I have a typo here:
It should say ‘vedanāpaccayā tanhā’. Should be obvious but I wanted to make sure that was cleared up.
Mettā!
Hey @Kaccayana,
Seems like it’s just you and me now. 
I’m happy I didn’t put you off with my clumsy communications last time. So first you deserve an apology:
That’s a good point, thanks. Reading back, I can understand why you would feel that way. It was a bit rash. But just to clarify, I did not intend to say I was getting bored of explaining things to you, like you paraphrased. Instead, I said if I would reply further, “then the discussion gets very boring”, meaning my reply would be boring to you and others (or so I believed) because it would get into nitty gritty with no direct connection to bhava. That’s why I said my reply was already getting boring. In a way I had compassion. I did not want us to go into a long-winded discussion which was quite tangential. Anyway, it’s totally my fault that we got into this meta discussion, which is even more boring! 
So, sorry! Point well taken. I’m happy you’re giving me a chance to redeem myself. So let me try to do that now.
Yes. I’m a bit perplexed by this “present phenomenon”, and I wasn’t aware of it. I was using Bodhi’s, which has “knowledge of the principle”, and considering the Pali, where the word is just dhamma, I would have never thought of translating it “present phenomenon”. Directly included in this “present phenomena” are the origination and cessation of the twelve factors too, it seems: “When, bhikkhus, a noble disciple thus understands aging-and-death, its origin, its cessation, and the way leading to its cessation, this is his knowledge of the principle.” Now, the cessation of the six senses, for example, and that of bhava as well, occurs in the future, not at the moment one has this insight. So his knowledge is not of a present phenomenon, at least not in the ordinary way. Perhaps it is a present phenomenon in another sense, like the knowledge occurs in the present, as you suggest now. But that seems different from what you suggested before.
Either way, the inference to the past and future seem quite clearly to refer to others having the same knowledge. I think that also comes out a bit better in Bodhi’s translation.
We’re all liable to misread. But, no, the Buddha says that thing about “visible in this life” with reference to the before, not what comes after. The line “it was with reference to this that it has been said” is standard at a conclusion of a certain explanation, not at the start. (Cf. AN8.30, AN4.159, for example.) You can see that here also from the context. The line starts with “good, bhikkhus”. It is the conclusion on the exchange about personal knowledge:
[…] "Knowing and seeing in this way, would you speak thus: ‘The Recluse says this, and we speak thus at the bidding of the Recluse’?”
"No, venerable sir.”
"Knowing and seeing in this way, would you acknowledge another teacher?”
"No, venerable sir.”
"Knowing and seeing in this way, would you return to the observances, tumultuous debates, and auspicious signs of ordinary recluses and brahmins, taking them as the core of the holy life?”
"No, venerable sir.”
"Do you speak only of what you have known, seen, and understood for yourselves?”
"Yes, venerable sir.”
"Good, bhikkhus. So you have been guided by me with this Dhamma, which is visible here and now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, onward leading, to be experienced by the wise for themselves. For it was with reference to this [i.e. with reference to the above answers] that it has been said: ‘Bhikkhus, this Dhamma is visible here and now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, onward leading, to be experienced by the wise for themselves.’
This is actually a great explanation of what “visible in this life” and “personally experienceable by the wise” and so on are about—namely, that you can actually see the Dhamma for yourself in this life, that you don’t need to take it on faith or wait for an afterlife to see whether the Buddha was right or not. Which is unlike most other religions of “ordinary recluses and brahmins”. The “reference to this” doesn’t refer to the following passage. (Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation also includes some useful section titles for suttas such as this, where the topic of discussion tends to shift.)
Of course, an implication is that we can understand the principles of DA in this life, but it doesn’t mean we need to see every factor play out right here. The point is, for example, that we can understand “in this life” that craving results in rebirth, without having to have that process happen now. Or, more importantly, that we can know that suffering will cease without having to “attain” parinibbāna right now. The final cessation of the six senses, for example, is not “visible in this life” in the sense that you can see it right now. It is “visible in this life” in the sense that you can understand it before it happens.
Anyway, when I was a bit short in my last post, this is the kind of discussion I hoped to avoid. Because it’s not about bhava anymore. 
So about bhava. You don’t infer future bhava from current bhava, as you suggested. You infer it from craving and upādāna—that’s the point of the dependency of these factors.
