user4888: When reading through the Maha Nidana sutta I came across the three types of becoming: Sensual becoming, form becoming, and formless becoming. I am trying to understand what the different forms of becoming are. This sutta does not explain how they are different, it only says that birth occurs if any type of becoming occurs. To try to understand the differences I read the Bhava sutta; this sutta says

"Ananda, if there were no kamma ripening in the sensuality-property, would sensuality-becoming be discerned?"
"No, lord."
"Thus kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture. The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance & fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a lower property. Thus there is the production of renewed becoming in the future.

This is repeated replacing "sensuality-property" and "sensuality-becoming" with "form-property" and "form-becoming", and likewise for formless property/becoming.
Ven Thanissaro Bhikkhu mentions in his notes on the Bhava sutta that the Buddha never defines becoming, the Buddha just splits becoming into these three types. From these suttas it appears that knowing what sensuality-property, form-property, and formless-property mean is all there is to knowing the differences in the types of becoming but I haven't been able to find information on what they are.

user8157: I am trying to understand what the different forms of becoming are. This sutta does not explain how they are different.
The different forms of 'becoming' are 'sensual', 'material' & 'immaterial' becoming.  
Sensual becoming is when there is 'self-identity' in relation to sensuality. For example, the mind thinks: "I love this delicious food, this is now my favourite good, I am going to visit this restaurant every week". Or: "I love this (sexy & beautiful) woman, she is my wife, I am her husband". 
Material becoming is 'self-identity' in relation to a material object or in relation to one of the four rupa jhanas. For example: "I am rich, I have lots of money, this is my big house (which make me feel materially secure rather than give me sensual pleasure); I am now a meditation master because I have attained the 1st jhana". 
Immaterial becoming is 'self-identity' in relation to an immaterial object or in relation to one of the four arupa jhanas. For example: "I am famous, I am loved; I have a good reputation; I am important; I am now a meditation master because I have attained arupa jhana". 
The scriptures explain: 

The craving resulting in new becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual
  pleasure, craving to be, craving not-to-be: This, friend
  Visakha, is the origination/arising of self-identification described by the
  Blessed One.
MN 44


Ven Thanissaro Bhikkhu mentions in his notes on the Bhava sutta that the Buddha never defines becoming.
The scriptures certainly define 'becoming'; just as the scriptures define the word 'being' or 'satta', as follows:

The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance & fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a lower property. AN 3.76

~~~

‘A being,’ lord. ‘A being,’ it’s said. To what extent is one said to be ‘a being’? Any desire, passion, delight or craving for form,
  feeling, perception, mental formations &/or consciousness Radha: when
  one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be ‘a
  being'. SN 23.2

Thus both 'becoming' & the 'birth' of 'being' appear to be forms of or extensions of 'attachment'. 


The Mahanidana Sutta is different to the many other stock suttas (such as SN 12.2 & MN 9) on Dependent Origination. For example, the Mahanidana Sutta does not define 'aging-&-death'; defines 'birth' differently; ignores the six sense spheres; defines nama-rupa & consciousness differently; ignores sankhara & ignores ignorance. 
It is rather unusual that DN 15 is called 'The Great' sutta about causation when a number of causes (nidana) are missing or undefined. 
Contrary to DN 15, the other stock suttas appear to define 'birth' as the production of the ignorant 'view' of 'beings' ('satta'): 

And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, entering, coming-to-be, coming-forth of the various beings in this or that group
  of beings based on the manifestation ('play') the aggregates & taking
  possession of sense spheres/sense objects, that is called birth. SN
  12.2

~~~

In human bodies in themselves, nothing distinctive can be found. Distinction among human beings is purely verbal designation….For name
  & clan are assigned, originating in conventions…Whoever makes his
  living among men by agriculture is called a ‘farmer’…Whoever makes his
  living among men by merchandise  is called a ‘merchant’…that is how
  the wise truly see…seers of dependent origination. MN 98

~~~

Angulimala [the former mass-murderer], say to that woman: “Sister, since I was born with a noble birth [as a monk], I do not recall that I have ever intentionally deprived a
  living being of life”. MN 86

