Yes, in this context, kāmupādāna includes clinging to form and formless realms. I hope the commentary is clear on this.
Yeah that’s what I’m thinking.
So, in MN 11 pariññaṁ paññapenti means something closer to “correctly teaches” rather than “fully elaborates.” And given that some of the Buddha’s contemporaries correctly taught about abandoning views without realizing that the self is itself a view, it makes some sense why (in talking about other teachings) he’d want to call that out explicitly despite attavāda technically being a diṭṭhi.
And whether we call the taṇhā of an anāgāmī the residual result of prior upadāna now abandoned or whether we call it the result of some super-subtle form of kāmupādāna (or attavādupadāna) still remaining I personally don’t see much daylight between those explanations.
So I think I’m satisfied. Thanks everyone for your help!
4 Likes
I was contemplating this question, Bhante when it struck me that theravada is not quite the same thing as the samma ditthi that it espouses. Or the miccha ditthi that has been given up. 
? In the suttas, theravāda definitely does not have samma diṭṭhi as its cornerstone. “Theravāda” is exclusively used by the suttas to refer to the teachings of Āḷāra Kālāma and Rāma! 
4 Likes
Wow!
MN26
As far as lip-recital and verbal repetition went, I spoke the doctrine of knowledge, the elder doctrine.
So kho ahaṁ, bhikkhave, tāvatakeneva oṭṭhapahatamattena lapitalāpanamattena ñāṇavādañca vadāmi theravādañca
Indeed, I have learned something today. Thank you, Bhante!! 
5 Likes
I think it’s the case of semantic broadening of Vāda that’s throwing us off, since it literally just means “Speech” (which, Yajnavalkya’s exposition can’t be rightly called a “theory” or “view”, but just a manner of “designation/speech”, perhaps even faith / mana?), whilst elsewhere in the canon, the semantic broadening makes Vāda something like “Theories, Tradition” etc.
Just trying to hold the nuance where vāda could be differentiated from abstract “views”. 
Udana commentary, in Pāli, since AI translations are not allowed. So here it is, it should be easy to find your own translator.
Idāni yaṃ paramatthato dukkhassa nissaraṇaṃ, taṃ dassetuṃ, ‘‘sabbupādānakkhayā natthi dukkhassa sambhavo’’ ti vuttaṃ. Tattha sabbupādānakkhayā ti kāmupādānaṃ diṭṭhupādānaṃ sīlabbatupādānaṃ attavādupādānanti sabbesaṃ imesaṃ catunnampi upādānānaṃ ariyamaggādhigamena anavasesappahānato. Tattha diṭṭhupādānaṃ sīlabbatupādānaṃ attavādupādānanti imāni tīṇi upādānāni sotāpattimaggena khīyanti, anuppattidhammataṃ āpajjanti. Kāmupādānaṃ apāyagamanīyaṃ paṭhamena, kāmarāgabhūtaṃ bahalaṃ dutiyena, sukhumaṃ tatiyena, rūparāgārūparāgappahānaṃ catutthenāti catūhipi maggehi khīyati, anuppattidhammataṃ āpajjatīti veditabbaṃ. Natthi dukkhassa sambhavo ti evaṃ sabbaso upādānakkhayā tadekaṭṭhatāya sabbassapi kilesagaṇassa anuppādanato appamattakassapi vaṭṭadukkhassa sambhavo pātubhāvo natthi.
it does affirm that attavāda is personality view, gone at stream entry, but the clinging to sensuality includes the form and formless realms, so it’s only completely eliminated at arahanthood.
Classical Theravada answers is very different from what I have been taught in an EBT monastery. I think Classical Theravada answer here makes more sense.
Grateful if you could cite these instances.
Without detracting from the main topic, i can’t help but wonder if the difference between vada and ditthi can be traced back to the difference between vijja and nana.
When the N8FP is taught as ten, it contains samma-nana and samma-vimutti. If the highest fetter is avijja, then why samma vijja is not what follows samma samadhi? If i were to make a guess, then sabbe dhamma anatta and attavada are essentially the same - except that such knowledge is not necessary for liberation.
