bhavata.nhaa vs. ta.nhaa for bhava

Dear Jim and Robert,
Very interesting comments on "bhava" and "bhavata.nhaa"...

Jim: ...The 'bhava' in 'bhavata.nhaa' refers to the eternalistic view
(sassatadi.t.thi). I had to check with the commentaries for this
explanation which goes something like this: passion/desire (raaga)
accompanied by the eternalistic view. Di.t.thi has to be read in
between bhava and ta.nhaa.

--> Dan: If bhavata.nhaa is ditthi (which makes sense), the sotapanna
are free from bhavata.nhaa (which also makes sense). However, this
bhava (being) of bhavata.nhaa seems quite different from the bhava
(becoming) of paticca-samuppada. Isn't every grasping at a sense
object really a ta.nha for bhava (as "becoming" rather than "being")?
This moment to moment renewal of being (i.e. becoming) arises in
response to the craving for the process of renewal, for "becoming" --
the monkey mind that grasps for object after object after object
because each object turns out to be unsatisfactory.

Is it fair to say that bhavata.nhaa is eradicated at stream-entry but
ta.nhaa for bhava is not eradicated until arahantship?


Dan