Where (which link) do fetters fitting in Dependent origination?

[DooDoot]

So perhaps fetters are fitting to the first link ignorance.

My impression is fetters are things giving rise to self-view. Therefore, it seems most fetters would be upadana, bhava +. For example:

And what is clinging? These four are clingings: sensuality clinging, view clinging, precept & practice clinging and doctrine of self clinging. This is called clinging.

Bhikkhus, there are these five lower fetters. What five? Identity view, doubt, the distorted grasp of rules and vows, sensual desire, ill will. These are the five lower fetters. This Noble Eightfold Path is to be developed for direct knowledge of these five lower fetters, for the full understanding of them, for their utter destruction, for their abandoning.”

And what is becoming? These three are becomings: sensual becoming, form becoming & formless becoming. This is called becoming.

Bhikkhus, there are these five higher fetters. What five? Lust for form, lust for the formless, conceit, restlessness, ignorance. These are the five higher fetters.

Maybe the last two fetters fit into the ignorance link.

[uojm]

The question already assumes ‘it is so’. And to either go with or against it, both fetters and DO need to be understood. This in itself opens here a can of worms, but lets try to work a little around that.

Why is a fetter a fetter? Because it fetters, it binds. And whatever things it binds (thus it is between something and something else) those things are not the bindings for else it would be impossible to separate them; it would be intrinsic. We might act out of ignorance yet we are not bonded by it, blinded not bonded (we could even be repelled instead). That binding results in renewed existence or is fed by ignorance, is thus not the same thing.

Depending on our views we may or may not have a problem with linking fetters, or ‘things that can be fettered to’, into this DO. It could be argued that this DO is a certain lesson and talks about the fetters another. In the grand scheme of things the same teaching but from a different angle. Mixing them up would then be trying to see them from a same angle.

This difference in angle, or context, makes it so that meanings can not always just be taken over transparently. Or else put, the meaning and usage of words depend on their context. On top of that in this case a particular example of DO is held in front; in the suttas there are other examples to be found of which too we would have a hard time fitting them in. Trying to do so misses the point and the (expected) benefit, of better understanding, has just been undermined.

My advise would be not to throw the different lessons on one heap, but let them be in their own contexts. Don’t try to bring in the fetters (pun).