the *cognitive output* of the stance.
6. Even your "tomorrow-I-will-stop" plan is 依耽嗜 in disguise.
In the three-mode analysis of meditative attainment: *未得追求而生* (not yet attained, pursuing it) plus *已得現行愛味* (currently savoring what's attained). The future-relinquishment plan is itself part of *current savoring* — it lets you enjoy the present session by promising you'll stop later. The mind has cleverly arranged *all three tenses* in service of its stance.
7. The stump-cover effect.
If you look at the next morning, you'll see the metaphor working: the evening's session doesn't just *take* time, it *covers* the seed of the thing you actually wanted to do — the book, the conversation, the sleep, the question you were half-thinking about. The *most-extreme-relishing heart functioning as a stump-covering* (最極愛味心株覆事) means the pleasure of the session is what *prevents* the next good thing from growing.
The mapping mistake that is easy to make here
The easiest mistake is to map 依耽嗜 only onto *the moment of craving* — the moment of wanting the next post. That is 欲 or 貪, a *part* of the structure. The classical definition is bigger than that. It includes the *abiding* (住) — the part where you have set up residence, the part where even neutral feeling is fused-with, the part where future plans are recruited to *sustain current savoring*. The slogan-form mistake is "I am attached because I want things." The classical form is: "I am attached because I have *relocated* to wanting-things, and am *abiding* there."
当代人为什么需要它
Three reasons this concept is worth holding for someone living now.
1. It reframes "addiction" and "compulsion" away from willpower and toward architecture.
A contemporary vocabulary treats compulsive scrolling, compulsive overworking, compulsive checking-the-ex's-social-media, as *self-control problems*. The classical lens says: it is not first a self-control problem; it is a *structural-relocation* problem. The mind has set up residence in the object. Telling such a mind to "try harder to stop" addresses the chimney, not the foundation. The actual shift the text is pointing to is the 依 — *relying on* — switching from 外門境界 (outer-door objects) to 出離 (renunciation/departure). That is a different-sized task than resisting one urge. Modern cognitive-behavioral framings often notice the *pattern* (habit loops, cue-routine-reward); the classical framing notices the *ground the pattern sits on*.
**2. It distinguishes *enjoying* from *abiding-in*.**
A lot of contemporary advice collapses these. "Don't enjoy things" is not what the text says. 愛味 (savoring) and 耽著而住 (abiding in firm-clinging) are listed as *separate* parts of the structure. The text does not praise a joyless life; it diagnoses a *relocation* — the mind has *moved in* to the savoring. Enjoyment that the mind *passes through* without relocating into is not what 依耽嗜 is about. This distinction rescues the concept from being misread as puritanism. (Caveat: this is a *structural* distinction the classical text is making; I am not claiming neuroscience has proven that this exact structure exists — the parallels with habit-architecture and reward-prediction-error encoding in dopaminergic systems are suggestive, but the correspondence is loose and the science of consciousness is genuinely unsettled.)
**3. It is named, in the four-trait schema, as a *world-defining* criterion.**
If 依耽嗜 is *one of four* things that makes any experience count as "the world" (世間), then its absence is not a small improvement — it is one of the marks of 出世間 (the "world-transcending"). For a contemporary practitioner who already accepts *some* kind of liberation-goal, this tells them that 依耽嗜 is not a peripheral vice to clean up later. It is *constitutive* of the samsaric framing. Working with it is part of what it would mean to *leave the world* — not geographically, but foundationally.
常见误读与澄清
误读 1：「依耽嗜 = 執著 = 想太多」/ "Attachment = overthinking."
No. 耽著 is *firm-holding what's obtained, doing nothing further*; it is not a thought-content but an *abiding posture* (住). And 依耽嗜 specifically includes *physical and sensory* relocation, not just mental. The five-aspect scaffold makes this clear: the *object-matter* is the full five aggregates including body, and the *conditions* are the five delightful *sense-objects* — visible forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles. Reducing 依耽嗜 to cognition misses the bodily relocation part.
误读 2：「依耽嗜 = 貪 = 慾」/ "Attachment = greed = desire" — three words for the same thing.
No — and this is one of the most carefully-drawn distinctions in the entry. 欲 operates on the *not-yet-obtained* and *acquisition*; 貪 operates on the *savor* of what's obtained; 耽著 operates on *firm-holding what's obtained without further purpose*; 耽嗜 is the broader ongoing-relish that runs through all tenses. Flattening them loses the diagnostic power. For example, in the scrolling scene: the *forward pull* to the next post is 欲; the *savor* of the current post is 貪; the *barnacle-abiding* on a post you are not even enjoying anymore is 耽著; the whole structure running across past/future tenses is 耽嗜. A therapeutic or contemplative approach will look different for each layer.
误读 3：「只要不貪就不算依耽嗜」/ "If I don't feel greedy, I'm not in 依耽嗜."
No. The six-base mapping names *neutral feeling* (不苦不樂) as the locus of 合 — *fusion* — and the *present* six sense-bases with 耽染 as 執著. 依耽嗜 runs in *neutral* feeling and in *absence of felt craving*. This is one of the most important points for a contemporary reader: most of our actual abiding-in-attachment happens in the neutral, fused state, not in the hot-greed state. The classical vocabulary was alert to this; many modern interpretations of "attachment" are not.
误读 4：「依耽嗜 只是凡夫的事，出家人就沒有了」/ "This is only a layperson's problem."
No. The text explicitly extends the diagnosis to 等至 (meditative attainment) — *relishing-attachment samādhi* — with three temporal modes including *after emerging from concentration, taking it to be pure*. Even renunciation-practitioners can have a mind that *relocates into* their concentration and treats it as dwelling-place. The *structural* point of 依耽嗜 is that it is not about the *content* of the experience (lay vs. monastic, sensory vs. meditative) but about the *posture* of the mind (does it abide in the object, or pass through it?). This is why 依出離 is *defined* as the opposite — by relocation of foundation, not by changing the menu of objects.
误读 5：「離開依耽嗜 = 不享受任何東西」/ "Leaving 依耽嗜 = enjoying nothing."
No. The text distinguishes 愛味 (savoring) from 耽著而住 (abiding in firm-clinging) as two *separate* components. Leaving 依耽嗜 is described as switching the 依 (the relying-upon, the foundation), not as deleting 愛味. A mind whose foundation is 依出離 can still encounter enjoyable objects — what changes is whether the mind *moves in* to them. This is why the text does not equate 出離 with disgust, austerity, or joylessness. It is a different-sized shift.
误读 6：「依耽嗜 是佛教對『壞習慣』的委婉說法」/ "依耽嗜 is just a polite Buddhist label for bad habits."
No, and the difference matters. "Bad habits" implies behaviors to be corrected; 依耽嗜 is a *constitutive feature of what counts as world* (世間). It is one of four pillars without which an experience *does not count as samsara*. That makes it a *structural* category, not a behavioral one. Approaching it as a habit to fix will tend to miss the architectural question: *what is the mind relying on as its resting-place?*
一句话收尾
依耽嗜 is the name the Yogācāra tradition gives to the mind that has moved in to the objects coming through the six senses and treats that sensory home as its actual foundation — and it names this *separately from* the desire, the greed, the savor, and the false discriminations that the relocated mind then generates. The corresponding move of liberation is therefore not "stop wanting" but "switch the foundation" (依出離) — let the same sensory world pass through without the mind *abiding* there. That switch is what the rest of the path is for.