Greetings Peter,
Peter wrote:I don't think he needed to convince most people about rebirth. Wasn't it the dominant belief at the time?
It's hard to know for sure, but I get the impression more people believed in some kind of rebirth than those who didn't. However, it certainly wasn't an overwhelming majority, or he wouldn't have bothered denoting annihilationist views in the Brahmajala Sutta.
Peter wrote:
much as annihilation is the dominant belief of our time?
Yes, but again, not an overwhelming majority. Some people, my wife included, deny any kind of rebirth because they think it doesn't accord with science, when the truth of the matter is that "science" does not know the answer one way or the other and it's very difficult to confirm or deny via scientific method. As I see it, the Buddha effectively sidestepped the whole issue by showing there was no soul to transmigrate, nor was there any soul to be destroyed.
Peter wrote:
Hence back then he was intent on removing eternalist views whereas if he was around today maybe he'd be intent on removing nihilist views. Just my opinion, though.
A perfectly good opinion of course, and I think in terms of relativities, you're spot on. That said, if history was anything to go by, his intent would be focused on the teaching of anatta, such that irrespective of the speculative beliefs people held, they'd be on the money in what mattered most.
Metta,
Retro.