I had; it’s in the MN 11.
There are some other ascetics and brahmins who claim to propound the complete understanding of all kinds of grasping, but they don’t really. They describe the complete understanding of grasping at sensual pleasures and views, but not precepts and observances, and theories of a self.
Since this sutta defines views very specifically in terms of bhavaditthi and vibhavaditthi, the views in this paragraph can only be those two views they explain the grasping of.
“Ñāṇa” there is short for yathābhūtañāṇadassana = “knowledge and vision of the way things are.”
The difference between ñāṇa and vijja is nibbidāvirāga = disillusionment and dispassion. ñāṇa leads to dispassion and dispassion leads to vimutti. See AN 8.81 etc
Maybe i am reading the sutta differently. I do not see the sutta defining views, but rather demonstrating two types of views to explain how opposing and favoring take place.
More generally, i think differentiating sankhata dhamma from asankhata dhamma is crucial to understanding why attavada is not a fetter of the mind. Absence a soul or a spirit, sabbe dhamma anatta demonstrates sankhata dhamma as the best in terms of letter - amongst other teachings or philosophical positions. The Buddha prioritized liberation, so he did not enjoy the papanca associated with demonstrating his dhamma as the highest.
Thank you. I had something more technical in mind. I thought moving from avijja to vijja has to be via negativa whereas the same thing cannot be said about nana.
And yet the original sutta explicitly lists it as one!
I had AN10.13 in mind. Is there any other suttas that explicitly lists attavada as a fetter?
“Conceit” / Māno is often defined as a tendency to appropirate things in relation to a self, and the latency to still say “I am”. So, it makes sense to consider attavāda being removed as Māno is removed.
See Sn 35.30, An 4.24, and MN 9:
A noble disciple understands in this way suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its cessation. They’ve completely given up the underlying tendency to greed, got rid of the underlying tendency to aversion, and eradicated the underlying tendency to the view and conceit ‘I am’. They’ve given up ignorance and given rise to knowledge, and make an end of suffering in this very life.
Yato kho, āvuso, ariyasāvako evaṁ dukkhaṁ pajānāti, evaṁ dukkhasamudayaṁ pajānāti, evaṁ dukkhanirodhaṁ pajānāti, evaṁ dukkhanirodhagāminiṁ paṭipadaṁ pajānāti, so sabbaso rāgānusayaṁ pahāya, paṭighānusayaṁ paṭivinodetvā, ‘asmī’ti diṭṭhimānānusayaṁ samūhanitvā, avijjaṁ pahāya vijjaṁ uppādetvā, diṭṭheva dhamme dukkhassantakaro hoti—
Bhante, Peter Mansfeld and he was in Sydney translated for Pali Text Society version 1100 pages I have digital copy here.
My gut feeling now is he leaves that bit you cite as evidence out completely and the reason maybe because it is not consistent with rest of commentaries the kind of thing translator to do… anyway still on this… 8 hours in
… this is from your “Gemini says” . Confident you are .
“trust but verify”
What you are saying is “classical Theravada” what if it was not?
I don’t understand you.
I quoted the Pāli only because my previous post which include AI translated into english of that passage was flagged. If you wish to copy paste Peter Mansfeld’s translation of that part, you’re welcome to help the public.
Bhante as I just said he did not translate that part and as I suspect it’s because it is not consistent with classical commentaries …and you are the one to have asserted that the formless is part of the sensory, in this section it was very hard to find because he did not translate that but a person who offering and did translate Udana and the whole 1100 commentary is “somewhat qualified” perhaps he understood and knew more about that section which is why he left untranslated because it was not consistent ?
“Trust but verify”
I am about 8 hours into this
This is what you are offering as proof “classical Theravada“ as you put it formless is sensory
This is what caused me doubt. I don’t think it’s from any understanding where guided by a Thera or their speech or way
You can maybe ask him why he didn’t translate that part.
I don’t think it is inconsistent. It is either attachment to sensuality includes attachment to form and formless realms or the above conclusion that attavāda means conceit or the unacceptable conclusion that non returners have no clinging.