I would say those were examples of the point that right view has a number of ways of being correctly expressed, and that while rebirth appears to be a suitable approach, it is also suitable to take another tack.nowheat wrote:So what I hear you saying is that because Anathapindika was talking about what is right view, and he did not include rebirth in that right view, rebirth is not a necessary part of right view. Sariputta does the same in MN 9. Do I understand that correctly?
In addition, I note that SN 35.153 does not even mention the first two of the three knowledges (faring-on according to kamma, past lives) when it teaches how a bhikkhu can declare final knowledge. In addition, observe MN 115:
Kamma is important for right view in the sense of §§16-17; §§18-19 simply apply that principle to the prevailing cosmological structure, functioning to ethicize what was otherwise a largely ritualized affair. I'm not saying this ethicized rebirth matrix does not obtain as fact, nor am I saying it does so obtain. I am saying that the principle of the efficacy of kamma is hammered home as the essential point, but that this point can be applied to, say, a Xian soteriological cosmology just as easily as it can be applied to the brahminic soteriological cosmology.16. “He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a wished for, desired, agreeable result could be produced from bodily misconduct...from verbal misconduct...from mental misconduct ― there is no such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that an unwished for, undesired, disagreeable result might be produced from bodily misconduct...from verbal misconduct...from mental misconduct ― there is such a possibility.’
17. He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that an unwished for, undesired, disagreeable result could be produced from good bodily conduct...from good verbal conduct...from good mental conduct ― there is no such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that a wished for, desired, agreeable result might be produced from good bodily conduct...from good verbal conduct...from good mental conduct ― there is such a possibility.’
18. He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person engaging in bodily misconduct...engaging in verbal misconduct...engaging in mental misconduct could on that account, for that reason, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world ― there is no such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that a person engaging in bodily misconduct...engaging in verbal misconduct...engaging in mental misconduct could on that account, for that reason, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell ― there is such a possibility.’
19. He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person engaging in good bodily conduct...engaging in good verbal conduct...engaging in good mental conduct could on that account, for that reason, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell ― there is no such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that a person engaging in good bodily conduct...engaging in good verbal conduct...engaging in good mental conduct could on that account, for that reason, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world.’
(As to the utter absence of a soteriological cosmology - annihilationism - the Buddha declared at AN 10.29 that such a view was the highest of outside speculative views because one who accepts such a view will not be attracted to existence nor averse to the cessation of existence; this view is still to be seen with disenchantment, but a rebirth-view is not held up as a proper replacement - only liberation through non-clinging.)