text:
Controlling one's sexual thoughts
How does one control one's thoughts? ESPECIALLY the uncontrollable desires related to sexual drive which are built deep into our conscience. Answers are DEEPLY appreciated.

IMO it's not clear whether this question is about controlling thoughts, controlling desires, or controlling actions?

I deleted some comments which could perhaps be posted as answers instead. Note that the comments under a question are ideally for asking about the question or for suggesting improvements to the question; but answers to the question should preferably be posted as an answer instead. See also When my answer is short, shall I post it as a comment instead?

I had asked a similar question earlier...you might go through it for more resources...http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/5472/lust-how-can-it-be-overcome

Part 1

The nature of the mind is to produce thoughts. Your question about controlling thoughts seems to imply an act of force.

Very well then, my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are
  cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent
  people can understand the meaning of what is being said.
— MN 24

It is similar to asking how does one make a cobra non-poisonous? Sure, one can remove its fangs temporarily until they grow back, but then is it still a real Cobra? If we forget to remove the fangs as and when they grow back, the Cobra will suddenly become dangerous when we least expect it to be, and it will remember the cruelty we inflicted upon it and will have cause to bite.
Taking drugs, or alcohol, or indulging in pleasures and entertainment or even staying busy with a career and family often allows people to temporarily ignore their thoughts, but it always ends in getting bitten by the thoughts when they least expect it, and thus misery endures.
Far better to learn how to not get bitten by the Cobra.
The Buddhist path to not getting bitten by the Cobra is divided into prajna (wisdom), sila (ethics), and samadhi (concentration). It has eight parts, which are also called the Noble eightfold path.

Know that the Cobra always remains poisonous, and how it gets its poison

i.e. understand reality as it is, and whence it gets its fangs from (wisdom)

Don't give the Cobra reason to bite

i.e. don't commit acts that produce poisonous thoughts (ethics)

Learn to leave the Cobra alone

i.e. practice meditation and mindfulness. (concentration)

Part 2

Buddhism or meditation is not a pill one takes and immediately becomes free of thoughts. Learning to not get bitten by thoughts also takes lots of time and patient and wise effort.
The lotus cannot flower without the mud, so it certainly does not help the lotus if it hates the mud. Don't hate the mind that produces sexual thoughts, or develop aversion towards yourself for having them. Nirvana is not obtained by hating Samsara.
Instead, learn that this is natural, but you can slowly learn to handle it. Develop a desire for Nirvana, and practice with a teacher.
Monks often battle sexual thoughts after decades of being celibate, and this isn't because they are ignorant or stupid. It is a tough challenge, but one worth pursuing and succeeding at.
A lot depends on why you want to control those thoughts, and your time line to achieve it in. Some people decide that it's too much to attempt at one go, and remain lay Buddhists who don't take vows of celibacy.
Sexual thoughts that result in a breaking of the precepts on sexual misconduct are more dangerous, and can be treated more easily.
Seeing the suffering of the person who is the victim of the misconduct and developing compassion for them is a very effective way to control this.
For example, if one is cheating on one's spouse, reading an internet forum where partners who get cheated on express their suicidal emotions, can for example be very sobering and shake one up to resolve to never do it.
Watching a hard hitting documentary on sex workers, and their conditions, and listening to them speak of their psychological issues, again often leading them to commit suicide can make one resolve never to visit one, and so on.
I recall a Dharma talk by Ajahn Chah who uses the same Cobra analogy.

Amazing answer! Props!!! :)

Glad it was of help :-)

We don't control the thoughts that arise in our minds. But we can look mindfully at everything. Look at that which you crave but without any fantasy, romance, or delusion involved. Look at the physical process exactly as it realistically is, step by step and moment by moment.
If you can truly strip away the fantasy (delusion), reality is simply not as appealing without it. This is applicable to any sense desire.

I agree with the analysis of experience that you suggest, it is very effective. But I find that "reality" is far more appealing without fantasy getting in the way. Sex is better, without "me" wanting anything from it. Then I can fully give myself to the other person, which is what we both hoped for all along. I do not understand people who throw the baby out with the bathwater where anything sensual is concerned?

@nocomprende, I think the question and answer are framed from the perspective of letting go of desire and attachment, which holds us in samsara, and how to do this from a practical standpoint.

