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

Wonderful, Nina! Thanks for clearing this up for me. It was a little
worrisome to have to invariably read di.t.thi into bhavata.nhaa. Is
your explanation given so simply and clearly somewhere in the canon?

Dan

> 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?