Your ideas are becoming clearer, but maybe you can understand why I got confused. I found some ideas hard to reconcile. For example, I read the following two quotes:
Which both seemed to say bhava is ‘I am’ (i.e. a sense of self). But then I also read this:
Or I read this:
Which seems to say some type of conceit or delusion is inherently present in bhava. But I also read:
Which implies the arahant still has bhava.
An arahant’s bhava, if they are human, is a human bhava, so in that sense their bhava has the same “relevance” as other human bhavas—namely, that it is dukkha. What is also relevant is that bhava only ceases after the arahant’s passing away. (Iti44) So to understand the cessation of bhava in Dependent Arising, and therefore DA itself, we need to include the arahant’s bhava as well. That this cessation happens at death also implies that the origination of bhava refers to the same point in time, i.e. to what happens around death. It’s the same principle as the cessation of consciousness happening at parinibbāna, and its origination—its establishing—happening at rebirth (as I think we agreed), not in this life.
Of course I do. But I’m talking about the fundamental meaning of the word bhava itself. This kind of question moves us from semantics into the subjective. Anyway, how we experience bhava, the experience of it, is already explained by the factors of nāmarūpa, consciousness, the six senses, contact, and feeling. And the defilements, including the sense of self, already in ignorance, volitional acts, craving, and taking up. Sure, experience is part of existence. But the term bhava means something more objective than that. I said a couple times before that it is used as a countable noun, as in “craving for bhavaS”. Also, like, having “an eight bhava” doesn’t mean “an eight experience of existence” or whatever. So to return to the texts, in the suttas we never see phrases like “experiencing a bhava”, as far as I know. We instead have phrases like “rebirth in a bhava”.
There is a difference between the basic meaning of a word and all that that word implies. The Buddha didn’t describe everything in the highest epistemological terms all the time. He spoke the language of the common people. The way he uses bhava elsewhere suggests he didn’t invent the term or redefined it. (Except, perhaps that he included the three realms in it, which may have been a new idea to some people of the time.) It’s just like birth and death simply mean birth and death, and with these terms themselves the Buddha had no special implications beyond those of the ordinary people.
You also return often to sakkāya also, which is a different word altogether. Even if I would agree with all you are saying about it, it still doesn’t tell us much about what bhava means. (Still, I’d like to restate that like Ven. Bodhi I don’t think sakkāya (always) means ‘identity’ or ‘identification’ in the way you explain it, which is why I didn’t go into parts of your post that discussed that term.)
Put differently, we can make all sorts of subjective implications. I could do the same for my understanding of bhava. But we want to know what the suttas have to say. And there are many references which I’ve provided where bhava means a life in an objective sense. I still haven’t seen a single sutta reference where bhava can’t be understood in this way, and that is after asking people for it many times. I mean, I’m not attached to this idea I presented. In fact, I would happily be more in agreement with the commentaries. But only if it is in line with the suttas.
To sum um (and sorry also for being repetitive). I think bhava only means one thing, namely “a life”, not two separate things, like existence and the experience of existing. So bhava ceases at parinibbāna. It’s not like there’s two kinds of (connected) bhava: one kind of ceases at enlightenment already, and another kind at parinibbāna. And indeed, in the suttas bhava is never of two kinds, and when they mention the cessation of bhava, it refers always to parinibbāna, as in Iti44 and AN10.7. And it has to be so, because just like the cessation of craving does not refer to a partial cessation of craving, the cessation of bhava is not a partial cessation. So the cessation of bhava refers to the end of existence in the more “objective” sense (i.e. life). And therefore the origination of bhava naturally refers to this too, not to the origination of “I am”, which is already encompassed in upādāna itself.
Anyway, the fact that we keep talking past each other tells me our brains work in different ways or something! So perhaps we should just accept that. 
Thanks for your reply too. For one thing, I definitely learned how to communicate more considerately on the interweb.
2 Likes
Greetings Ven. @Sunyo !
Thank you for your kind reply and insights/corrections. I’ve been thinking on this subject quite a bit.
I agree. We probably are different “personality types” and think rather differently. That said, it’s always people who think differently yet who have one common goal who tend to make innovations. We both want to understand the Buddha and the suttas, and we have that in common.