~~~

There is the case where an uninstructed person assumes form, feeling, perception, mental formations &/or consciousness to be a ‘self’. That
  assumption is a mental formation. Now what is the cause, what is the
  origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of
  that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched
  by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises.
  That mental formation of ‘self’ is born from that. And that mental
  formation is impermanent, fabricated, dependently arisen. That
  craving… That feeling… That contact… That ignorance is impermanent,
  fabricated, dependently arisen. SN 22.81

~~~

Why now do you assume ‘a being’? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found. Just as,
  with an assemblage of parts, the word ‘chariot’ is used, so, when the
  aggregates are present, there’s the convention ‘a being.’ SN 5.10


user254: I think the passage you're asking about (in the Access to Insight translation of DN 15) is this:

"'From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. If there were no becoming at all, in any way, of anything anywhere — i.e., sensual becoming, form becoming, or formless becoming — in the utter absence of becoming, from the cessation of becoming, would birth be discerned?"

I think that's a summary of the previous paragraph, i.e.:

If there were no birth at all, in any way, of anything anywhere — i.e., of devas in the state of devas, of celestials in the state of celestials, of spirits in the state of spirits, of demons in the state of demons, of human beings in the human state, of quadrupeds in the state of quadrupeds, of birds in the state of birds, of snakes in the state of snakes, or of any being in its own state — in the utter absence of birth, from the cessation of birth, would aging and death be discerned?

I.e. the types of becoming correspond to birth in the various planes of existence.
Dharmafarer's introduction to the Bhava Sutta describes them as follows:

Another interesting feature of the two discourses is their treatment of the
  three realms as “low” (hīna dhātu), “middling” (majjhima dhātu), and “subtle” (paṇīta dhātu), that is,
  the sense-world, the form world, and the formless world, respectively.
The “lowly” sense-realm (kāma,dhātu) [§1b] is the realm of beings dependent on some form of physical
  senses, and is the lowest of the three existential spheres. It comprises the human world, the subhuman
  realms (the hells, the animal kingdom, and the ghost realm of the departed), and the six lower heavens.6
  It
  is said to be “low” (hīna) because the beings there are dependent on the physical senses and the mind.
The “middling” form realm (rūpa,dhātu) [§2] is the realm of blissful dhyanic existence of radiant
  fine-materiality,7 whose beings still have the faculties of seeing and hearing, but which along with the
  other physical senses are temporarily suspended in the four dhyanas.8 The beings of such realms are called
  brahmas (brahmā), or “high gods,” who normally have almost nothing to do with the sense world,
  since they are absorbed in their celestial dhyanic bliss. When they do appear in the sense-world, they
  apparently have to emerge from their dhyanic state.9
The “subtle” formless realm (arūpa,dhātu) [§3] comprises of beings of pure energy, that is, without
  any physical form whatsoever.10 They exist only as varying refined states of the four mental aggregates
  (feeling, perception, formations and consciousness). These beings have no contact with the sense-world
  whatsoever.11


4888: <p>When reading through the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html" rel="noreferrer">Maha Nidana sutta</a> I came across the three types of becoming: Sensual becoming, form becoming, and formless becoming. I am trying to understand what the different forms of becoming are. This sutta does not explain how they are different, it only says that birth occurs if any type of becoming occurs. To try to understand the differences I read the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.076.than.html" rel="noreferrer">Bhava sutta</a>; this sutta says</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;Ananda, if there were no kamma ripening in the sensuality-property, would sensuality-becoming be discerned?&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;No, lord.&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;Thus kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture. The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance &amp; fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a lower property. Thus there is the production of renewed becoming in the future.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is repeated replacing &quot;sensuality-property&quot; and &quot;sensuality-becoming&quot; with &quot;form-property&quot; and &quot;form-becoming&quot;, and likewise for formless property/becoming.</p>
