Indeed!
But that was not the issue that engendered this thread. I don’t know if you followed that previous thread regarding SN 24.2 -
SN 24.2: can a phrase 'when this happens... that happens' be used for a full-fledged modus ponens?
There, the issue was the specific type of clinging as appropriation of the Aggregates as Self. I don’t believe anyone has asserted that kāmupādāna falls into the appropriation of the Aggregates as self, at least not me.
As I mentioned in my first post to you in this thread, part of the confusion that has arisen comes from the sloppiness in which the issue has been framed. The clinging being debated was in this context -
Somehow, this thread has gone off on a tangent to discuss other forms of clinging, in this instance kāmupādāna (clinging to the kāmā).
Might it be possible to return to the original proposition being discussed, ie -
Is appropriation of the Aggregates as self a sufficient condition for the arising of Self-view?
If you wish to discuss kāmupādāna in a separate thread, we can explore -
Is kāmupādāna a sufficient condition for the arising of kāmabhava?
This will of course bring us back to the jhāna debates.