I agree with your same understanding of bhava! I agree it means existence/life as I said, and I agree we should try and understand it in simple, common terms without confusing the implications and underlying explanations with the more direct meaning and definition. Your clarification that bhava is not just what is between death and birth, but the entire existence in which birth and death manifest, was also helpful in understanding your position; and I agree
That said, I see DA as more flexible and general. You mentioned that bhava could be this bhava or a future bhava, etc. I agree, but I think the principle within one link holds true, and thus that one can also see the principle in upādānapaccayā bhavo in the current bhava as well. I think we can see that “All my existence is is just these aggregates which are being grasped at; were this to cease, all existence would come to a close.” This is an essential insight, and I was trying to reconcile it with the meaning of bhava you proposed because I believe it to be essential to the Dhamma. The aggregates would remain like obliterated palm stumps until ceasing as would the prior-established bhava, but the bhava nidāna would be made to cease. I guess you could say I think ‘continued existence’ is part of the meaning of the nidāna and that it straddles lives and refers to a more general principle.
If we look at the simile in SN 12.52, bhava is the burning of a fire kept alive by upādāna in the khandha (which is added via tanhā). We can see a fire burning in dependence on fuel in the present, so I think we can see bhava ‘burning’ in dependence on upādāna in the present. It’s true that bhava is only implied in this metaphor, but I think it’s necessary in the metaphor. I also think we can take the concept of fire from MN 38 over (the same words for fuel are used, like grass or cow-dung). There, a different type of fire is ‘born’ depending on the fuel it burns in dependence on. A grass-fire is born with grass as fuel; a stick-fire is born with sticks as fuel. I’d argue that we can see that we are existing in one of the realms based on how we are grasping at pieces of that sphere (the aggregates), and how if we stop grasping at them, the fire will use up all the fuel and go out (nibbāna) once the heaps of fuel (khandhā) are exhausted. In this way, I think bhava is renewed as a new fire which is born and dies (as a metaphor for a life), but we can also see that same principle in our present bhava. Thus, our current bhava doesn’t cease immediately (we don’t fall out of existence when upādāna ceases), but ‘continued existence’ ceases when the heaps of firewood are no longer fuel (pañcupādānakkhandhā → pañcakhandhā). I think we agree on all of this, and this is all I mean by bhava being more general and flexible.
Still, I think bhava is the result of craving/grasping and kamma, and I think it refers to a life/existence in a more concrete sense. The constant burning of samsāric existence comes to die down when no more fuel is added, meaning no renewed existence will come about, and thus no birth and death. Do we agree on all of this?
Thanks for the stimulating discussion and sticking to the suttas! We may be different people, but I have enjoyed the discussion. I’d be interested in knowing if we’ve both come to think the same thing, and also in maybe opening another thread to discuss what you mean by sakkāya having different meanings? I have the same feeling from some of the suttas I’ve read, but I haven’t formulated any ideas about it.
Mettā!
I’m sorry to post again as has been a recurring theme. The lack of ability to edit is unfortunate! Lol.
I just wanted to say that some of what this understanding of bhava means is:
- It is more about rebirth and samsāra and grasping the aggregates for a life.
- It is more concrete and simple; not a complex web of ideas.
- It agreed better with the 2nd noble truth and the bhava suttas do not re-define bhava in some radical way.
My above post explains some of the nuance of my thinking on top of agreeing with your same conclusions. I wanted to clarify that I was not agreeing and then proceeding to propose something separate, and I think there’s a strong connection here between bhava and punabbhava / rebirth; bhava just offers the possibility of understanding the more general principles here.
Mettā
1 Like
I have a simple understanding of bhava since I do not know much Pali and I am not an expert.
To my understanding, bhava is the state of a being. This is the accumulation of all forms, feelings, perceptions, volitional formations, consciousness that the being identifies, possesses, associates with.
The state of being is the result of craving and clinging to the five aggregates. That is the identification, the possession or association to those aggregates. When one takes form, feeling, perception, volitional formation, consciousness as “This is mine, I am this, this is myself,” the being (“I, my”) is created and one is identified as that being and that is how one is. The state of those aggregates becomes the state of the being.
