user13375: Is it possible for a person to gain liberation while simultaneously practicing unskillful means?
Is it possible for a person to understand profound universal truths while simultaneously practicing unskillful means?
Are skillful means in accordance with profound universal truths?
Are profound universal truths in accordance with skillful means?
An example of a skillful means is acknowledging the conventional truth of rebirth in cyclic existence.
An example of a profound universal truth is that the Buddha was not to be regarded as a real and genuine fact as was taught to Anurādha.
An example of unskillful means is the denial of conventional rebirth and the fruits of karma.
An example of a profound universal falsify is to understand the Buddha as a real and genuine fact.
Another example of a profound universal falsity is to believe like Yamaka that, “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death.”
Various traditions divide the above conventions into a dichotomy. The labels that are used and the understanding of that dichotomy is different from tradition to tradition. In Theravada, I have seen the dichotomy variously described as right views of two types including, without vs with effluents, definitive vs interpretable, supramundane vs mundane, and in commentarial literature ultimate vs conventional. In Mahayana, the dichotomy is labeled in similar ways but also absolute/ultimate/universal vs conventional/relative/dependent.

user21314: no,  liberation and right view occur simultaneously the way access concentration/shamata occurs along with the cessation of desire for sense objects ie. food and sex
worth noting that incomplete right view is different than wrong view.  wrong view is complete detachment from reality and instead operating within an illusion of knowledge  that it is mistaken as reality eg. physicalists who deny rebirth thru holding the nonempirical metaphysics of a physically mechanistic universe

user471: What you call "conventional right view" is just skillful means to help one adopt a skillful or wholesome mindset. It's just a helpful tool. The following is an example.

“This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the
owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth (upapatti), are owners of
their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ As he often reflects on
this theme, the path is generated. He pursues this path, develops it,
and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.
AN 5.57

What you call "profound right view" are universal truths. Whether anyone is there to know them or not, they remain true.

“Mendicants, whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature
persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of
natural principles: all conditions are impermanent. A Realized One
understands this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches,
asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All
conditions are impermanent.’
Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles: all conditions are suffering. A Realized One understands
this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts,
establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All conditions are
suffering.’
Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles: all things are not-self. A Realized One understands this
and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes,
clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All things are not-self.’”
AN 3.136

What about the fully enlightened ones? What views do they hold?
The answer is that they have let go of all views.

"A person who associates himself with certain views, considering them
as best and making them supreme in the world, he says, because of
that, that all other views are inferior; therefore he is not free from
contention (with others). In what is seen, heard, cognized and in
ritual observances performed, he sees a profit for himself. Just by
laying hold of that view he regards every other view as worthless.
Those skilled (in judgment) (i.e. the Buddhas and their disciples who
have realized the goal). say that (a view becomes) a bond if, relying
on it, one regards everything else as inferior.
Therefore a bhikkhu
should not depend on what is seen, heard or cognized, nor upon ritual
observances. He should not present himself as equal to, nor imagine
himself to be inferior, nor better than, another. Abandoning (the
views) he had (previously) held and not taking up (another), he does
not seek a support even in knowledge. Among those who dispute he is
certainly not one to take sides.
He does not [have] recourse to a view
at all. In whom there is no inclination to either extreme, for
becoming or non-becoming, here or in another existence, for him there
does not exist a fixed viewpoint on investigating the doctrines
assumed (by others). Concerning the seen, the heard and the cognized
he does not form the least notion.
That brahman (i.e. a perfected one)
who does not grasp at a view, with what could he be identified in the
world?
"They do not speculate nor pursue (any notion); doctrines are not accepted by them. A (true) brahmana is beyond, does not fall back on
views."
Snp 4.5


I have asked your questions in a different way before. I asked: Why the view “I am the owner of my karma” not contradict anatta?
The best answer for this question, by Sankha Kulathantille, has answered it very well.

Anatta is at the level of ultimate reality. That is for advanced
practitioners of Buddhism. Trying to teach Anatta to everyone
regardless of their mental maturity will not be productive as many
will end up being more confused than they already are. That's why there
are teachings in Buddhism that help you develop the mind at a
conceptual level where you are familiar and comfortable. It is
important not to mix up these teachings with the teachings of ultimate
reality.

That means views like "I am the owner of my karma" and rebirth are simply used as skillful means, as crutches to help one who hasn't overcome the fetter of self-view (sakkaya ditthi) and who hasn't understood anatta yet.

user-1: 
An example of unskillful means is the denial of conventional rebirth and the fruits of karma.


Is liberation possible for those practicing unskillful means?

This sutta basically says that if a person rejects rebirth then he is going to a bad rebirth.

A1. "Now, householders, of those contemplatives & brahmans who hold
this doctrine, hold this view — 'There is no this world, no next world
[...]
if there is the next world, then this venerable person — on the
breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a plane of
deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html

Whether they can still develop good qualities, i think of course and they will rehabilitate faster if they do.
As i understand the Dhamma beings are for the most part reborn in hell and just occasionally gain a favorable rebirth. By rehabilitation i meant undergoing immense suffering until they are broken by it as to their fixation in wrong views and they become born as more open minded, so i meant that beings are not only rehabilitated in this life but also in the future and their good development will to an extent mitigate bad consequences.

