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

Dear Jim and Nina,
It's tough to keep up with all your excellent comments. Thanks for
sharing your insights. I'm going to try to close out my participation
in the threads in the next couple of days because I am going on
vacation to Montana with my family in two weeks (yes, I'll bring
Warder, but I doubt there will be much time to look at it --
vacations are always so busy!), and I have a lot of work to get done
before then.

Jim: It's not correct to say that bhavata.nhaa is di.t.thi. It is
better to say that it is ta.nhaa accompanied by bhavadi.t.thi
(eternity view). I'm aware that bhavata.nhaa is often translated as
craving for existence which is quite different from the former.

--> Dan: I stand corrected. I'm a bit wary, though, about concluding
that "craving for existence" differs from ta.nhaa accompanied by
bhavadi.t.thi. I see them as the same...

Yes, there may be craving for some other object with bhavadi.t.thi
arising with the craving. But then isn't bhavadi.t.thi the view that
there is some 'thing' doing the craving, some 'thing' that the craved
object is supposed to gratify? Then, the craving is really for a
perpetuated gratification of this 'thing', which seems a lot
like "craving for existence."

O.K. I can see how it takes a bit of work to maintain that they are
the same thing. They could just be different words pointing to the
same idea (albeit pointing in somewhat different ways). Can one arise
without the other? I'd have to say "no," but with two caveats. First,
I am saying "craving for existence" and "ta.nhaa accompanied by
bhavadi.t.thi" must arise together (because they point to the same
thing), but "craving for becoming" (or "craving for rebirth") is
different from "craving for existence". The "craving for existence"
is craving for gratification of a some being (i.e. it is craving
accompanied by view), while "craving for rebirth" is craving for
gratification (period). The latter need not be accompanied by
di.t.thi, while the former must. Both are "bhavata.nhaa"? And we need
to deduce from the context which is meant? I think this is what Nina
is pointing out. Second, this is speculation (obviously).

.........
Nina: 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.
--> Dan: This is great, Nina. Your explanation makes more sense to me
when I think of it in the context of the moment-to-moment death and
rebirth (paticca-sammupada with sankharo instead of -a, etc.). There
can still be craving for the cycle even when there is no craving for
any being to do the cycling.

___________________________________
Nina: Meanwhile, I looked again and something may be clearer: Sabbe
pi te-bhuumaka dhamma (Also all dhammas of the three planes)
rajaniiy' a.t.thena ta.nhaa-vatthukaa ti, are bases of craving
because they are delightful

"sabbe ta.nhaa kaama-ta.nhaaya pariyaadiyitvaa tato niiharitvaa
itaraa dve ta.nhaa daassesi." --having eliminated all craving with
regard to sensuous clinging, he teaches two other kinds of craving
after having deduced them therefrom.

--> Dan: Right. How can there be craving for cycling when there is no
craving for a cycler? The constant seeking for gratification
continues. We try so many things, and all turn out to be
unsatisfactory. The most delightful are more difficult to see as
unsatisfactory, and the clinging is thus more persistent.

Dan