This happened to be Bhikkhu Sujato commenting on Thanissaro Bhikkhu's view on not self, but I'm interested not in the particular argument, but in the wider implications of the statement.... framing his argument as that of an insightful truth-teller, an outsider able to shed the delusions that have transfixed the mainstream.
A number of modern teachers either cultivate an "insightful outsider" image, or have it thrust upon them. For example Bhikkhu Yogānanda's collection of discussions with Bhikkhu Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda characterize the latter as "The Heretic Sage". Others are more circumspect, emphasising that their interpretations are not necessarily the only possible ones, and apologising for any inadvertent mistakes or misleading statements they might have made.
The problem that faces the practitioner who has encountered several interpretations of, for example, Dependent Origination, is how to deal with the apparent contradictions.
We could note that these different interpretations are not necessarily new. The Theravada and other sects had both three-lives and one-mind-moment interpretations of Dependent Origination co-existing in their texts:
We could also note that there have been arguments about the exact nature of jhana for over two millennia: viewtopic.php?f=43&t=13382&p=544668&hilit=jhana#p544668
However, there is still a nagging question: If we choose the wrong interpretation(s), will we be condemned to wander aimlessly in samsara for countless aeons? Or should we take comfort in the suttas that describe the Dhamma as a raft, and not be overly concerned about the details of the particular raft that we have chosen? A raft which, after all, has to eventually be abandoned.