Thanks for that information. I see how it is referring to the non-returners rather than those that had reached enlightenment. I think that is the part that was unclear. As you say if you are enlightened you cannot be reborn which is the part that threw me off based on the language.
1 Like
Quite right. You attain the jhānas regularly in this life, and then because you mind inclines to jhāna when you die, you get reborn in the correxponding realm. The same idea applies to all kinds of rebirth.
Viññāṇa is defined as that which knows (vijānāti) at MN43. The “unconscious drives, impulsed, tendencies etc.” is likely to be represented in the suttas by the anusayas, usually translated as “underlying tendencies.”
How can the un-knowable be seen?
3 Likes
The question is though if knowledge and understanding are fully conscious events - they are neither thoughts nor perceptions. As there are things ‘I don’t know I know’ they should be rooted in a sphere (viññāṇa) that is itself beyond consciousness. For example I might realize that human bodies are not attractive after all, and then realize ‘I knew that all along - it explains my conflicted relationship to the body…’[quote=“Brahmali, post:19, topic:2872”]
How can the un-knowable be seen?
[/quote]
That is tricky of course. In psychoanalysis the signifier can be carefully distilled and conceptualized - in the end they get an image of it that works more or less. E.g. ‘Identifying as a body’ → ‘a male body’ → ‘a male heterosexual body’ → … the mind must produce these tendencies. This careful conceptualization doesn’t work in the full speed of meditation - even though one could argue that these are ditthi. How I deal with it is that when a feeling / thought (i.e. meaning) arises I assume that these feelings/thoughts get their meaning not from ‘me’ but from a view/attitude that is implanted in my mind. So it has no meaning/value at all. Like: Someone left an envelope with a quest in my bedroom and when I wake up I am supposed to go after it? why?.. In the reflection afterwards I can try and distil the actual ditthis that must have been active to produce these thoughts/feelings.
Some thoughts about birth and existence, looking at the definition in SN 12.2:
“And what, bhikkhus, is birth? The birth of the various beings into the various orders of beings, their being born, descent into the womb, production, the manifestation of the aggregates, the obtaining of the sense bases. This is called birth.
“And what, bhikkhus, is existence? There are these three kinds of existence: sense-sphere existence, form-sphere existence, formless-sphere existence. This is called existence.
In English, we use birth metaphorically, we can say things like “she was born into a position of power”, “he was of noble birth”.
It could be that birth is used much more literal in Pali, like in the definition above, it involves a womb, production, getting aggregates and sense bases.
But clearly, there are ways to exist that don’t involve a womb, like the antarabhava, or the heaven realms where you spontaneously appear instead of getting there via a womb.
Another things is that according to the second noble truth (SN 56.11), you can crave for bhava - if you don’t believe in rebirth, you still very much crave to maintain your personal existence, materialists have bhavatanha too.
So it makes sense to me to translate bhava as existence.
Also, in dependent origination (SN12.1), bhava is the condition for jati. No existence, no going into wombs.
But you can have bhava without jati (in the short term, e.g. antarabhava), while any kind of jati implies bhava.
There’s also the fact that stream-winners declare the end of “the animal womb” (AN 5.179), while the arahant declares the end of bhava.
To sum it up, maybe in Pali a rebirth into a jhana realm would be bhava but not jati, but in English ‘birth’ is already broad enough to cover all cases.
1 Like
Hi Erik,
In the suttas jāti seems to refer to the appearance of a being in any realm, not just birth from a womb. Here is a description of jāti from DN15:
If, Ananda, there were no birth (jāti) at all, anywhere, of anybody or anything: of gods (deva) to the state of gods, of heavenly musicians (gandhabba) to the state of heavenly musicians, of spirits (yakkha) to the state of spirits, of ghosts (bhūta) to the state of ghosts, of humans to the state of humans, of quadrupeds to the state of quadrupeds, of birds to the state of birds, of reptiles to the state of reptiles …
Hi Ven. Brahmali,
It seems my hypothesis doesn’t hold. It makes me wonder about this bit from MN 26:
“Thus Āḷāra Kālāma, my teacher, placed me, his pupil, on an equal footing with himself and awarded me the highest honour. But it occurred to me: ‘This Dhamma does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna, but only to reappearance in the base of nothingness. Not being satisfied with that Dhamma, disappointed with it, I left.’