Without craving and clinging, one will not take anything as “This is mine, I am this, this is myself;” therefore, one will not identify with anything, so the being (“I, my”) is not created and there is no state of the being. The state of those aggregates is simply that. No being can be found with that state of those aggregates.
When one clings to form, feelings such as: “pleasure of the senses; sensual enjoyment; especially sexual pleasure; the objects of pleasure, what gives pleasure to the senses” one is building up or in kāmabhavo state.
When one does not cling to “pleasure of the senses; sensual enjoyment; especially sexual pleasure; the objects of pleasure, what gives pleasure to the senses,” but still clings to forms, one is building up or in rūpabhavo state.
When one does not cling to those above, but still cling to the mind or consciousness, one is building up or in arūpabhavo state.
These states of being determines the order of beings where one is or will be in. There are countless state of beings because there are countless combination of the five aggregates’ states, so there are also countless order of beings. Suppose one was a gangster, one craved for sense pleasures and violence, so one was naturally be with those who had the same characters. However, one now renounced sense pleasures and violence and become a good person, one no longer wants to be with those gangsters. So, one will move to a different order of beings that fits to one’s current state. We can say that one is now a different person and is reborn into a different order of beings. Therefore, we are continuously born into appropriate order of beings depends on our current state of being. If the current state of being no longer fit to the current order of beings, the being will eventually move (or be born) to different order of beings.
What we called death is just the cut off from what we identified and clung to as “I, my.” When the body is totally damaged or we no longer be able to be with what we normally cling to as “I, my,” we called that as “death.” Therefore, death is simply the separation from what we think “I, my.” Seeing this, we will have a glimpse to the “deathless!”
As a common person, after putting down the current body (death), we will try to be around with what we are clinging to and will try to live with them as if we are still alive. However, if we no longer be able to have the experiences that we crave for, we will suffer tremendously. This suffering can eventually change our state of being to the worse if we have strong craving and clinging, and we will be born into or join a new order of beings that fits with that new state of being. The order of beings can be worldly or spiritual order. The birth can be physical or spontaneous one.
What we called “I, me, we” is simply what we identify with. It can be the body or the mind. In other words, it is nothing but form, feeling, perception, volitional formation, consciousness.
In summary, bhava is the state of being which is the result of cravings and clinging to the five aggregates. When there still is clinging to “this is mine, I am this, this is myself,” bhava is accumulated and grown, and it defines the being.
When clinging is completely cut off at the root, made them like palm stumps, obliterated them so that they are no longer subject to future arising, one no longer takes anything as “this is mine, I am this, this is myself,” the five aggregates is simply the five aggregates. The state of those aggregates is simply that. The being is not found; therefore, there is no state of being or no bhava. To an arahant, the body is simply a body. He no longer take that body as “my body,” so any reference to that body as the arahant’s body is an invalid reference. Any reference to that state of the five aggregates as the arahant’s state of being (bhava) is an invalid reference.
That’s how I understand bhava.
1 Like
What you described is referred to as sakkāya and it’s given a lot of weight in SN 22. However, I think we’ve discussed and demonstrated here that it is not what bhava refers to. I tend to think they are related but not the same. I recommend reading my conversation with @Sunyo because I had similar ideas to you.
Mettā
A highly individual contemplation on Bhava -
Bhava is only significant from Realm, existence, state of being, in the case that a state of this being is not established.
Bhava signifies the conducive environment has laid out for this being to develop.
From the setting is ready, to beinghood, there is only Bhava, there is no state of being.
Bhava is the necessary word only in this situation.
In this situation, consciousness only cognizes Bhava, yet it has not cognized “I vs World”.
The cognition develops with 4 nutrition created by Tanha.
Therefore there is case that Bhava is here, Being never develops (due to weak Tanha that could not provide enough nutrition.)
Another thought is Nirodha is qualified as a divider for birth.
That means a stream enter could have at most 7 times of Nirodha to reach arahant ship. But I am not sure.
Thanks so much for sharing AN10.7 @Thito
@Sunyo - your interpretation of this Sutta seems to require some contortions:
In the Sutta, Sariputta is saying “he perceived that the cessation of continued existence is nibbana”. It certainly sounds like he’s directly perceiving this truth, which revealed to him new insight into the nature of nibbana.
He explains his insight using the analogy of a fire: one flame arises and another ceases (constantly). “In the same way, one perception arose in me and another perception ceased”.
