The meaning of "rupabhava" & "arupabhava"

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,



We're moving this to General Theravada and there it will stay.



Metta,
Paul.

[DooDoot]

We're moving this to General Theravada and there it will stay.

The above is an error.

This is the perfect topic for "personal experience," since it constitutes DooDoot's personal theories which are no-doubt informed by personal experience, practice, etc., however DooDoot likes to frame his theories. The thread is not, however, an inquiry into the usage of bhāva, rūpabhāva, or arūpabhāva in the EBTs, at least not in its present state. It takes more than assertion to prove a point, particularly one as outlandish as the OP's hypothesis of new meanings for rūpabhava, arūpabhava, as well as bhava/bhāva in general.

Another unsubstantiated rant.

Every types of self-identification includes "bhava" (MN 44). Every type of suffering includes "bhava" (SN 12.2; AN 3.61). Its literally written in the suttas.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

We're moving this to General Theravada and there it will stay.

The above is an error.

No it's not. General Theravada allows for "all aspects" of Theravada view to be presented.

Given you ask for Suttas and/or Pali Commentary in your OP, it's the perfect location.

Metta,
Paul.

[Pulsar]

DooDoot replied

SN 12.2; MN 9
And what is continued existence?
Katamo ca, bhikkhave, bhavo?
There are these three states of existence.
Tayome, bhikkhave, bhavā—
Existence in the sensual realm, the realm of luminous form, and the formless realm.
kāmabhavo, rūpabhavo, arūpabhavo.
This is called continued existence.
Ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, bhavo.

I am aware of this passage in SN 12.2. It appears to me as a fragment tossed in to the sutta, unrelated to the teaching of Dependent origination.
Where would you fit in arupabhava within the links of Dependent Origination?
Ignorance giving rise to formations, formations giving rise to craving, to make a long story short.
Can you specify the link?
What is your definition of rupa? What is your definition of Arupa?
With love

[DooDoot]

I am aware of this passage in SN 12.2. It appears to me as a fragment tossed in to the sutta, unrelated to the teaching of Dependent origination.

The above is not possible because "bhava" is also included in the 2nd Noble Truth (about the arising of suffering).

Where would you fit in arupabhava within the links of Dependent Origination?... What is your definition of rupa? What is your definition of Arupa?

"Bhava" appears to mean the mind becomes what it previously was not. For example, imagine you never ate frogs legs before. Then after you ate frogs legs you became a lover of frogs legs so that each time you visit a restaurant you ask the waiter for frogs legs. This is "bhava" ("becoming"), as follows:

1. contact - taste frogs legs
2. feeling - have pleasant feeling from tasting frogs legs
3. craving - have craving for frogs legs
4. attachment - grasp to taste & feeling from frogs legs
5. becoming - mind is "established/stuck on" the taste of frogs legs
6. birth - loving frogs legs becomes part of your personality; so if restaurant does not have frogs legs you get angry or upset

The above "frogs legs" is sensual becoming because sensual means:

Now what, Mahanama, is the allure of sensuality? These five strings of sensuality. Which five? Forms cognizable via the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. Sounds cognizable via the ear... Aromas cognizable via the nose... Flavors cognizable via the tongue... Tactile sensations cognizable via the body — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. Now whatever pleasure or joy arises in dependence on these five strands of sensuality, that is the allure of sensuality.

MN 14

Rupa means "materiality". Arupa means "immateriality".

Therefore the questions I asked in this topic included:

1. If you are attached to money or houses because you it makes you feel secure & safe, is this sensual becoming or is it material becoming?

2. If you seek fame, praise & reputation, where people stroke your ego, is this sensual becoming or is it immaterial becoming?

3. If you become attached to Margaret Cone's Pali dictionary, believing Margaret Cone is the Buddha, is this sensual becoming? Or is it immaterial becoming?

We do not even need to use the word "becoming". We can use the word "craving" ("tanha"). If you have craving towards Margaret Cone's Pali dictionary, is this sensual craving?

[DooDoot]

What is your definition of rupa? What is your definition of Arupa?

There are many ways to discuss this topic. For example, the AN says:

“There are, mendicants, these two kinds of happiness.
“Dvemāni, bhikkhave, sukhāni.

