SuttaCentral
Hi Deeele,
As far as I understand the erradication of self-view (sakkaya-ditthi) - together with doubt and grasping at habits & practices - is in the sutta sufficient for the stream entry. Is D.O. ended by stream entry?
As I wrote before, the way I read the suttas suffering perpetuating D.O. ends with the erradication of conceit (mana) and ignorance (avijja), for this is the threshold arahants cross.
I disagree. 'Self-view’is an integral part of D.O. and the extinction of self-view seems to be an integral part of ending ‘rebirth’. MN 148 is a relevant sutta highlighting the abandonment of ‘self-view’ where some remnants of craving may remain.
I don’t see the point of posting my view again since it was already posted & you have not posted anything compelling to alter my view.
My impression is the primary accomplishment of a Buddha is to extinguish D.O. rather than reveal it. To only reveal D.O. would be like revealing a disease but offering no cure.
Craving was identified as the root cause of dukkha (such as in the four noble truths) until the Buddha later revealed D.O. to his students.
Both ignorance & cravings are the two primary doers of suffering, which is why they are mentioned in the many suttas about samsara.
This is contrary to the previous view posted that there is no “doer”.
It is called the ‘wrong way’ obviously because it is the ‘wrong way’.
Yes. One should practise to cease D.O. and cease ‘rebirth’.
There is a “doer” of intention, which is ignorance.
On account of the element of violence, bhikkhus, arises a perception of violence, on account of a perception of violence arises an intention of violence, on account of an intention of violence arises a desire of violence, on account of a desire of violence arises an ardor of violence, on account of an ardor of violence arises a quest of violence. For the sake of a quest of violence, bhikkhus, an uninstructed ordinary individual conducts himself erroneously in three ways: in body, in speech and in mind.
SN 14.12
OK…that is what you were referring to.
My understanding is the stream-enterer has only eradicated self-view as a belief but not the arising of self-view. ‘Self-view’ or at least ‘grasping’ (‘upadana’) continues to arise in the mind of all noble ones (when mindfulness & wisdom occasionally lapse) until arahantship.
One of the ‘upadana’ is not exactly termed ‘sakkaya-ditthi’ but instead ‘attavādūpādānaṃ’. I do not know what the difference is here in terminology but they appear similar.
There is no point in getting into these disagreements. Dhamma is Paccanthan vetithabbo vinnuhiti.
With Metta
Now I got it. Thanks for clarifying. Going back to the Pali is always a good way to make things clearer!
I trust attavādūpādānaṃ is totally abandoned with the fruition of arahantship. I opened a new topic for us to explore further this interesting subject!
Oh no!. I have been trying to abandon this thread since the 9th post. 
Preferable to adhering to the views of Buddhaghosa or Nargajuna about a ‘12-fold emptiness’ that is pregnant with anusaya (underlying tendencies) & upadana (attaching) related to self-views.
It seems the Buddha was careful & heedful to ensure his definition of ‘emptiness’ (‘sunnata’) was completely void of self.
With metta. 
The possible answer is this.
In sutta such as SN 5.10 and SN 12.15, it is said for the noble disciple the arising of the ‘self’ thought is not the arising of a self but, instead, the arising of suffering.
… he does not take a stand about ‘my self.’ He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing. SN 12.15
Therefore, the stream-enterer does not view any ignorant self thoughts that may arise as a real self (sakkaya-ditthi) but, instead, as the arising of ignorance, the arising of suffering or simply as attachment (upadana).
Where as an ordinary person actually believes there is a real self, i.e., has ‘sakkaya-ditthi’.
I have always been drawn to the translation of ‘attavādūpādānaṃ’ as ‘grasping at words about self’, similar to the discussion in SN 1.25.
I hope that makes sense.
Getting back to the original topic, I have to say I have never really understood exactly what upadana refers to psychologically, in my own experience.
SN 22.83 has an analogy:
“Suppose, friend Ānanda, a young woman—or a man—youthful and fond of ornaments, would examine her own facial image in a mirror or in a bowl filled with pure, clear, clean water: she would look at it with clinging, not without clinging. So too, it is by clinging to form that ‘I am’ occurs, not without clinging. It is by clinging to feeling … to perception … to volitional formations … to consciousness that ‘I am’ occurs, not without clinging.
Like, let’s say I look in the mirror on a day I feel especially handsome, there is a delight in looking at that form, picking it up and saying “this is me.”
As far as I can tell, upadana (when it doesn’t mean fuel), refers just to wanting and caring about experience. Contact causes vedana, but then you pick up (upadana) that vedana instead of just leaving it on the ground, leaving it be.
If anyone knows any more analogies for upadana in the suttas, please post them.
Very clear. Thank you.
Delight in feelings is clinging. MN 38