What is the word that’s translated as ‘reappearance’ here?
I’m wondering because the rebirth is closely associated with a meditative attainment.
On an unrelated note, if there’s someone who knows Pali and a bit of programming, it could be very helpful to run the EBTs through a natural language processor (like NLTK), then it would be easy to search through all the EBTs and see statistically what words go with bhava and what words go with jati, and if there’s any difference.
That’s what I would do if I understood Pali 
And upapatti is a standard word for rebirth in the suttas.
- Bhikkhu Varapannyo
Sir,
Here in Kolatenna Hermitage, Bandarawela we have the
first 5 volumes of Nibbāna – The Mind Stilled. If you could send
us the next books when it appears, we would be very grateful.
Sir, there is one point which is interesting for me, that is
why you translated bhava as becoming. As I understand your
sermons, you see relation between questions about Tathagata and
Dependent Arising, and you put strong emphasis on cessation of
conceit ‘I am’. And then you say that Nibbāna is cessation of
becoming. But is it so evident?
When I ask myself about myself – Am I? Am I not? – I
ask about my being. When I think about Tathāgata – Tathāgata is
or Tathāgata is not and so on – I think about Tathāgata being
(word is). Heraclitus said that there is no static being, nothing
ever is, that everything is becoming – so it’s clear that
‘becoming’ deals neither with ‘I am’ which is very static. (as long
as there is ignorance) nor with ‘is’ in four questions about
Tathāgata. So if Sir you are right translating bhava as becoming,
there is some mistake in my reasoning, but in which point?
With respect
Varapannyo Bhikkhu
Bhikkhu Varapannyo
109
Dear Āyasmā Varapannyo,
I received your letter with its Dhamma question. You
might be glad to hear that I have just finished translating the
entire series of 33 sermons on Nibbanā a few days ago. I sent the
tape recordings of sermons No. 32 & 33 to Ven. Anālayo (in
Germany) for trancribing. Hopefully by the middle of the next
year we could bring out the last two volumes of N.M.S. The
seventh & last volume will include an Index for the whole series,
compiled by Ven. Anālayo.
I shall explain the reason for the confusion between
‘being’ and ‘becoming’.
From Vedic times, the standard term for being, had been
‘SAT’ (see p.12 N.M.S. Vol. I) which gave rise to the Rg Vedic
dilemma between SAT & ASAT. As you know, the term ‘sattva’
(Skt.) or ‘satta’ (Pali) is commonly rendered as ‘a being’. The
Buddha rejected this false dichotomy by introducing the term
yathā-bhūta-ñāna based on the law of Paṭicca Samuppāda. The
term is usually rendered as ‘knowledge & vision of things asthey-
are’ but strictly speaking it means ‘knowledge & vision of
things as they have become’. ‘The-become’ is always dependent
on causes and conditions. See for instance, the long and deep
dialogue in Mahātaṇhāsaṁkhaya S. (Sutta No. 38) in M.N.
beginning with the brief question:
‘Bhūtamidanti bhikkhave passatha.’
‘Monks, do you see that this is (something) Become?’
Granted that ‘bhūta’ is ‘the-become’, ‘bhava’ obviously is
‘becoming’.
At this point it must be pointed out that there is an
ambivalence in the meaning of the term ‘bhava’ commonly
rendered in English as ‘existence’. For the pre-Buddhistic sages
and ascetics with their stance on ‘sat-asat’ dichotomy, ‘bhava’
and ‘vibhava’ stood for ‘existence’ and its antonym ‘annihilation’
on ‘non-existence’. Hence the two extreme views of eternalism
Questions & Answers on Dhamma
110
and nihilism. The Buddha transcended this dichotomy by his
teachings on ‘Anattā’. ‘Vibhava’ in the Buddhist context, is
applicable – if at all – to ‘sankhāras’ – the nature of which is to
‘rise’ and ‘fall’ (‘uppādavayadhammino’). See my comments on
the verses uttered by ven. Adhimutta Thera (p. 54ff. N.M.S. Vol.
II) with special reference to the lines: saṅkhārā vibhavissanti
tattha kā paridevanā
You can easily understand why some Western scholars
with the soul prejudice are taken aback by my rendering of
Nibbāna as ‘Extinction’ – going by the fire simile.
