Dear Jou,
Thanks for the reply again.
One answer as to why that sutta doesn't mention futures lives is
that the one who fully untangles the Paticcasamuppadda is no longer
reborn. He has done what has to be done.
Do you know the writings of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, a Thai monk who died
about 10 years ago? He had a similar thesis to yours about rebirth
and dependendent origination. I have his book about it.
RobertK



- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Norman Joseph Smith" <josmith.1@...>
wrote:

> --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" <rjkjp1@...> wrote:
>
> > One thing: I am not sure why the sutta about dependent

origination

> > is evidence against literal rebirth?
>
> Well the negative version is said to cover three lives. Right? So
> logially the positive one would too, as it would be a mirror of

the

> same process, i.e. coming out of dukkha/samsaara, rather then

going

> into it. But I think it is obvious that the positive version is

only

> about this very life.
>
> Even if it [or both] could be interpreted that way, why would one?
> For didn't the Buddha make clear that his teaching [the 4 Noble
> Truths, including the path and goal] was for this very life?
>
> Peace and good health
> Jou Smith
>