I read the following on the internet: > Primary mistake is thinking that anattā means no soul or that "there > is no self". In Sabbāsavā Sutta the Buddha explicitly says that "there > is no self" is a wrong view born of inappropriate attention. "**I am** > nothing" or "**I** **do** not exist" is a wrong view born of asking the wrong > questions. Did the Buddha explicitly say in Sabbāsavā Sutta "there is no self" is a wrong view?

From Wikipedia's Sutta Pitaka's list of ten fetters : > The Pali canon's Sutta Pitaka identifies ten "fetters of **becoming**". > > 1. sakkāya-diṭṭhi > 2. vicikicchā > 3. sīlabbata-parāmāsa > 4. kāmacchando > 5. vyāpādo > 6. rūparāgo > 7. arūparāgo > 8. māna > 9. uddhacca > 10. **avijjā** My best *guess* is that "becoming", in this context, has the same meaning that it does in the context of pratītyasamutpāda . > 1. **avijjā** > 2. sankhara > 3. viññana > 4. nama-rupa > 5. salayatana > 6. phassa > 7. vedana > 8. tanha > 9. upadana > 10. **bhava** 11. jati > 12. jarāmaraṇa Notice that **avijjā** is both (1) the last of the 10 fetters and (2) the first of 12 links of the dependent origination of suffering, This suggests that cutting the last "fetter of becoming" results in the dependent condition which gives rise and sustains the entire cycle of suffering to cease. Therefore, an understanding of avijjā and bhava and their inter-relationship will be of interest to many. Gil Fronsdal describes the first 9 steps of dependent of origination (preceding "bhava/becoming") thusly > 1: avijja: ignorance; the choice to ignore / avoid discomfort > 2: sankhara: intention > 3: viññana: attention > 4: nama-rupa: mobilization of "body and mind" in the direction of the attention > 5: salayatana: mobilization of the "6 senses" in the direction of the attention > 6: phassa: contact > 7: vedana: feeling tone > 8: tanha: craving > 9: upadana: clinging Source: 2009-06-21: Gil Fronsdal: Dependent Origination Notice that the choice to ignore / avoid the source of the discomfort conditions / shapes / influences our choice of intention. Our choice of intention, in turn, conditions / shapes / influences our choice of attention. Our choice of attention, in turn, conditions / shapes / influences how we are compelled to move in the world including our choice to believe that happiness depends upon the satiation of THIS desire for the THIS sensory experience. Our choice of what we cling to (updana), in turn, conditions / shapes / influences becoming (bhava) by creating the conditions for the formation of an identity capable of attaining the craved sensory experience to which we are clinging. For example, the pain of the perception of rejection might compel the formation of an identity to prove to ourselves that we are worthy of attaining the object of our desire. So the **meaning of becoming (bhava)**, in this context, is something like > *moving/acting with the aim/intention > to create the conditions whereby > our clinging to a craved sensory experience > can be satiated.* With regard to the last 3 steps of dependent of origination, quoting the comments under this answer : > “When there is acquisition, aging-and-death comes to be; when there is > no acquisition, aging-and-death does not come to be ... So long as > the choice to pursue the sense-desire via becoming and birth is > rewarded with acquisition, ignorance [AKA "avoidance"] is rewarded, clinging to “wrong > view” is rewarded and we remain trapped in the cycle of suffering. > > Only when the unskillful choice of ignorance [AKA "avoidance"] is not rewarded by > acquisition does the mind feel forced to search for an alternative way > to alleviate the suffering. Only then will it feel compelled to think > more deeply about its unskillful choice to ignore the discomfort which > is feedback to be investigated for insight. An insight the mind > desperately needs to find to break the cycle of suffering." Gil also suggests that jaramarana (aging & death) is short for "aging, death, sorrow, lamentation and despair". Source: 2009-06-21: Gil Fronsdal: Dependent Origination This suggests that even if we attain that which we were clinging to, new rejections will arise to fuel the fires of greed, hatred and delusion and hints and that the subjugation of conceit (mana) is not only necessary to end the cycle of suffering, it is in direct opposition to becoming (bhava) which seeks to strengthen the identity to attain the craved for sensory experience which is being clung to. **What is avijjā?** In this context and considering that **avijjā** is both (1) the last of the 10 fetters and (2) the first of 12 links of the dependent origination of suffering, understanding the meaning of avijjā is crucially important. Being consumed by "sorrow, lamentation and despair" is compelling us to "ignore/avoid" something important and it is THIS choice to ignore/avoid which sustains the entire cycle of suffering. Therefore, if the aim is to end suffering, understanding exactly what is being ignored/avoided is of some importance. **So what exactly are we choosing to ignore/avoid?** From neuroscience we know that ... The sensory-motor brain evolved because it enabled beings to respond to sensory experiences with moves that improved the probability of gene survival. It does so by constructing and continually refining a sensory-motor predictive model of the world to guide movement. It does this by "knowing and seeing". Whereby "knowing" is making moves in the world as if the model were 100% correct and "seeing" is verifying if the sensory experience predicted by the model is (1) correct or (2) a misprediction. In the event of a "misprediction", beings respond by ruminating to discover the error in the predictive model (insight), reformulating the predictive model to improve its predictive power. i.e. Greater understanding (panna) enables us to move through the world with greater equanimity (uppekha) because our predictive model is constantly improving to make better predictions. The problem is that mispredictions are accompanied with varying intensities of pain. The biological purpose of "pain" is to provide the sensory motor brain with strong feedback that its predictive model of the world is incorrect and to keep the attention focused on the sensory experience until the source of the error in the predictive model has been discovered and corrected. But the problem is, if the intensity of this pain (first arrow) exceeds our ability to hold it in spacious non-judgmental awareness and investigate it for insight, we will feel a compulsion to ignore it; to avoid investigating it; to leave the error in the predictive model unfixed; in favor of the pursuit of sense-desires. The entirety of the dharma is oriented towards correcting this single unskillful decision by training the mind to turn towards the suffering and to search for the insight which leads to the correction in the sensory-motor predictive model of the world. In this context, becoming (bhava) should be corrected. This would explain why it is one of the 4 āsavas: > 1: kāmāsava > 2: **bhavāsava** 3: diṭṭhāsava > 4: avijjāsava https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asava But this is only a strong intuition. I lack certainty in this meaning. If you possess insight that can contribute to a stronger understanding, please provide commentary.