‘Bhavanirodha’ is cessation of becoming, by the removal of
‘taṇhā’ which is qualified by the ‘pregnant’ terms ‘ponobhavikā’
(bringing about re-becoming – certainly not re-being!)
nandirāgasahagatā (accompanied by delight and lust) and ‘tatratatrābhinandinī’
(delighting now-here-now-there). Putting an end
to ‘re-becoming’ is not tantamount to ‘annihilation’ – for there is
nothing to annihilate.
By the way, ‘asmi-māna’ is the conceit ‘AM’ (not I am)
which is the most basic postulate of individual existence – the
‘peg’ from which all the ‘measurings’ start. The Buddha equated
‘AM’ to a mere conceit which has to be eradicated (asmi māna
samugghāta) in order to attain Nibbāna.
As I have pointed out in my Nibbāna sermons the term
‘tathāgata’ had connotations of a ‘being’ to which he never
subscribed. That is why he rejected the tetralemma in toto. The
fire-simile and the whirlpool simile can sufficiently explain the
Buddha’s silence on this issue.
According to the Buddha one must not ask such questions
as: ‘Am I?’ or ‘Am I not?’ (see Sabbāsava Sutta M.N. Sutta No.
- because they are ill-founded and lead to a thicket of
speculative views. Deeper reflection on Mahātaṇhāsaṁkhaya
Sutta referred to above will clear up the issue.
Bhikkhu Varapannyo
111
I do hope by the time the last two volumes of N.M.S. are
out many of the difficulties in appreciating the dictum ‘bhava
nirodho Nibbānaṁ’ (cessation of becoming is extinction) will
disappear.
Best wishes for your progress.
With mettā
I have copied and pasted this section from the book “Questions and Answers on Dhamma” by Venerable Katukurunde Nanananda Thero. This book can be obtained from the website “seeingthroughthenet.net”.
I hope this will add some light to the discussion as to the correct translation of bhava.
With Metta
3 Likes
I am not sure if I agree with this. Ven. Ñanānanda is presumably saying that if one form of the word “to be” (in this case the past participle bhūta) means “become”, then other forms of the same root must have the same meaning. This would mean that the verbs bhavati and hoti must always be translated as “to become”, which is simply not possible. In most contexts bhavati and hoti mean “to be”. The same applies to bhava, and its meaning can therefore not be fixed by the meaning of bhūta in this way.
The word bhūta itself does not always mean “become”. In certain contexts (e.g. DN 15) it refers to a class of beings, and in this case the meaning would seem to be closer to “existence” than “become”. This shows us once again that words acquire meaning from their usage in a particular context, and that it can be misleading to derive meaning on theoretical grounds.
And why not? It seems to me that re-existence makes eminent sense in this context, whereas re-becoming verges on the incomprehensible, as Bhante Sujato has argued here.
2 Likes
I agree completely, especially with the parts where you agree with me!
And to add to this, one of the fundamental flaws in this rendering is that the base meaning of bhava, not its doctrinal meaning, but the everyday cultural meaning, is something that is seen as good. We like to live, and we want to keep on living: that’s what bhavataṇhā means. The problem is to overcome our attachment to life, to existence, to being reborn, to denying the reality of death. We’re not attached to the idea of being trapped in an endless round of pointless “becoming”. We’re attached to being who we are.
This rendering is too caught up in making a philosophical point, and loses sight of the real life issues that are at stake.
And of course, re-becoming is dis-English. The only significant use of it I can find outside of Buddhism is in satire.
1 Like
Dear Bhante Sujato and Bhante Brahmali,
Thanks for your input. In Sri Lanka we use the word “bava” quite often. It is a very common word. Only difference here is that it does not have the letter “h” like in bhava. I am sure it is a derivation from the pali word “bhava” because sinhala, the Sri Lankan language, has roots in early Asian languages like Pali and Sanskrit.
Let me use it in a sentence typically. " Mama dannawa ehema wena bava". Translated, it is like " I know it is gonna happen that way". Here, “it is gonna happen that way” is equal to “ehema wena bava”.
