I fail to understand your objection. "There is nothing given..." is a stock passage for a view that the Buddha always disagrees
with. I don't see any logic in your blog that renders it bogus just because it is used by people other than the Buddha.
I think you are reading too much into the translated words such as "given" and "sacraficed". I'm sure someone more knowledgeable in Pali could comment, but as Bhikkhu Bodhi says in footnote 425 referring to the passage in MN 41 Sāleyyaka Sutta:
"There is nothing given" means that there is no fruit of giving...
He doesn't specifically mention "sacraficed" in that footnote, but I've certainly heard him comment on it in some talk or other...
Mike, I think maybe you are misunderstanding my point. I may not have articulated very well, but I am not saying that the Buddha disagreed overall with the notion expressed in the stock phrase. In my blog, I say:
the Buddha most certainly disagreed with the overall notion that actions do not lead to any result
I do think that the Buddha agreed that there was fruit of giving. There more than amble evidence that suggests this. I personally don't believe that the Buddha agreed with each piece of the stock passage -- namely the part that talked about sacrifice. It is fairly clear that Ajita Kesakambali (that is where the stock passage came from) was referring of the Vedic sacrifice of animals to gain favors to the gods. The Buddha never thought killing animals under superstitious pretenses was a good thing.
I would be very surprised if you could find a comment from Bhikkhu Bodhi on what the "sacrifice" element of wrong view is. I get the impression from him that the suttas are almost a perfect edifiace. Take a look at his response given in a review to Gombrich's book, "How Buddhism Began" (http://www.buddhistethics.org/4/bodhi1.html
To my mind, the texts of the four Nikāyas form a strikingly consistent and harmonious edifice, and I am confident that the apparent inconsistencies are not indicative of internal fissuring but of subtle variations of method that would be clear to those with sufficient insight.
"Sufficient Insight?" Gombrich is one of the leading Buddhist scholars of the world who has spent over 30 years studying it. This seems to be nothing but an ad hominem attack.
The point is who cares what Bhikkhu Bodhi says or even Gombrich.
Look at the arguments, and at the evidence (some I believe I provided which is fairly convincing) and come to your own conclusions.