What two?
Katamāni dve?

Sensual happiness and the happiness of renunciation.
Kāmasukhañca nekkhammasukhañca.

These are the two kinds of happiness.
Imāni kho, bhikkhave, dve sukhāni.

The better of these two kinds of happiness is the happiness of renunciation.”
Etadaggaṁ, bhikkhave, imesaṁ dvinnaṁ sukhānaṁ yadidaṁ nekkhammasukhan”ti.

https://suttacentral.net/an2.64-76/en/sujato

If i have not attained rupa jhana or arupa jhana but i have happiness from renouncing immorality, what is this type of happiness if i cling to & develop self-identity from it?

Surely having a moral self-identity is not sensual becoming? Therefore it must be immaterial becoming.

[Bundokji]

Are there any Suttas or Pali commentary that support the idea 'rupa' can refer to literal 'material objects' (such as money & houses) and 'arupa' can refer to fame, honor, reputation, etc?

Would the following qualify?

He who inflicts violence on those who are unarmed, and offends those who are inoffensive, will soon come upon one of these ten states:

Sharp pain, or disaster, bodily injury, serious illness, or derangement of mind, trouble from the government, or grave charges, loss of relatives, or loss of wealth, or houses destroyed by ravaging fire; upon dissolution of the body that ignorant man is born in hell.

[Coëmgenu]

Another unsubstantiated rant.

Every types of self-identification includes "bhava" (MN 44). Every type of suffering includes "bhava" (SN 12.2; AN 3.61). Its literally written in the suttas.

I don't have a facepalm emoticon. Is there a reason why you didn't include the actual quotes? When I go and look at these, how likely is it that they have nothing to do with what you are saying? I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you've rhetorically let me down so many times when you rhetorically promise relevant passages. You give me irrelevant passages, and you've done the same here.

“Ma’am, they speak of this thing called ‘the origin of identity’. What is the origin of identity that the Buddha spoke of?”

“It’s the craving that leads to future rebirth, mixed up with relishing and greed, taking pleasure in various different realms. That is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving to continue existence, and craving to end existence. The Buddha said that this is the origin of identity.”

(MN 44)

Nope. Nothing even vaguely similar to the OP thesis here... Let's check the next.

Continued existence is a condition for rebirth. Rebirth is a condition for old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress to come to be.

[...]

There are these three states of existence. Existence in the sensual realm, the realm of luminous form, and the formless realm. This is called continued existence.

(SN 12.2)

This doesn't support your thesis at all. It's just dependent origination and a list of the realms of rebirth defining "bhava." Nothing about riches and celebrities and proliferous consumer goods, etc., like you were speculating a few pages back.

When grasping ceases, continued existence ceases. When continued existence ceases, rebirth ceases. When rebirth ceases, old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress cease.

(AN 3.61)

Do you realize here that bhava & upādāna are different things? Once again, proximity is not equivalence.

The common thread is, because you do not believe in rebirth, you need to squeeze these passages about rebirth into tortured parodies of themselves in order to argue that the Buddha didn't teach what the Buddha taught. None of these passages concern themselves with explaining how self-identification "includes" bhava, a very vague and general statement. You could just as easily and clumsily say "All suffering includes bhava" and then cut-and-paste the formula for dependent origination, colouring the word "bhava" red as if that proves a point. Even then, it would not mean that bhava and suffering "mean the same thing." Proximity is not existential equivalence. It is irrelevant to your thesis that "kāmataṇhā bhavataṇhā vibhavataṇhā" in MN 44 is found. It is similarly irrelevant to your thesis that the three realms in SN 12.2 are found. Lastly, the quotation of AN 3.61 is also irrelevant and does not support the OP thesis of...

1. Sensuality refers to pleasure from the five physical senses bases.

2. Materiality refers not only to rupa jhana but also refers to any material possession, such as being attached to money or housing. For example, people gain pleasure from having money, not because it is a "sensual pleasure", but because it makes them feel secure.

3. Immateriality refers not only the arupa jhana but also refers to immaterial cravings & attachments such as fame, honor, reputation, etc.

So we have these three unsubstantiated points not found in the Pali suttas.