13375: <p>Is it possible for a person to gain liberation while simultaneously practicing unskillful means?</p>
<p>Is it possible for a person to understand profound universal truths while simultaneously practicing unskillful means?</p>
<p>Are skillful means in accordance with profound universal truths?</p>
<p>Are profound universal truths in accordance with skillful means?</p>
<p>An example of a skillful means is acknowledging the conventional truth of rebirth in cyclic existence.</p>
<p>An example of a profound universal truth is that the Buddha was not to be regarded as a real and genuine fact as was taught to Anurādha.</p>
<p>An example of unskillful means is the denial of conventional rebirth and the fruits of karma.</p>
<p>An example of a profound universal falsify is to understand the Buddha as a real and genuine fact.</p>
<p>Another example of a profound universal falsity is to believe like Yamaka that, “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death.”</p>
<p>Various traditions divide the above conventions into a dichotomy. The labels that are used and the understanding of that dichotomy is different from tradition to tradition. In Theravada, I have seen the dichotomy variously described as right views of two types including, without vs with effluents, definitive vs interpretable, supramundane vs mundane, and in commentarial literature ultimate vs conventional. In Mahayana, the dichotomy is labeled in similar ways but also absolute/ultimate/universal vs conventional/relative/dependent.</p>
 21314: <p>no,  liberation and right view occur simultaneously the way access concentration/shamata occurs along with the cessation of desire for sense objects ie. food and sex</p>
<p>worth noting that incomplete right view is different than wrong view.  wrong view is complete detachment from reality and instead operating within an illusion of knowledge  that it is mistaken as reality eg. physicalists who deny rebirth thru holding the nonempirical metaphysics of a physically mechanistic universe</p>
 471: <p>What you call &quot;conventional right view&quot; is just skillful means to help one adopt a skillful or wholesome mindset. It's just a helpful tool. The following is an example.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the
owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth (<em>upapatti</em>), are owners of
their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ <strong>As he often reflects on
this theme, the path is generated.</strong> He pursues this path, develops it,
and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/an5.57/en/bodhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 5.57</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>What you call &quot;profound right view&quot; are universal truths. Whether anyone is there to know them or not, they remain true.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Mendicants, <strong>whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature
persists</strong>, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of
natural principles: all conditions are impermanent. A Realized One
understands this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches,
asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All
conditions are impermanent.’</p>
<p><strong>Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists</strong>, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles: all conditions are suffering. A Realized One understands
this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts,
establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All conditions are
suffering.’</p>
<p><strong>Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists</strong>, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles: all things are not-self. A Realized One understands this
and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes,
clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All things are not-self.’”<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 3.136</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>What about the fully enlightened ones? What views do they hold?</p>
<p>The answer is that they have let go of all views.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;A person who associates himself with certain views, considering them
as best and making them supreme in the world, he says, because of
that, that all other views are inferior; therefore he is not free from
contention (with others). In what is seen, heard, cognized and in
ritual observances performed, he sees a profit for himself. Just by
laying hold of that view he regards every other view as worthless.
Those skilled (in judgment) (i.e. the Buddhas and their disciples who
have realized the goal). say that (a view becomes) a bond if, relying
on it, one regards everything else as inferior.</p>
<p>Therefore a bhikkhu
should not depend on what is seen, heard or cognized, nor upon ritual
observances. He should not present himself as equal to, nor imagine
himself to be inferior, nor better than, another. Abandoning (the
views) he had (previously) held and not taking up (another), he does
not seek a support even in knowledge. Among those who dispute he is
certainly not one to take sides.</p>
<p>He does not [have] recourse to a view
at all. In whom there is no inclination to either extreme, for
becoming or non-becoming, here or in another existence, for him there
does not exist a fixed viewpoint on investigating the doctrines
assumed (by others). Concerning the seen, the heard and the cognized
he does not form the least notion.</p>
<p>That brahman (i.e. a perfected one)
who does not grasp at a view, with what could he be identified in the
world?</p>
<p>&quot;They do not speculate nor pursue (any notion); doctrines are not accepted by them. <strong>A (true) brahmana is beyond, does not fall back on
views.</strong>&quot;<br />
<a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.05.irel.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Snp 4.5</a></p>
</blockquote>
<hr />
<p>I have asked your questions in a different way before. I asked: <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/28946/471">Why the view “I am the owner of my karma” not contradict anatta?</a></p>
<p>The best answer for this question, by Sankha Kulathantille, has answered it very well.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Anatta is at the level of ultimate reality. That is for advanced
practitioners of Buddhism. Trying to teach Anatta to everyone
regardless of their mental maturity will not be productive as many
will end up being more confused than they already are. That's why there
are teachings in Buddhism that help you develop the mind at a
conceptual level where you are familiar and comfortable. It is
important not to mix up these teachings with the teachings of ultimate
reality.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That means views like &quot;I am the owner of my karma&quot; and rebirth are simply used as skillful means, as crutches to help one who hasn't overcome the fetter of self-view (<em>sakkaya ditthi</em>) and who hasn't understood anatta yet.</p>
 -1: <blockquote>
<p><strong>An example of unskillful means is the denial of conventional rebirth and the fruits of karma.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Is liberation possible for those practicing unskillful means?</li>
</ul>
<p>This sutta basically says that if a person rejects rebirth then he is going to a bad rebirth.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A1. &quot;Now, householders, of those contemplatives &amp; brahmans who hold
this doctrine, hold this view — 'There is no this world, no next world</p>
<p>[...]</p>
<p>if there is the next world, then this venerable person — on the
breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a plane of
deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell.
<a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Whether they can still develop good qualities, i think of course and they will rehabilitate faster if they do.</p>
<p>As i understand the Dhamma beings are for the most part reborn in hell and just occasionally gain a favorable rebirth. By rehabilitation i meant undergoing immense suffering until they are broken by it as to their fixation in wrong views and they become born as more open minded, so i meant that beings are not only rehabilitated in this life but also in the future and their good development will to an extent mitigate bad consequences.</p>
