Re: bhavata.nhaa vs. ta.nhaa for bhava

Dear Jim and Dan,
bhavata.nhaa can be accompanied by di.t.thi or unaccompanied by it, whereas
vibhavata.nhaa is also accompanied by di.t.thi, this is annihilation view.
When bhavata.nhaa is accompanied by di.t.thi it is eternalism. When
unaccompanied by di.t.thi, it is clinging to the result of jhana, rebirth in
rupabrahma planes and arupa brahmaplanes. This kind of clinging is not even
eradicated by the anagami who has eradicated sensuous clinging, but only by
the arahat who has no more wish for any kind of rebirth.

op 30-06-2002 20:34 schreef onco111 op dhd5@...:

>
> Jim: ...The 'bhava' in 'bhavata.nhaa' refers to the eternalistic view
> (sassatadi.t.thi). I had to check with the commentaries for this
> explanation which goes something like this: passion/desire (raaga)
> accompanied by the eternalistic view. Di.t.thi has to be read in
> between bhava and ta.nhaa.
>
> --> Dan: If bhavata.nhaa is ditthi (which makes sense), the sotapanna
> are free from bhavata.nhaa (which also makes sense). However, this
> bhava (being) of bhavata.nhaa seems quite different from the bhava
> (becoming) of paticca-samuppada. Isn't every grasping at a sense
> object really a ta.nha for bhava (as "becoming" rather than "being")?
> This moment to moment renewal of being (i.e. becoming) arises in
> response to the craving for the process of renewal, for "becoming" --
> the monkey mind that grasps for object after object after object
> because each object turns out to be unsatisfactory.
>
> Is it fair to say that bhavata.nhaa is eradicated at stream-entry but
> ta.nhaa for bhava is not eradicated until arahantship?