[brraverishhh]

It seems there is some doubt or downright rejection of assertion that the Buddha stated a position on rebirth. Yet, of course, there are various Suttas where the Buddha appears to do just that; so I'm wondering if these Suttas are being given some interpretation I don't know, denied, faulted for bad translation, or perhaps, being interpreted as the Buddha using skillful means to speak to disciples of lower intelligence. Or perhaps certain statements of the Buddha have simply fallen out of favor because it's impossible to confirm the underlying assumptions that are a part of them (such as acceptance of rebirth)?

Not being sarcastic here; I don't understand what this conversation is grounded in other than a conclusion that rebirth can't possibly occur, based on reasoning and on other statements of the Buddha pertaining to anatman, etc.. If you conclude that it can't occur does that mean that the Buddha's statements wherein he specifically refers to his own past lives, others' past and future lives, predictions about future lives, the effect of kamma on future lives, etc. are all to be taken as provisional in meaning, all proffered for the benefit of those of limited faculties?

Now turning to whether the Buddha stated that rebirth exists I think there's no question that he did. This doesn't mean he's correct; however, I certainly give his words a lot of weight, as he correctly (IMO) expounded on suffering, its causes, its cessation and the means to that end.

For example...

In Majjhima Nikaya 136--Mahakammavibhanga Sutta If the Buddha states that such and such action will result in some definite result in this existence, in the next existence, or in some subsequent existence.

When the Buddha states 18. (iv) "Now there is the person who has abstained from killing living beings here...has had right view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell.[12] But (perhaps) the evil kamma producing his suffering was done by him earlier, or the evil kamma producing his suffering was done by him later, or wrong view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death. And that was why, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappeared in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. But since he has abstained from killing living beings here...has had right view, he will feel the result of that here and now, or in his next rebirth, or in some subsequent existence.[13] are we supposed to question the authenticity of the teaching?, of the translation?, of the seriousness of the Buddha when he stated those words (was it just "skillful means" when speaking to rebirthers like Ananda)? what need is there for interpretation; where is there any ambiguity?

Also birth (jati) is one of the 12 links in the chain of dependent origination, which suggests to me (perhaps it's a radical idea here) that birth is dependent upon prior action. After all they are links; if birth is an entirely adventitious phenomenon, as it relates to kamma, at least, then why is it a link? Each link is both a cause and a result. So birth must be a both cause (of everything that comes after it) and a result of what comes before it, and prior links must be its cause. If not, what is its cause?

The 12 links are a closed system in terms of cause and effect; otherwise, as with any experimental design, there is no force in the teaching (if there are extraneous causes---unaccounted for variables which produce the various links in the chain, the teaching is unpersuasive; other things might then account for each of the links and no thesis could possibly be proven). Can one be a Buddhist and take the position that birth is entirely unrelated to prior actions of body, speech, mind? I don't see how. Seeing the 12 links a representing a single lifespan breaks the chain at death. Since the Buddha specifically taught that actions can manifest in results after death (see above) it makes no sense to turn what is cyclical and logical (in terms of there being a cause, an effect of that cause, that effect becoming the cause for some subsequent effect, etc.) into a a straight line terminating in death.

I don't think one needs to take the position that I am reborn or that MY consciousness is reborn, although the translation here states that "he will feel"; I don't think the Buddha intended for anyone to take that to mean that "I", if I engage in X behavior will personally feel something in "my" future rebirth. We have to stop thinking that way; we don't own our own rebirths but, I think it's fair to say that, assuming that we don't reap the fruits of some act of body speech, mind in this lifetime, some future being will have to suffer (or experience pleasure) based on our present actions. The Buddha is explicit on that point.

It's enough to state that the actions of this body, this speech, this mind lead to suffering, to old age, to sickness, to death, to birth (of a sentient being, obviously), and that the word "birth", as set forth in the teaching on dependent origination can only mean birth that is the result of prior action. I leave it to others to cling to rebirth as "MY rebirth". But I see no reason to try to interpret the Buddhas clear speech as interpretable metaphor. If we have compassion we will hesitate before engaging in actions that cause suffering to anyone, including ourselves, others, and, additionally, future beings which might be influenced by ripenings based on acts committed in this life