His point seems to be that perception is like a flame, it is anicca / impermanent / ever-changing. It doesn’t remain the same even for a moment. There is arising and ceasing, but there is no existence / bhava.
We say “I see a flame” and everyone agrees there is a flame. But a flame is a process - there’s nothing stable or substantial there. We think “the flame lasted a long time”, but a flame doesn’t last for even a moment. It has no existence, no bhava.
It is this realization that there is no existence - nothing that exists for even a moment - that is the realization of impermanence. The body and mind are very much like a flame - life and cognition are a constant unfolding. That is why the meditation on impermanence brings about the cessation of all suffering - it causes the cessation of our belief in existence.
1 Like
Bhava means ‘existence’ in the terms, bhava-diṭṭhi ‘the view of existence’ and vibhava-diṭṭhi ‘the view of non-existence’.
But it also means ‘becoming’ in paṭicca-samuppāda ‘conditioned arising’ process in the terms, kāma-bhava ‘becoming in sensuality’, rūpa-bhava ‘becoming in materiality’, and arūpa-bhava ‘becoming in non-materiality’.
1 Like
I’m reminded also of SN22.47 which I think explains the essence of the distinction between existence /bhava and birth.
In that Sutta, Buddha explains that “we” come to take “birth” in the five aggregates through ignorance. Specifically, when observing the five aggregates we develop the conceit “I am” (this is the existence link) and on that basis we develop the conceit “I am this” (this is the birth link), as well as a variety of conceits about “I will be”,“I will be in the form realm”, etc.
Whoever sees correctly the self, sees only one or more of the five aggregates. There has never been a real self, let alone a self that persists through time. The only self is the label “self” created by our perception /sañña
1 Like
Hi all,
Exactly, the above is also explained in SN12.15, and a whole lot of other suttas that explain that the aggregrates are not to be taken as self.
Warm regards,
Peter
2 Likes
Reflecting more on AN3.76, the Sutta that defines bhava /existence,
that sutta gives the analogy that actions are a field, consciousness is a seed, and craving is the moisture (that enables that seed to ripen and grow).
Compare that explanation with SN22.53 which describes how consciousness grows and “becomes involved” with the five aggregates.
if you’re involved, you’re not free. If you’re not involved, you’re free.
As long as consciousness remains, it would remain involved with, supported by, and founded on form[, feeling, perception, and volitional formations]. And with a sprinkle of relishing, it would grow, increase, and mature.
This is describing what it means for craving to lead to the growth of consciousness. This is what we’re seeking liberation from.
Again, AN3.76:
The consciousness of sentient beings—shrouded by ignorance and fettered by craving—is established in a lower realm. That’s how there is “rebirth” [punabbhavābhinibbatti - literally “producing another existence”] into a new state of existence in the future.
Compare this with SN22.53
Monks, suppose you say:
‘Apart from form, feeling, perception, and volitional formations, I will describe the coming and going of consciousness, its passing away and reappearing, its growth, increase, and maturity.’ That is not possible.
So Buddha is literally here telling people that there is no great cosmological journey of consciousness (no coming and going, etc) other than this process of appropriating the five aggregates.
So bhava /existence is defined here by Buddha as the coming into existence of a sense of self on the basis of the aggregates. How then should we attain liberation from existence? By seeing that the aggregates are the nature of suffering and that we shouldn’t cling to them as bhava, an existent “I”.
@Sunyo was struggling to find references to bhava that point to it being a state created by the mind, but it seems to me like that’s the whole point of the suttas. This point is hiding in plain sight.
It’s easier to think about the 12 links when you think about them as a great cosmological journey across lives, and there certainly are suttas that encourage that view. But the punchline of all the suttas is that the only way you can attain liberation is by understanding how the mind brings a self into existence /bhava through this compulsive process and clings to that self as existing within the aggregates. All of that is available for direct observation here and now, just go and see (with an extremely peaceful mind). No need to posit a grand cosmological journey.
The cosmological journey view can be extremely helpful for getting us started on the path and taking kamma seriously as a life and death matter. We need that level of intense conviction. But at some point we need to transition to dealing with the moment by moment process that’s keeping us trapped.
2 Likes
The quote from AN 3.76 actually is just breaking down in more detail a very standard formula in the suttas which makes the meaning of bhava in DO rather clear.
