I imagine you are referring to MN117 or such like that says things like:
Katamā ca, bhikkhave, sammādiṭṭhi?
And what is right view?
Sammādiṭṭhimpahaṁ, bhikkhave, dvāyaṁ vadāmi—
Right view is twofold, I say.
atthi, bhikkhave, sammādiṭṭhi sāsavā puññabhāgiyā upadhivepakkā;
There is right view that is accompanied by defilements, partakes of good deeds, and ripens in attachments.
atthi, bhikkhave, sammādiṭṭhi ariyā anāsavā lokuttarā maggaṅgā.
And there is right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.
and then
Katamā ca, bhikkhave, sammādiṭṭhi ariyā anāsavā lokuttarā maggaṅgā?
And what is right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path?
Yā kho, bhikkhave, ariyacittassa anāsavacittassa ariyamaggasamaṅgino ariyamaggaṁ bhāvayato paññā paññindriyaṁ paññābalaṁ dhammavicayasambojjhaṅgo sammādiṭṭhi maggaṅgaṁ—
It’s the wisdom—the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, the awakening factor of investigation of principles, and right view as a factor of the path—in one intent on the noble, intent on the undefiled, who possesses the noble path and develops the noble path.
ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, sammādiṭṭhi ariyā anāsavā lokuttarā maggaṅgā.
This is called right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.
The PTS Dictionary says;
Diṭṭhi, (f.) (Sk. dṛṣṭi; cp. dassana) view, belief, dogma, theory, speculation.
it means belief.
But perhaps “belief” is the problem, after all, just because we now know what diṭṭhi means in english doesn’t mean we know what “belief” means in english 
the internet says;
Belief, an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
and having no beliefs is exactly what the buddha says in MN72, he doesn’t believe that the universe or the soul is eternal, temporary, both, neither, etc etc, as all of these things are beliefs, things that people hold on to without proof, without knowing. And the Buddha has done away with all that.
I find all that pretty straight forward on any sensible and parsimonious reading of Aṭṭhakavagga or MN 72 or DN1 etc etc.
MN117 on the other hand…
(I will say as an aside here before plunging ahead. I wrote quite a few paragraphs more in my last response to you before deleting them before posting, thinkin I may offend the more sensitive souls here. I regret that, and I find that I am more and more conscious with each passing week of just how intensely and comprehensively the ambient and unspoken social order here influences and even dictates what can and can’t be said, and how. I will temporarily “speak freely” in what is to come. I hope that people can get past their reflexive stance, but even if they can’t, well, so be it.)
One of the immense and palpable ironies of “EBT” Buddhism is it’s total lack of nuance or sensitivity in the way it throws the entirety of Mahayana and other Buddhisms under the bus, loudly and self-importantly shouts it’s own superiority from the rooftops because it is “first”, “oldest”, “original;” etc and then shrilly and frantically condemns and decries anyone and everyone who dare to suggest that there are parts of Buddhist literature that predate the prose suttas.
The “EBT” project it seems to me has always in practice been twofold: on the one hand it works tirelessly to promote the material it sees as early and by implication denigrate the material it sees as late, and on the other hand it woks even more tirelessly to delegitimize, obscure and erase awareness of the enormous amount of scholarship that points to the in the end obvious fact that the nikaya/agamas formed over hundreds of years all of which almost certainly post date the “Buddha” if there even ever was such a person.
Scholars have recognized that the Aṭṭhakavagga appears to be earlier than the prose suttas for centuries.
Read straightforwardly, a LOT of the poetry reads like it was composed before there where complex doctrines like five clinging aggregates, a heirachy of jhanas into formlessnesses, 12 links in the DO, etc etc, in fact, re3ad straightforwardly a lot of the prose reads like it was composed before those things.
But there is a multi billion dollar global institution, that many, many people join, receiving lifetime food, accommodation, and the literal worship of devout followers, that is highly motivated to encourage the idea that there DEFINITLY was a Buddha, and he ALMOST CERTIANLY said, more or less, in outline if not in detail, what is said in the prose suttas.
Again, when you actually read the stuff, it’s like chalk and cheese, the central idea of the Aṭṭhakavagga is powerful, profound, terse, and reflects a material culture TOTALLY AT ODDS with the one we can infer from the material (sources to come) that says things like “if you can’t handle solitary wandering, stay at the monastery dormitory, it’s safer!” and “ONe of the best things you can do for your kamma is donate a royal parks!” and “fake monks are dangerous, you may not even know what jhana is but you are liberated by learning!”
The idea that somehow, when you squint, the poetry that is commentated on by the Niddessa is “the same” as the prose, is RIDICULOUS.
The mental gymnastics required to explain away the COUNTLESS examples of doctrinal evolution, evolution of material culture from non-urban to urban, changes in metre (changes that track the changes in non-buddhist poetics btw, and clearly cover a period of hundreds of years, not decades), changes in language (again, not just words, but whole languages), changes in tone, changes in the felicity of parallels, the list goes on and on and on, and thats not even canvasing the VAST amount of contemporary or near contemporary scholarship that has to be constantly ignored, denigrated when it is brought up, mischaracterized, etc etc.
“EBT” is a MONASTIC movement, it is essentially a reform movement within Therevada that seeks to more or less revive a contemporary version of “Sautrantika”. It therefore needs to be able to wave away the commentaries where necessary (and even abhidhamma or vinaya where absolutely necessary) but it also needs to tacitly or explicitly defend the view that the bulk of the Nikaya/Agamas are really “close enough” to the word of the Buddha, and it needs (now mostly tacitly and I except unconsciously) to privilege monasticism above laity and especially above academic scholarship where that scholarship points out the OBVIOUS tissue thin nature of their fundamental position in relation to the evidence.
MN117 is a near-perfect example of a text that is clearly the result of a culture that was recompiling litanies of old wisdom sayings into ever more complicated, ever more redundant, and frankly ever more incoherent products.
It is evidence of a culture that had radically changed from the days when solitary wandering sages gave brilliant gnomic statements to a time when large urban monasteries with classroom’s full of monastics memorizing permutations of lists of doctrine.
That this is the case is obvious to anyone who actually simply reads the material without prior religious convictions.
Anyway /rant