As I delve into the Buddhist literature deeper and deeper, particularly the Theravāda sutta literature, I am getting convinced more and more that when we use the term ‘rebirth’, and more so, the grosser English equivalents like ‘metempsychosis’ and ‘re-incarnation’, to signify what the Buddha talked about when he referred to the apparent continuity of the ‘life process’ after death, we are getting it all wrong. I have till now also been unable to find the equivalent of the Vedic term ‘Punarjanma’, which is used so very profusely in the Brāhmanic literature like the Upaniṣads and the Purāṇas. The Sanskrit/Pāli word that comes up again and again in the Buddhist context is ‘bhava’ which has been translated as ‘becoming’, perhaps rightly so. But, would it be right to translate this very word also as rebirth, re-incarnation, punarjanma, and the like, when it seems so very clear that bhava does not stand at all for any of these, because the very notion of rebirth/re-incarnation/punarjanma carries within it the concept of a permanent entity moving from birth to birth? I remember a beautiful metaphor from somewhere that compares the notion of this recurrence of saṁsāra in Hinduism with that in Buddhism. If this recurrence is like a necklace of pearls in Hinduism where the pearls stand for various janmas and the string for the eternal ātman, in Buddhism it is like a pile of coins where each coin, each birth, thought dependent for its support on the coin below, on the birth that came before, does not have any eternal binding entity holding them together, only the unseen ‘gravity’ of karma. Isn’t it right, therefore, that the actual term in the Buddhist sense, used for this recurrence of lives, ought to be bhava, or, to be technically more exact, punarbhava/punabbhava/’re-becoming’/recurrent becoming, rather that punarjanma/rebirth/re-incarnation/metempsychosis?

How is "becoming" (bhava) defined in the context of Dependent Co-arising? If there is craving, will that craving always result in "becoming"? Is there something like craving without "becoming"? Thanks for your time and patience! EDIT: as I made the mistake of asking more than one question in the same post, I have two different answer (1231546 and Dhammadhatu's) which dissipated my doubts. Thanks!

Did Buddha mean the term "being or existence" as used in everyday life or different from those such as co-arising with contact and feeling and attachment ? In case Buddha meant the latter I believe the meaning of "being or existence" is quite different from the ordinary meaning. "Being or existence" is not something staying for 30 or 80 years but reborn every moment you become craved on sensual phenomenon.