Seeking sources on -- practicing for this life alone is not even Dharma The Gelugpa Lam Rim says that someone who practices for benefit in this life alone is not even practicing Dharma -- the minimum Dharmic motivation is to achieve better rebirth (and there are two levels above that, which I am not concerned about here). Here is Pabongka Rinpoche, Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand (Wisdom Pubs, Kindle Edition, location 2937; same spot in the 1991 paper edition from Wisdom begins on p. 154):


  The difference in our motivation makes an enormous difference to the
  sort of virtuous karmic results we will receive, and to the measure of
  strength of these results. Suppose four people are reciting together
  the Praise of the Twenty-One Tārās. One has bodhichitta as a motive.
  Another is motivated by renunciation. The third yearns for a better
  rebirth. The last only aspires to the concerns of this life: long
  life, good health, and so on. Although all four recite the same amount
  of words, there is a great difference in the sort of karmic results
  they will obtain. ... The fourth’s recitation belonged only to this
  life and so was not even Dharma. And it would even be difficult for it
  to have any of the the hoped-for effect on his life.


So, my question -- can folks point me to similar material in the Pali Canon, Visuddhimagga or other non-Tibetan sources. Likewise in Tibetan lineages other than Gelug. 



Added 11/25 -- Or, is this a Mahayana teaching, and therefore not found explicitly in the Pali Canon. The distinction between bodhicitta and renunciation as motivation is certainly Mahayana -- initially taught in this "three scopes" form in Tibet by Atisha in Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment. So maybe even this pre-three-scopes teaching is not only Mahayana, but a Tibetan addition not found even in Atisha.

If so, then I'd be interested to at least find other Tibetan sources, or hear that this is strictly a Gelug teaching.



More still 11/25 -- Looks like Tsongkhapa, contra Pabongka, includes motivation for this life only in the lower scope, thus making a general motivation for better samsaric life apart from the rebirth distinction:


  Furthermore, the scriptures mention many ways of positing a least, a
  medium, and a superior person. Like Atisha's Lamp for the Path to
  Enlightenment, Vasubandhu's Abhidharma-kosa Auto-commentary
  (Abhidharma-kosa-bhasya) defines the three types of persons. Among the
  persons of small capacity, there are indeed two types — those who are
  intent on this lifetime and those who are intent on future lifetimes.
  However, here I am speaking of the latter, whom I will identify as
  those who engage in the unmistaken method for attaining high status. (The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment, Volume One. The Lamrim Chenmo, Wisdom Pubs, pp. 131-132)


So maybe this teaching is actually post-Tsongkhapa Gelug.
The closest I can think of is the Dana sutta in which the Buddha explains how the purity of one's motives have an effect on the results.

&quot;Sariputta, there is the case where a person gives a gift seeking his own profit, with a mind attached [to the reward], seeking to store up for himself [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after death.' He gives his gift — food, drink, clothing, a vehicle; a garland, perfume, &amp; ointment; bedding, shelter, &amp; a lamp — to a brahman or a contemplative. What do you think, Sariputta? Might a person give such a gift as this?&quot;
&quot;Yes, lord.&quot;
&quot;Having given this gift seeking his own profit — with a mind attached [to the reward], seeking to store up for himself, [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after death' — on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of the Four Great Kings. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a returner, coming back to this world.
[...]
&quot;Or, instead of thinking, 'When this gift of mine is given, it makes the mind serene. Gratification &amp; joy arise,' he gives a gift with the thought, 'This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind.' He gives his gift — food, drink, clothing, a vehicle; a garland, perfume, &amp; ointment; bedding, shelter, &amp; a lamp — to a brahman or a contemplative. What do you think, Sariputta? Might a person give such a gift as this?&quot;
&quot;Yes, lord.&quot;
&quot;Having given this, not seeking his own profit, not with a mind attached [to the reward], not seeking to store up for himself, nor [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after death,'
[...]
&quot; — but with the thought, 'This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind' — on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of Brahma's Retinue. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a non-returner. He does not come back to this world.
&quot;This, Sariputta, is the cause, this is the reason, why a person gives a gift of a certain sort and it does not bear great fruit or great benefit, whereas another person gives a gift of the same sort and it bears great fruit and great benefit.&quot;

-- AN 7.49
Now, if you're asking about the possibility of practicing the Dhamma without, at the very least, assuming rebirth to be true, then in the Apannaka sutta the Buddha indeed said this was wrong view, and thus against the path.

Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks, 'There is no next world' is his wrong view... when he says that 'There is no next world,' he makes himself an opponent to those arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is the next world, when he persuades another that 'There is no next world,' that is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, he exalts himself and disparages others. Whatever good habituation he previously had is abandoned, while bad habituation is manifested.

-- MN 60