daverupa wrote:It's a bit more complex than that... I recollect this .pdf article by Ven. Analayo, for example, which discusses the structure and language of MN 117 and the likelihood that its demarcation of "right view" and "right view with effluents" is traceable to a later Abhidhamma stratum of composition. This means that such a demarcation is possibly a later development, made much of by disciples but not made as much of by the Buddha.
These differences in redaction are minor and don't alter the teachings on rebirth. If anything, this comparative analysis of MN 117 shows that the distinction between right view with effluents and without effluents, which rebirth skeptics are wont to hang their hats on, is merely an arbitrary addition not found in the other versions of this discourse.
daverupa wrote:Ñāṇa wrote:Ṭhānissaro wrote:This narrow focus places an obstacle in your ability to develop right view — and in particular, your ability to see dependent co-arising as a self-sustaining process.
SN 22.79 seems to contradict this.
(Forgot to include this in the previous reply.) SN 42.11:
- Headman, by means of this principle that is seen, understood, immediately attained, fathomed, apply the method to the past and to the future thus: 'Whatever suffering arose in the past, all that arose rooted in desire, with desire as its source; for desire is the root of suffering. Whatever suffering will arise in the future, all that will arise rooted in desire, with desire as its source; for desire is the root of suffering.'