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

Dear Nina,

Thank-you for your detailed response. I will have to delay a full reply
until after I study in detail the references you refer to once I'm back home
and have access to my library again which won't be long now as I could be
leaving Toronto as early as tomorrow. Before Dan raised the subject of
bhavata.nhaa I hardly knew anything about it other than that it meant
something like 'craving for existence'. What I had come up with was only
just a beginning and there certainly needs to be more investigating,
reviewing, and sorting out. I will get back to you later on this.

Best wishes,
Jim

> Dear Jim,
> Thank you very much for the interesting texts. It seems that there are
> contradictions, but usually this is because different items are stressed.
> There is no end to a study like this, I find. I looked at the Dispeller of
> Delusion, and then bhavatanha is accompanied by ditthi.
> I looked at Expositor II, p. 471, and p. 475. On p. 471, it seems all
kinds
> of tanha are enumerated,first kaama, and then bhava: for existence rupa
and
> arupa, and then, craving for non-existence annihilism. On p. 475, under
> asavas, again they are separately enumerated: Passionate desire for life
in
> a heaven of attenuated matter, and of immaterial exisyence, longing for
> jhaana, lust coexistent with an eternalistic view are called the
intoxicant
> of rebirth, as being desire applied to rebirth. As far as I understand,
> these are asavas with the eight lobha-muulacittas, including the clinging
to
> rupajhaana and arupajhaana and their results, not necessarily with wrong
> view.
> Again, I looked at Co to Diighanikaaya, Sa.ngiitisutta, the Threes p. 988.
> First  is explained about bhavata.nhaa accompanied by ditthi.Then about
two
> other bhavata.nhaa: ruupaaruupa-bhavesu chanda-raago itaraa dve ta.nhaa.
> ..He then explains why it is taught differently in the Abh, but I find the
> text here complicated:In the Abh. the three kinds of tanha are taught as
> included in kaamadhaatu, ruupa-dhaatu and aruupadhaatu. It is asked: why
has
> it been taught thus?   Sabbe pi te-bhuumaka dhamma (Also all dhammas of
the
> three planes) rajaniiy' a.t.thena ta.nhaa-vatthukaa ti, sabbe ta.nhaa
> kaama-ta.nhaaya pariyaadiyitvaa (having controlled) tato
niiharitvaa(deduced
> therefrom) itaraa dve ta.nhaa daassesi.  And at the end he names these two
> again and in addition he says: uccheda-di.t.thi-sahagato raago
> nirodha-ta.nhaa, this for non-rebirth, nirodha. The word itaro dve I find
> significant, two other kinds. And with these two kinds he adds
chanda-raago,
> which may represent clinging without di.t.thi. Why otherwise is he saying
> this? The sentence in between about all tanha based on the three planes I
> find difficult. I shall be grateful if you can help, I am keen on knowing
> this.
> When I think of the papa~ncas, proliferations: one can cling without or
with
> ditthi, or with conceit, I do not see why one cannot cling to jhaana or
its
> result without di.t.thi. Lobha clings to everything, except lokuttara
> dhammas. As you mention, when we consider the fetters that are eradicated
at
> the stage of arahatship, only then all kinds of clinging to birth are
> eradicated. The sotapanna knows that he has seven rebirths at most, he
knows
> this is because of conditions. Why could he not cling to rebirth in a
ruupa
> plane? But no self who is reborn. Or he may have conceit about his
> attainment of jhaana.
> With appreciation,
> Nina.


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com