<p>Ven Thanissaro Bhikkhu mentions in his notes on the Bhava sutta that the Buddha never defines becoming, the Buddha just splits becoming into these three types. From these suttas it appears that knowing what sensuality-property, form-property, and formless-property mean is all there is to knowing the differences in the types of becoming but I haven't been able to find information on what they are.</p>
 8157: <p><strong>I am trying to understand what the different forms of becoming are. This sutta does not explain how they are different.</strong></p>

<p>The different forms of 'becoming' are 'sensual', 'material' &amp; 'immaterial' becoming.  </p>

<p>Sensual becoming is when there is 'self-identity' in relation to sensuality. For example, the mind thinks: "I love this delicious food, this is now my favourite good, I am going to visit this restaurant every week". Or: "I love this (sexy &amp; beautiful) woman, she is my wife, I am her husband". </p>

<p>Material becoming is 'self-identity' in relation to a material object or in relation to one of the four rupa jhanas. For example: "I am rich, I have lots of money, this is my big house (which make me feel materially secure rather than give me sensual pleasure); I am now a meditation master because I have attained the 1st jhana". </p>

<p>Immaterial becoming is 'self-identity' in relation to an immaterial object or in relation to one of the four arupa jhanas. For example: "I am famous, I am loved; I have a good reputation; I am important; I am now a meditation master because I have attained arupa jhana". </p>

<p>The scriptures explain: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>The <strong>craving resulting in new becoming</strong> — accompanied by passion &amp; delight, relishing now here &amp; now there — i.e., craving for sensual
  pleasure, craving to be, craving not-to-be: This, friend
  Visakha, <strong>is the origination/arising of</strong> <strong>self-identification</strong> described by the
  Blessed One.</em></p>
  
  <p><a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html" rel="nofollow"><em>MN 44</em></a></p>
</blockquote>

<hr>

<p><strong>Ven Thanissaro Bhikkhu mentions in his notes on the Bhava sutta that the Buddha never defines becoming.</strong></p>

<p>The scriptures certainly define 'becoming'; just as the scriptures define the word 'being' or 'satta', as follows:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance &amp; fettered by craving is <strong>established in/tuned to</strong> a lower property. AN 3.76</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>~~~</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>‘A being,’ lord. ‘A being,’ it’s said. To what extent is one said to be ‘a being’? Any desire, passion, delight or craving for form,
  feeling, perception, mental formations &amp;/or consciousness Radha: when
  one is <strong>caught up</strong> there, <strong>tied up</strong> there, one is said to be ‘a
  being'. SN 23.2</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Thus both 'becoming' &amp; the 'birth' of 'being' appear to be forms of or extensions of 'attachment'. </p>

<hr>

<hr>

<p>The <strong>Mahanidana Sutta</strong> is different to the many other stock suttas (such as <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html" rel="nofollow">SN 12.2</a> &amp; <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.than.html" rel="nofollow">MN 9</a>) on Dependent Origination. For example, the Mahanidana Sutta does not define 'aging-&amp;-death'; defines 'birth' differently; ignores the six sense spheres; defines nama-rupa &amp; consciousness differently; ignores sankhara &amp; ignores ignorance. </p>

<p>It is rather unusual that DN 15 is called 'The Great' sutta about causation when a number of causes (nidana) are missing or undefined. </p>

<p>Contrary to DN 15, the other stock suttas appear to define 'birth' as the production of the ignorant 'view' of 'beings' ('satta'): </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, entering, coming-to-be, coming-forth of the various <strong>beings</strong> in this or that group
  of <strong>beings</strong> based on the manifestation ('play') the aggregates &amp; taking
  possession of sense spheres/sense objects, that is called birth. SN
  12.2</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>~~~</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>In human bodies in themselves, nothing distinctive can be found. <strong>Distinction among human beings</strong> is purely verbal designation….For name
  &amp; clan are assigned, originating in conventions…Whoever makes his
  living among men by agriculture is called a ‘farmer’…Whoever makes his
  living among men by merchandise  is called a ‘merchant’…that is how
