But there are many other suttas where insight into DO, at least in its 12-step formula, is not mentioned as a requirement for stream entry. If we look at the Kimsuka Sutta we see that purification of view, i.e. stream-entry, can occur through various different means, e.g. sensory contact, the aggregates, the elements, etc.
A certain monk went to another monk and, on arrival, said to him, “To what extent, my friend, is a monk’s vision said to be well-purified?”
“When a monk discerns, as it actually is, the origination & passing away of the six media of sensory contact, my friend, it is to that extent that his vision is said to be well-purified.”
The first monk, dissatisfied with the other monk’s answer to his question, went to still another monk and, on arrival, said to him, “To what extent, my friend, is a monk’s vision said to be well-purified?”
“When a monk discerns, as it actually is, the origination & passing away of the five clinging-aggregates, my friend, it is to that extent that his vision is said to be well-purified.”
The first monk, dissatisfied with this monk’s answer to his question, went to still another monk and, on arrival, said to him, “To what extent, my friend, is a monk’s vision said to be well-purified?”
“When a monk discerns, as it actually is, the origination & passing away of the four great elements [earth, water, wind, & fire], my friend, it is to that extent that his vision is said to be well-purified.”
The first monk, dissatisfied with this monk’s answer to his question, went to still another monk and, on arrival, said to him, “To what extent, my friend, is a monk’s vision said to be well-purified?”
“When a monk discerns, as it actually is, that whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation, my friend, it is to that extent that his vision is said to be well-purified.”
The first monk, dissatisfied with this monk’s answer to his question, then went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he [reported to the Blessed One his conversations with the other monks. The Blessed One then said:]
…
"In the same way, monk, however those intelligent men of integrity were focused when their vision became well purified is the way in which they answered.
So I don’t see that 12-step DO is a requirement.
As an example of a contemplation of DO that can lead to liberating wisdom without reference to craving being the fuel for further existence and birth, or any other steps in DO except contact and feeling see SN 12.62:
“Therein, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple attends closely and carefully to dependent origination itself thus: ‘When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this does not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases.’ Bhikkhus, in dependence on a contact to be experienced as pleasant, a pleasant feeling arises. With the cessation of that contact to be experienced as pleasant, the corresponding feeling—the pleasant feeling that arose in dependence on that contact to be experienced as pleasant—ceases and subsides. In dependence on a contact to be experienced as painful, a painful feeling arises. With the cessation of that contact to be experienced as painful, the corresponding feeling—the painful feeling that arose in dependence on that contact to be experienced as painful—ceases and subsides. In dependence on a contact to be experienced as neither-painful-nor-pleasant, a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling arises. With the cessation of that contact to be experienced as neither-painful-nor-pleasant, the corresponding feeling—the neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling that arose in dependence on that contact to be experienced as neither-painful-nor-pleasant—ceases and subsides.
“Bhikkhus, just as heat is generated and fire is produced from the conjunction and friction of two fire-sticks, but with the separation and laying aside of the sticks the resultant heat ceases and subsides; so too, in dependence on a contact to be experienced as pleasant…acontact to be experienced as painful…a contact to be experienced as neither-painful-nor-pleasant, a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling arises…. With the cessation of that contact to be experienced as neither-painful-nor-pleasant, the corresponding feeling … ceases and subsides.
“Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences revulsion towards contact, revulsion towards feeling, revulsion towards perception, revulsion towards volitional formations, revulsion towards consciousness. Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion his mind is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: ‘It’s liberated.’ He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’”
12-step DO only gains its full relevance in the brahminical context where Joanna Jurewicz has shown that it is a parody of vedic cosmogeny. To assume that every stream-enterer requires this framework I think oversteps.
If we also look at many other suttas where people enter the stream on hearing a discourse, there often doesn’t seem to be any notion that they’ve gained special insight into rebirth, but rather that they’ve understand a specific formulation of the dhamma that allows them to understand how Nibbāna is attained via the cessation of craving. I’d say that idappaccayatā is more important to understand than any specific formulation of it. Because idappaccayatā is applicable in all experience. Whereas ignorance from a past life is only relevant if you’ve mastered the fourth jhana enough to recollect past lives. I would also like to refer to Ven Anālayo’s Perspectives on Satipatthāna, Ch 7: Contemplation of Feelings, Sub-Ch: Dependent Arising. That is where I got some of the material and he explains things better than I can.
I think the idea that actual knowledge of the existence of rebirth is acquired by all stream-enterers is making an inference where one is not justified. I don’t even think arahants have knowledge of rebirth unless they’ve recollected their past lives. For example:
“Is there a method of exposition, bhikkhus, by means of which a bhikkhu—apart from faith, apart from personal preference, apart from oral tradition, apart from reasoned reflection, apart from acceptance of a view after pondering it — can declare final knowledge thus: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being’?”
“Venerable sir, our teachings are rooted in the Blessed One, guided by the Blessed One, take recourse in the Blessed One. It would be good if the Blessed One would clear up the meaning of this statement. Having heard it from him, the bhikkhus will remember it.”
“Then listen and attend closely, bhikkhus, I will speak.”
“Yes, venerable sir,” the bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:
“There is a method of exposition by means of which a bhikkhu—apart from faith … apart from acceptance of a view after pondering it—can declare final knowledge thus: ‘Destroyed is birth … there is no more for this state of being.’ And what is that method of exposition? Here, bhikkhus, having seen a form with the eye, if there is lust, hatred, or delusion internally, a bhikkhu understands: ‘There is lust, hatred, or delusion internally’; or, if there is no lust, hatred, or delusion internally, he understands: ‘There is no lust, hatred, or delusion internally.’ Since this is so, are these things to be understood by faith, or by personal preference, or by oral tradition, or by reasoned reflection, or by acceptance of a view after pondering it?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“Aren’t these things to be understood by seeing them with wisdom?”
“Yes, venerable sir.”
“This, bhikkhus, is the method of exposition by means of which a bhikkhu can declare final knowledge thus: ‘Destroyed is birth … there is no more for this state of being.’ Is There a Method?
In the sutta directly above, it seems that the arahant can declare final knowledge, not because they have special access to the underlying mechanisms of rebirth, but because they have well developed introspection and can see that greed, hate, and delusion are destroyed. This is something that ordinary people can develop to perfection, and is visible here-and-now, immediately apparent.
I could make a better argument, but I’d have to go tracking down dozens and dozens of suttas on stream-entry and other related things. It would turn into a book which I don’t have time for. But anyway, to be convinced that actual verification of rebirth occurs at stream entry, I think I need a little more evidence than simple reference to 12-step DO, since not all stream-enters purify their view on the basis of it.
.
, a seed of right view has already planted in your consciousness and will be blossomed in your next life as a “believer in rebirth”. 
) path: “A Course in Miracles”, which some have described as a kind of perenniallist Christian Vedanta (true to a degree). It was the most appealing and coherent path I found that worked under the basic assumption of a benign creator God (also shies away from ontology). I practice both (up to a point they are quite compatible), but it’s likely there will be a parting of ways with one or other eventually (there are definitely differences in the proposed end points). Obviously I don’t have full faith in either (“a servant cannot serve two masters” and all that), but those are the practice frameworks I work with.
onto this forum (not really the place I think), but I’ve made an exception here to give a little context.