Here we have something that leads to punabbhava which is a condition for jāti, which is a condition for jarāmarana, which is the arising of the entire mass of suffering. This is all identical to the sequence from bhava on in the 12 links but the word is ‘punabbhava.’
This exact same formula occurs, for example, at SN 12.12 or SN 12.64 which, coincidentally, are in the chapter on dependent origination. I think the point is rather clear: our existence in all the realms of saṁsāra amounts to grasping onto suffering (the aggregates); it’s like a fire, burning over and over with new kinds of fuel. When we assume the burden of the aggregates and water it all with craving, our kamma directs the renewal of that where we are born and die again and again. We set down the burden and bhava won’t come about anymore; no more birth and death.
Mettā
2 Likes
This is interesting. I’m not sure I follow Sujato’s translation of saññī ca pana assā as "And yet they would still perceive.”
Saññin is an adjective with a flavour of possession. Right? So why is it being translated here as an abstract noun? A saññin is “one who perceives”, “one who has perception”, i.e. “a perceiver” or more generally “one who has a mind”; if we accept the mainstream translation of saññā (which I’m also doubtful about).
Given this it would seem much more straightforward to translate saññī ca pana assā as “There was [still] a perceiver [in the absence of something to be perceived].”
Which sounds close to Buddhist heresy, but all it means for us is that one is not dead while in the state of suññatāvihāra, one still has a mind. The state that follows nirodha is a mental state one can be in, a dhamma, albeit a dhamma that requires the presence of no condition to exist, since its existence is dependent on the absence (suññatā) of all conditions for sensory experience to arise. Hence it is called the asaṅkhatadhamma “the mental state for which there is no condition” or “the state without conditions”.
So, if you attain nibbāna, you remember it afterwards.
2 Likes
Hi Jayarava,
Yes this amounts to the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, although this state is not derived from sensory experience, especially since the buddha categorized thinking as a sense. So suññatā doesn´t mean absence, rather it points to all conditioned phenomena (dhammas) being empty. Empty here means empty of self. One gets there by realizing what is discussed above, and by realizing that the formless is also empty of self. The formless is simply that which isn´t formed, and this amounts to non-perception. So in the same way as that we are not with, nor in, nor in between form, we are neither with, nor in, nor in between the formless. So because the formless is empty of self, that which is non-perceived is not attainable, hence neither non-perception. And because form is also empty of self, this is not perceived, hence you get neither perception nor non-perception. The trick is to let go of grasping.
I made this post, because I was unable to edit the previous one.
Warm regards,
Peter
Hi Peter,
Thanks for this exposition of Madhyamaka doctrine.
Jayarava
Hi Jayasarava,
I meant deprived instead of derived, small change huge difference.
I thought we were talking about Nibbana here.
Warm regards,
Peter
With respect, teachings in the suttas of the Pāli Canon do not point to “the formless” in terms of some kind of “state” or “ground of being” or “absolute vs relative” , etc. These are, as @Jayarava wrote, Mahayana doctrines that developed hundreds of years after the parinibbāna of the Buddha.
Of course, people can choose to believe and follow whatever teachings they wish. The point is, “the formless” as a kind of absolute from which conditional things arise and return, so to speak, or which is both immanent and transcendent to the conditional/conventional, is not found in the suttas.
With best wishes
Hi Jasudho,
I said " because the formless is empty of self, that which is non-perceived is not attainable, hence neither non-perception".
You seem to have missed the gist of what I wrote; I only talked about the formless in order to transcend it, not to say that it is this or that.
Warm regards,
Peter
This list of uses of bhava is incredibly helpful. Thanks. Have you thought of writing this up and publishing it? Someone ought to.
I’m reminded of other misdefinitions I’ve encountered. For example, if you look at compounds ending in -sattva in Sanskrit they never have the sense of “a type of being” (not a karmadhāraya in other words). Rather, as the second member of a compound, -sattva takes the sense of “essence, nature, or being in the abstract”.
So the least like translation of bodhisattva is “a bodhi being” or “a being concerned with bodhi”. We expect this to be an adjectival compound: “one who essence is awakening”, “bodhi-natured”, and so on. The idea that bodhisattva is a hyper-sanskritization of bodhisatta seems less likely…