  the wise truly see…seers of dependent origination. MN 98</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>~~~</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Angulimala [the former mass-murderer], say to that woman: “Sister, since I was <strong>born</strong> with a <strong>noble birth</strong> [as a monk], I do not recall that I have ever intentionally deprived a
  living being of life”. MN 86</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>~~~</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>There is the case where an uninstructed person assumes form, feeling, perception, mental formations &amp;/or consciousness to be a ‘self’. That
  assumption is a mental formation. Now what is the cause, what is the
  origination, what is the <strong>birth</strong>, what is the coming-into-existence of
  that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched
  by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises.
  That mental formation of ‘self’ is <strong>born</strong> from that. And that mental
  formation is impermanent, fabricated, dependently arisen. That
  craving… That feeling… That contact… That ignorance is impermanent,
  fabricated, dependently arisen. SN 22.81</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>~~~</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Why now do you assume ‘<strong>a being</strong>’? Mara, have you grasped <strong>a view</strong>? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found. Just as,
  with an assemblage of parts, the word ‘chariot’ is used, so, when the
  aggregates are present, there’s the convention ‘a being.’ SN 5.10</em></p>
</blockquote>
 254: <p>I think the passage you're asking about (in the Access to Insight translation of DN 15) is this:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"'From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. If there were no becoming at all, in any way, of anything anywhere — i.e., sensual becoming, form becoming, or formless becoming — in the utter absence of becoming, from the cessation of becoming, would birth be discerned?"</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I think that's a summary of the previous paragraph, i.e.:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If there were no birth at all, in any way, of anything anywhere — i.e., of devas in the state of devas, of celestials in the state of celestials, of spirits in the state of spirits, of demons in the state of demons, of human beings in the human state, of quadrupeds in the state of quadrupeds, of birds in the state of birds, of snakes in the state of snakes, or of any being in its own state — in the utter absence of birth, from the cessation of birth, would aging and death be discerned?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I.e. the types of becoming correspond to birth in the various planes of existence.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/23.13-Bhava-S-1-2-a3.76-77-piya.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dharmafarer's introduction to the Bhava Sutta</a> describes them as follows:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Another interesting feature of the two discourses is their treatment of the
  three realms as “low” (<em>hīna dhātu</em>), “middling” (<em>majjhima dhātu</em>), and “subtle” (<em>paṇīta dhātu</em>), that is,
  the sense-world, the form world, and the formless world, respectively.</p>
  
  <p>The “lowly” <strong>sense-realm</strong> (<em>kāma,dhātu</em>) [§1b] is the realm of beings dependent on some form of physical
  senses, and is the lowest of the three existential spheres. It comprises the human world, the subhuman
  realms (the hells, the animal kingdom, and the ghost realm of the departed), and the six lower heavens.<sup>6</sup>
  It
  is said to be “low” (<em>hīna</em>) because the beings there are dependent on the physical senses and the mind.</p>
  
  <p>The “middling” <strong>form realm</strong> (<em>rūpa,dhātu</em>) [§2] is the realm of blissful dhyanic existence of radiant
  fine-materiality,<sup>7</sup> whose beings still have the faculties of seeing and hearing, but which along with the
  other physical senses are temporarily suspended in the four dhyanas.<sup>8</sup> The beings of such realms are called
  brahmas (<em>brahmā</em>), or “high gods,” who normally have almost nothing to do with the sense world,
  since they are absorbed in their celestial dhyanic bliss. When they do appear in the sense-world, they
  apparently have to emerge from their dhyanic state.<sup>9</sup></p>
  
  <p>The “subtle” <strong>formless realm</strong> (<em>arūpa,dhātu</em>) [§3] comprises of beings of pure energy, that is, without
  any physical form whatsoever.<sup>10</sup> They exist only as varying refined states of the four mental aggregates
  (feeling, perception, formations and consciousness). These beings have no contact with the sense-world
  whatsoever.<sup>11</sup></p>
</blockquote>
