This is does make sense, but if you increment suttas from SN 24.3, you’ll see that ‘grasping and insisting on’ the five khandas is the basis of many different views, for example SN 24.5 has grasping and insisting on the khandas as the basis for the view:
‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife…
So perhaps identifying as the khandas is a basis for speculating about how the world works in general. But since there are potentially infinite views one can have, it makes sense to just focus on the common ones.
Firstly, it looks like “The self and the cosmos are one and the same…” just refers to an eternalist view in general. For example:
(SN 22.81) ‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After death I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.’ But that eternalist view is just a conditioned phenomenon.
Here is the agama version of the eternalist view:
(SA 152) The self, this world and the other world, exist permanently, are of a lasting and unchanging nature, dwelling at peace like that
When looking at SN 22.152, the point seems to be that ‘grasping and insisting on’ the khandas is what gives rise to an eternalist view. It’s also what’s give rise to an annihilationist view:
(SN 22.81) Still, they have such a view: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’ But that annihilationist view is just a conditioned phenomenon.
This seems to be the agama version of the annihilationist:
(SA 156) 'All living beings who live in this world will be annihilated after death, will be destroyed, and will no longer exist. A human being is a combination of the four great elements…
To sum it up, my impression is so far that grasping/identifying as the khandas is what gives rise to a whole host of different speculative views on the self and on the world.
It seems that maybe MN 22 is suffering from a copying error; the eternalist view isn’t itself a ground for views, it’s just a wrong view that isn’t explicitly formulated in terms of the khandas, that arises from grapsing the khandas. So maybe MN 22 got a bit jumbled up somehow.
These were very interesting suttas, thanks for bringing them up 