MN 38: Are Dr. Alexander Wynne views correct?

In his video [The Different Accounts of Dependent Origination in the Mahatanha-sankhaya Sutta (MN 38)](https://youtu.be/4I3OUG5yycg?si=oZwl6JMmQCB2Aj8D) , some things Dr. Alexander Wynne says are: * Dependent origination explains continuity over lives without a soul (Atman). * There is also a focus on what is happening in the present to conquer your suffering. * MN 38 has three doctrines; three versions of dependent origination. * Sati understands Dhamma as Upanishadic essentialism; that this consciousness transmigrates. * Buddha puts Sati in place by explaining Dependent Origination. * **The core of MN 38 is Buddha explains the dependent origination of consciousness with fire similes.** MN 38 should/could end at this point. * There is a **mysterious hard to understand discussion about "what has come into being". The Buddha does not say what has come into being.** Later, Wynne says: "The Buddha is talking about consciousness that comes into being (bhuta; sambhava)" and says Buddhaghosa was wrong saying Buddha was referring to the five aggregates that comes into being. * It gets more difficult when four nutriments are discussed. This section jumps out away from present moment consciousness. Here, moved from the present moment focus to continuity over time. * Then there is a section where the "subject" of transmigration is named; an entity being reborn; the "gandhabba"; ordinarily a type of "god" in Vedic texts. * The closing of MN 38 saying "concise discourse"; yet the sutta is long therefore people over time added things due to its length. * How has the text been expanded? What has been added? Section 3 about the four nutriments has been added. Subtle conceptual difference. One tradition has been moved in from another tradition. Do we have any disagreements with Dr. Alexander Wynne? Which one's? Why?