The point I am trying to make is this. If someone who understands say only Sinhala, will understand the term “Upadana paccaya bhava” as “because of upadana, a destination (Kama, Rupa or Arupa) will happen”. In fact this is how most Sri Lankan monks explain the term “Upadana paccaya bhava” in Sri Lanka. Here I see a similarity between “become” and “happen to be”. In line with this interpretation, I have been taught to understand bhava as “getting the stage ready for the next show ie birth”.
I hope this will help in some way.
With Metta.
3 Likes
I am glad you agree with yourself! That’s always reassuring …
Yes, that was my thought too. Ven. Ñāṇānanda is so concerned with driving home the point of non-self that he seems to forget that words often have an ordinary everyday meaning.
Dear Bhantes
I suspect the reason why Ven Nanananda opted to render bhava as “becoming” stems from his rejection of the 3-Lives model of Dependant Arising. He needs this translation in order for his thesis that dhammas are also responsible for I-making to work. If i understand him correctly, clinging only works in a subject-object dichotomy, the subjective being the imagined Self and the objective the experience. Sounds very much like the Madhyamika injunction against reification which we discussed in the SN 12.15 thread. I believe Ven N interprets that sutta’s reference to Sarvam as referring to the Buddhist Sarvam when it should be read as referring to the Upanisadic “Whole”.
In his book on dependent origination Ven. Ñānananda consistently renders bhava as “existence”. Has he had a change of heart?
Hi Bhante
Might you have an indication of the date of first publication of the book you refer to? In his “The Magic of the Mind” first published by the BPS in 1974, he renders bhava as “becoming” (p.18 of the DGMB 2007 ed).
Sadly, he also translated SN 12.15’s “sabbamatthi” as “everything exists” (at p.20), missing the connection to the Chandogya Upanisad’s “sarvaṁ” as “the Whole/Complete”. This leads to his interpretation that papañca includes not just misconceiving a Self, but that it includes misconceiving about objective part of experience (ie the aggregates etc etc). Name-&-form, in his view, is the culprit, so that once papañca ceases, the consciousness becomes anidassana.
I wonder how his career would have developed if he had had access to Text Critical studies of what anidarśana means in the Agama parallels…
The book (The Law of Dependent Arising: The Secret of Bondage and Release) was published in 2015, but it is unclear when the talks were given. However, I get the impression it was much more recently than 1974.
in his “Nibbana - The Mind Stilled” lectures he translates it as existence in isolation but as becoming in the context of paticcasamuppada
these according to the Wikipedia were given in the late 80’s - early 90’s, and translated into English some time later
I understand that the existence here is simply exposed their classification by functional groups.
It is a functional analysis of existence.
And it is perfectly correct.
An organic analysis leads us to group these three areas into individual inventory items as “modes” of existence, “stations” or “mansions” of which speaks Mahanidana Sutta.
This analysis is prior to access those possible states within consciousness to eradicate all and each attachment, and then cetana, projection, planning, motor Samsara, and thus pass state Anagami to of Paccekabhuddha. (A Arahant in these times is no longer possible in the absence of a qualified teacher (Sammasambuddha)
Entiendo que la existencia aqui expuesta no es más que su clasificación por grupos funcionales.
Es un análisis funcional de la existencia.
Y es perfectamente correcto.
Un análisis orgánico nos lleva a agrupar esas tres esferas en elementos individuales de existencias como “modos” de existencia, “estaciones” o “moradas” de las que habla el Mahanidana Sutta.
Este análisis es el previo para acceder a esos estados posibles dentro de la conciencia para erradicar en todos y cada uno de ellos el apego, y posteriormente cetana, la proyección, la planificación, el motor del Samsara, y así pasar de Anagami a Paccekabhuddha. (A Arahant en estos tiempos ya no es posible al no disponer de un maestro cualificado (sammasambuddha)
I have been unable to find the word “womb” in the Pali in SN 12.2.
The word ‘birth’ is used in many ways in the suttas, such as in SN 22.81, MN 86 & MN 140.
…assumes form to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that.
> _Angulimala, go to that woman and on arrival say to her, 'Sister, since I was born in the noble birth, I do not recall intentionally killing a living being'._
‘I am’ is a construing…a sage at peace is not born…where the currents of construing do not flow…
2 Likes