[DooDoot]

You could just as easily and clumsily say "All suffering includes bhava" and then cut-and-paste the formula for dependent origination, colouring the word "bhava" red as if that proves a point. Even then, it would not mean that bhava and suffering "mean the same thing." Proximity is not existential equivalence.

But all suffering does include bhava. This is the absolute Dhamma Law.

Do you realize here that bhava & upādāna are different things? Once again, proximity is not equivalence.

Bhava & upādāna are very similar. Bhava is merely more intense upadana. Upadana is to "grasp". Bhava is to become "established" in what is grasped. Suttas such as SN 12.66 use only one word for upadana, bhava & jati, namely, "upadhi". None of these words means "rebirth". MN 26 defines upadhi as:

"And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth.

MN 26

As he explores he understands thus: ‘The many diverse kinds of suffering that arise in the world headed by aging-and-death: this suffering has acquisition as its source, acquisition as its origin; it is born and produced from acquisition. ...

“As he explores he understands thus: ‘Acquisition has craving as its source, craving as its origin; it is born and produced from craving.

SN 12.66

"Death" obviously does not mean "physical death". The suttas cannot be more clear about this.

21. Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead already.

[DooDoot]

With love

Dear Pulsar.

To read more about "becoming" or "bhava", refer to Ajahn Chah and his loyal monks, such as:

''Becoming'' (bhava) means ''the sphere of birth.'' Sensual desire is born at sights, sounds, tastes, smells, feelings and thoughts, identifying with these things. The mind holds fast and is stuck to sensuality.

For example, suppose we had an orchard of apple trees that we were particularly fond of. That's a bhava for us if we don't reflect with wisdom. How so? Suppose our orchard contained a hundred or a thousand apple trees... it doesn't really matter what kind of trees they are, just so long as we consider them to be ''our own'' trees... then we are going to be ''born'' as a ''worm'' in every single one of those trees. We bore into every one, even though our human body is still back there in the house, we send out ''tentacles'' into every one of those trees.

Now, how do we know that it's a bhava? It's a bhava because of our clinging to the idea that those trees are our own, that that orchard is our own. If someone were to take an ax and cut one of the trees down, the owner over there in the house ''dies'' along with the tree. He gets furious, and has to go and set things right, to fight and maybe even kill over it. That quarreling is the ''birth.'' The ''sphere of birth'' is the orchard of trees that we cling to as our own. We are ''born'' right at the point where we consider them to be our own, born from that bhava. Even if we had a thousand apple trees, if someone were to cut down just one it'd be like cutting the owner down.

Whatever we cling to we are born right there, we exist right there. We are born as soon as we ''know.'' This is knowing through not-knowing: we know that someone has cut down one of our trees. But we don't know that those trees are not really ours. This is called ''knowing through not-knowing.'' We are bound to be born into that bhava.

There must be a bhava, a sphere of birth, before birth can take place. Therefore the Buddha said, whatever you have, don't ''have'' it. Let it be there but don't make it yours. You must understand this ''having'' and ''not having,'' know the truth of them, don't flounder in suffering.

https://www.ajahnchah.org/book/Flood_Sensuality1.php

[Coëmgenu]

You could just as easily and clumsily say "All suffering includes bhava" and then cut-and-paste the formula for dependent origination, colouring the word "bhava" red as if that proves a point. Even then, it would not mean that bhava and suffering "mean the same thing." Proximity is not existential equivalence.

But all suffering does include bhava. This is the absolute Dhamma Law.

Venerable Sāriputta said, "bhavanirodha nibbānaṃ." It is too general to specify that suffering "includes" bhava. It doesn't mean much given how it is supposed to be supporting your theses -- not much at all in that specific context. How does the fact that sentient beings suffer on account of bhava support your OP hypothesis? That bhava is "included" in suffering is irrelevant to your OP, and a vague statement.

Bhava & upādāna are very similar. Bhava is merely more intense upadana. Upadana is to "grasp". Bhava is to become "established" in what is grasped. Suttas such as SN 12.66 use only one word for upadana, bhava & jati, namely, "upadhi". None of these words means "rebirth".

There is so much misconception here, I'll have to wait until I have more time. Suffice to say, of the twelve, there is a reason why bhava and upādāna are separate nidānas. One is not a "more intense" version of the other.

