Bhava doesn't mean 'becoming'

[Erika_ODonnell]

@Brahmali

@Vaddha

Those aspects which are taken up become what we are. In other words, we become them. So in truth it is not that “I grasp the aggregates,” but rather, “the aggregates are grasped, and thus I am.” This is what we really are: that which we take up. This is extremely important to the dhamma and it is expressed perfectly in upādānapaccayā bhavo.

This is interesting! There is clearly much to this. I’ll have to reflect on it a bit further and consider the relationship to upādāna-paccayā bhavo.

See also SN22.83 (SA261):

“Reverends, the venerable named Puṇṇa son of Mantāṇī was very helpful to me when I was just ordained. He gave me this advice: ‘Reverend Ānanda, the notion “I am” occurs because of grasping, not by not grasping. Grasping what? The notion “I am” occurs because of grasping form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness, not by not grasping.

Suppose there was a woman or man who was young, youthful, and fond of adornments, and they check their own reflection in a clean bright mirror or a clear bowl of water. They’d look because of grasping, not by not grasping. In the same way, the notion “I am” occurs because of grasping form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness, not by not grasping.

Here is a quote from Ven. @sujato from an earlier thread on this similie:

Having said this, I checked the commentary, and it had a slightly different take:

Upādāyāti āgamma ārabbha sandhāya paṭicca
Upādāya means relying on, resting on, supported by, depending on

The point here is not that the youth is attached to their gorgeous visage, but that they rely on the mirror to see themselves.

If this reading was adopted, it would require recasting the whole sutta (and a bunch of others that have similar wording!) Instead of:

The notion “I am” occurs because of grasping form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness

We would have:

The notion “I am” occurs in reliance on form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness

I have a pretty clear childhood memory of identifying with my inner monologue. I remember thinking something like “Wow, this is me, this is my self talking … to myself!”

Right now I think of this as upadana-ing a theory of self. I.e., part of “normal” human development is to acquire a self-theory that makes one a functional member of worldly society (capable of working 9-to-5, basically ), relying on the five khandas.

It seems to me Ven. @Brahmali you are emphasizing more the content of the self-theory. E.g., if I got into some jhanas and developed a new self-theory around them (merging with the cosmic self or something like that) that mental inclination would take me towards an existence (bhava) that corresponds to that jhana-state when i die.

But Ven. @Sunyo it seems you are arguing for not having an emphasis on the content, i.e., no acquisition of an identity in bhava? Would you put it in upadana in stead, then?