Thanks also. Since you asked if we agree, to summarize, I still think the link upādāna > bhava is solely about rebirth. In the suttas I see no real precedence to understand it in any other way. I do of course agree that upādāna also happens in this life, that it involves a sense of self, and that it is informative of our attachments and possible future rebirth. But when together with craving it results in bhava , then it no longer refers to a process that happens within this life. Then it’s “the craving that leads to a next life (punabbhava)” of the second noble truth.
That’s bhāva with a long ā, not bhava, which has a short a. So it’s not the same word as in Dependent Arising. It’s understandable. I made the same mix-up myself, I belief (although in a somewhat more questionable context) but couldn’t edit my post anymore.
But that is not in line with the Buddha’s use and definition of “birth”.
“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.” (SN12.2)
"It was said: ‘With birth as condition there is aging and death.’ How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If there were absolutely and utterly no birth of any kind anywhere—that is, of gods into the state of gods, of celestials into the state of celestials, of spirits, demons, human beings, quadrupeds, winged creatures, and reptiles, each into their own state—if there were no birth of beings of any sort into any state, then, in the complete absence of birth, with the cessation of birth, would aging and death be discerned?”
"Certainly not, venerable sir.” (DN15)
The sutta is not really a definition of bhava, as we discussed before in this thread. Bhante Sujato explained what he meant with his translation of “defined”. The text explains, as Kaccayanagotta pointed out, how rebirth happens, and to what extent beings can be reborn (can have bhava).
And what happens when consciousness “gets involved with” the aggregates (or “is attracted to them”) is rebirth, the sutta says. It’s rebirth that makes “consciousness remain” (or “continue to exist”) after death. This “growing” is a reference to the seed simile; a seed which grows into a plant. The general ideas can be conveyed more clearly, I belief, with a translation along these lines:
Consciousness would continue to exist [after death] if it is attracted to form. Founded on form, planted in form, and sprinkled with enjoyment, it would develop, sprout, and mature. [Same for other aggregates.] Someone might say he will describe a development, sprouting, and maturation of consciousness—its departing and arriving, its passing on and rebirth—apart from form, feeling, perception, and will. But that is not possible. (SN22.53)
The words “passing on and rebirth” (or “passing away and reappearing”) always mean death and birth. “Departing and arriving” are often euphemisms for dying and rebirth too, as is the case here. This is also what is meant with “development, sprouting, and maturation”, which is somewhat cryptic, because it metaphorically describes the process of rebirth. The metaphor is that of the seed of consciousness, as is much clearer in the following text, SN22.54. Consciousness “growing” into a new life is like a seed that grows into a new plant. It is the same metaphor as AN3.76. The word “planted” (or “established”) also refers to this, as does “sprinkle”. Because enjoyment is like the water sprinkled on the seed, as SN22.54 clarifies. This is the same as AN3.76 saying “craving is the moisture”.
The sentence “consciousness would continue to exist” (tiṭṭhamānaṃ tiṭṭheyya) itself already refers to rebirth. It occurs also in SN35.235 where it clearly refers to this. The words are seemingly also a reference to the “stations” (ṭhiti) of consciousness, which we discussed before here are all about rebirth too. (AN7.44)
SN12.38 mentions the continuation of consciousness too:
Mendicants, what you intend, what you prepare, and what you have a tendency towards, that is a foundation for the continuation (ṭhitiyā) of consciousness [after death]. If there is a foundation, there will be a support for the planting of consciousness. If consciousness is planted, it will sprout, and then continued existence in a future life is produced.
We have here the metaphor of the seed again implied with the words “planted” and “sprout”. And it results in “continued existence (bhava) in a future life”, i.e. rebirth. And that is what the continuation of consciousness refers to.
All these texts are not talking about a “continuation of consciousness” in this life, because that continuation does not rely on attachments and tendencies. Even the Buddha’s consciousness continued in this life, so that is not relevant here. It’s about the continuation (“or remaining”) of consciousness after death.
None of this gives a precedence for understanding bhava as a sense of self. Instead, bhava is about rebirth in all these texts. This is why Snp5.5 (though somewhat cryptical in verse) says:
“If you dispel enjoyment of and adherence to
whatever you are aware of,
above, below, and in between across,
consciousness won’t continue (tiṭṭhe) in any state of existence (bhava).”
An understanding of kamma and rebirth, by the way, is not “easier”, nor “starting on the path”, nor a matter of “conviction”. The Buddha’s insights that lead to his enlightenment he said were centered around exactly those two things: kamma and rebirth. It is rebirth that causes suffering, as the second noble truth says, so it is no surprise Dependent Arising is all about it too.
By the way, as a general reply, I found out the ideas of bhava of the Arthaviniscaya Sutra (Arv5) are in line with the Pali suttas, as I understand them. Because its explanation of the twelve factors defines bhava as existence in the three realms and then further subdivides it into human existence, animal existence, the various deva worlds, and so on.
So this early Sarvastivadin definition (supposedly) of bhava differs from the Theravada commentaries, which is interesting. Because it shows the Theravada’s ideas of a dual “bhava” (of “kammabhava” and “upapattibhava”) were not shared by all traditions. Since the Arthaviniscaya Sutta is more in line with the suttas on bhava, I think it shows an earlier development, and the Theravada’s one being later.