[Gofthooxdix]

The fundamental idea is to keep "re-birth" in a fashion that has the appearance of complying with the Buddha's rejection of the Atman.

It is rather like creationists' shift of tactic from "Creationism" to "Intelligent Design".

The process itself is disingenuous. What is produced cannot help but be hopelessly equivocal and disingenuous as well.

That's pretty much my perception in many cases, too. Clinging to being, clinging to becoming...many are willing to forego all reason to keep hope for afterlife alive. I don't think that's what Nagasena was doing there, but I could be wrong.

The Buddha took key terms from the brahmins and redefined them in such a way that they usually meant or implied either the opposite of the original or something radically distinct. Gombrich has pointed out quite a few examples of puns and satire being used that escape all but Pali scholars who happen to focus on them. The most obvious example is kamma. With punabbhava (lit:re-becoming), the question is often asked, 'What is there to be reborn?' First, it's necessary to answer, 'What came into being when this thing was born?' A new soul? Not even the Hindus believed that. The phenomena associated with the new combination of aggregates? That's closer, but phenomena don't exist independently in isolation, so individuality and phenomenal being don't quite work out. Phenomenal being does work with impermanence and dependend co-arising, though.

With Nagasena's fire example, nothing crosses over from the first fire to the second. The arising of the second can be attributed to the first, plus an infinite series of other contributing factors. What would defy all reason would be to claim that fire a) contributed to the arising of fire b) even if fire a) had been extinguished long before fire b) ever arose. This requires the total abandonment of commom sense. It is at that point that rebirth becomes absurd and faith-based religious dogma. And that's where I'm not willing to go.