This was a question to Bhante @sujato in the last of his talks on The Chapter of Eights put on by the Barre Center that he asked be put on the forum because it was too dense a question at the time. I have added quotes to facilitate reading and understanding what is being asked.
I think that it is hard to reconcile any kind of speculative theory or claim with Snp 4.5
Consider this from Snp 4.5:
Nor would they form a view about the world
through a notion or through precepts and vows.
The positions that the Buddha does not declare in MN 63 are metaphysical views about this world or the next. Snp 4.5 appears to explain why he does not declare them. They are views about the world or the next and so he will not declare them on principle as per Snp 4.5. Note the word for cosmos and world are the same.
MN63
So, Māluṅkyaputta, you should remember what I have not declared as undeclared, and what I have declared as declared. And what have I not declared? I have not declared the following: ‘the cosmos is eternal,’ ‘the cosmos is not eternal,’ ‘the world is finite,’ ‘the world is infinite,’ ‘the soul and the body are the same thing,’ ‘the soul and the body are different things,’ ‘a Realized One exists after death,’ ‘a Realized One doesn’t exist after death,’ ‘a Realized One both exists and doesn’t exist after death,’ ‘a Realized One neither exists nor doesn’t exist after death.’And why haven’t I declared these things? Because they aren’t beneficial or relevant to the fundamentals of the spiritual life. They don’t lead to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and extinguishment. That’s why I haven’t declared them.
Likewise, the conditional consolations spoken of in AN 3.65 are also about this world or the next. Again, Snp 4.5 appears to explain why he uses the conditional, He will not declare any views about this world or the next on principle as per Snp 4.5.
AN 3.65
When that noble disciple has a mind that’s free of enmity and ill will, uncorrupted and purified, they’ve won four consolations in the present life. ‘If it turns out there is another world, and good and bad deeds have a result, then—when the body breaks up, after death—I’ll be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.’ This is the first consolation they’ve won.‘If it turns out there is no other world, and good and bad deeds don’t have a result, then in the present life I’ll keep myself free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy.’ This is the second consolation they’ve won.
‘If it turns out that bad things happen to people who do bad things, then since I have no bad intentions, and since I’m not doing anything bad, how can suffering touch me?’ This is the third consolation they’ve won.
‘If it turns out that bad things don’t happen to people who do bad things, then I still see myself pure on both sides.’ This is the fourth consolation they’ve won.
When that noble disciple has a mind that’s free of enmity and ill will, undefiled and purified, they’ve won these four consolations in the present life.”
“That’s so true, Blessed One! That’s so true, Holy One! When that noble disciple has a mind that’s free of enmity and ill will, undefiled and purified, they’ve won these four consolations in the present life. …
I understand why common sense and common experience causality are necessary for mundane explanations and for people to understand one another, but how do you reconcile the quote from Snp 4.5 above with the more speculative claims of the twelve links of dependent origination?
A note to those who were not in attendence, Bhante Sujato had talked about why appeals to personal experience are problematic.