[Coëmgenu]

"Death" obviously does not mean "physical death". The suttas cannot be more clear about this.

21. Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead already.

Your habit of polluting the buddhavacana with your emoticons is unchanged, it seems.

A lot of the more hyperbolic material I was to respond to has been removed by moderation. I tip my hat to their clean tidy job. All I've left to respond to is the above.

Whether "death" means "physical death" or "the changing of the mind from state to state" or something else is irrelevant to your theses, namely your three theses quoted above from your OP. Do you have anything relevant to add in support of your theses? As of now, they are all completely ungrounded and mere speculation. Either way, the quote you provided does not demonstrate what you want it to demonstrate, namely that "death" is often metaphorical.

Let me explain. If your quote had said "The heedless are dead," then you could argue that "death" is being used metaphorically here. The quote says "as if dead already." Did you miss that?

[Pulsar]

DooDoot wrote

Pulsar wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:27 am
What is your definition of rupa? What is your definition of Arupa?
There are many ways to discuss this topic

The topic is Dependent Origination. There is only one way to define rupa in DO.
Rupa is the images created in the mentally proliferating state, it is mental.
You quote AN 2.64-2.76 to support whatever is in your imagination.
All the sutta says is

• there is two kinds of happiness, that of the Sensual and non-sensual. It does not define Rupa.

You continued

If i have not attained rupa jhana or arupa jhana but i have happiness from renouncing immorality, what is this type of happiness if i cling to & develop self-identity from it?

That does not make sense. As long as you have any kind of identity, moral or immoral are you not stuck in the sensory world, hence is it not sensual becoming?
The way you rationalize things??? I get the idea, you have a faulty
comprehension of DO.
You continued

Therefore it must be immaterial becoming.?

A cool way of rationalizing??
I do not find any reference to arupa becoming in Buddha's doctrine of Paticca samuppada.
Can you bring me a sutta from Nidana Samyutta that refers to immaterial becoming?
With love

[Pulsar]

DooDoot wrote 

Pulsar wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:27 amWhere would you fit in arupabhava within the links of Dependent Origination?... What is your definition of rupa? What is your definition of Arupa?

Before defining rupabahava, let us examine how you understand rupa in the context of Buddha's doctrine of Dependent origination.
In your response to me you wrote 

Rupa means "materiality".

Are you positive? Buddha defines rupa in DO as derived from materiality, not as materiality. There is a huge difference between the two. 
Did we not go over this in Retro's thread just a few weeks ago?
Let us bring an example
Form in the case of ear consciousness is sound. 
Is sound made of materiality? A drum and the stick that make a sound are material things,
but the sound is not material.
You are defining rupa in DO as the non-buddhist sects define rupa in nama-rupa. 
Surely my dear DD, you are not thinking like a Jain master here, Are you?
With love

[Pulsar]

DD wrote 

Rupa means "materiality". Arupa means "immateriality". 
Therefore the questions I asked in this topic included: 

1. If you are attached to money or houses because you it makes you feel secure & safe, is this sensual becoming or is it material becoming? 

2. If you seek fame, praise & reputation, where people stroke your ego, is this sensual becoming or is it immaterial becoming? 

3. If you become attached to Margaret Cone's Pali dictionary, believing Margaret Cone is the Buddha, is this sensual becoming? Or is it immaterial becoming? 

We do not even need to use the word "becoming". We can use the word "craving" ("tanha"). If you have craving towards Margaret Cone's Pali dictionary, is this sensual craving? 

Since your initial assumption, is wrong, the formulation of the questions are invalid.
Whether you crave money or house, fame or praise, or are attached to a dictionary, it is all sensual craving. 
The house, money, the dictionary did not gain physical (rupa) entry into your thoughts.  Your thoughts paint pictures of dollar bills, of houses, or imagine fame.  
Forms that appear in thoughts are immaterial. 
The fetter lies in the constantly rising cognition, which is immaterial.
The fetter does not lie in the dollar bills, the mansion, the fame, or the Margaret Cone's Pali dictionary. 
I think your root problem is that you get the basics of DO wrong.
Correct your understanding of Rupa, in DO, then you will understand why all cravings are sensual,
and immaterial.
With love