Maybe having sex mindfully is the best approach. Sometimes, Doing is more effective than Abstaining. Seeing what sex really is, is the most practical thing I can imagine. Fantasizing that I can control my nature, is not very practical. Why do people think of sex differently than other things of the body? What is so deeply terrifying about it? I think it is an ego-fear of losing oneself, which is what happens during orgasm. The ego is what actually is disgusted by it. Strange.

As you say above, "seeing what sex really is" is key. Once you see that, how to proceed? I think that is what this question is all about. Not avoiding an experience because it is scary and unknown; but because one sees what it really is. Just my opinion. :)

OK. Well, apparently people differ on what they see as being "what it really is". I see that it really is beautiful and necessary to share oneself with others in personal and intimate ways, but I am a Hetaira Archetype person, so I would say that. Staying trapped in oneself is not the way. "With my body, I thee worship" used to be in the Marriage Vows. I think the OP is married?

Don't know but that does make me wonder about marriage vows in Buddhism. If there are any and if so what they are. Feel like asking on the site? I gotta run. Be well. :)

Patikulamanasikara, and the nine types of cemetery contemplations, are the meditations practiced to subdue lust. Being a medical student, they should be easier for you to learn. You can train the mind to break through the Sanna 'woman' and see it instead as a collection of unattractive  things.
Try to mentally analyze the body parts, or consider the body as a corpse, to see if the parts are still attractive; for example:

If you are attracted to a face, then consider the face without eyes, without hair, without skin, without veins and flesh attached to the skull.
Then examine each part separately (eyes, skin, hair, veins) to see if you still see something attractive.
Imagine what happens to them in a day or two, if you leave them in the open. They start to discolor, stink and rot. Imagine the brain matter rotting and pus coming out of the eye sockets of the skull. Imagine the eyes rotting and worms coming out of them.

Do the same for the other collections of body parts that you might be attracted to.

Sex is something that is deeply progrmamed inside of you and if it wasn't, our biologies wouldn't be called biology and we may have never made it past the Stone Age.
Our sexuality is something that is deeply ingrained and takes lifetimes to master, incarnating with certain proclivities, a monk in one life, a sex-fiend in another, learning new things, etc. until one is a more perfected balanced being, correcting the various facets of being.
Buddhism does have a "tranquilization" dart though that can help the rampaging elephant of sexuality from stomping on all your other good thoughts: jhana.
For all problems though, Buddhism encourages transformation at the root level (8th consciousness) along with one's volitional habits.
To fix this sexual problem--to fix any issue--it requires Enlightenment aka cutting off of afflictions aka samadhi.
THEN, and only then, will you be able to truly see what your issue is and what you need to do. Many Zen masters, after Awakening, frequented brothels, in order to master something or the other (I don't know why, only they do since they Awakened).
Anyway, we are not at that stage, we are at the stage of "tranquilizing" our problems just enough so that we can practice correectly and work towards Awakening/Immortality/Godhood.
Once you have that -- all problems will lose their sway over you and you will be able to transform them at their root.
So learn to tranquilize your problems for now by learning concentration practices, learning to calm your mind, anaerobic exercise, chakra tuning, or even using hypnosis methods to increase your satisfaction. A lot of times these frustrations can be due to a vacuum in other parts of your life (social for instance) and hanging out with your buddies or going clubbing can decrease your neediness. These are middle-ground paths that don't just tranquilize but might actually transform the sexual frustration closer to the root.
My advice to you though on this matter would be to not spend too much of your life-time fixing this leaking bag of a problem trying every single solution I listed above because the Buddhist goal is more worthy than the task of understanding sexuality and incrementally mastering your sexuality and various sexual methodologies.. especially when you can learn to just tranquilize it through jhana and thus be free of it anytime you wish by simply relaxing and tuning into your jhana meditation object.
So the overarching point of this is: master jhana because that is the Buddhist secret to tranquilizing any worldly problem. Tranquilizing is something you have to do until you have practiced vipassana enough to attain enough Wisdom/Insight/Prajna to work at the root-level. Don't dwell on your problems because the arrow stuck in your heart is the more important problem (google "arrow parable buddhism")..
Also, your chi power is connected to sexuality and sexual desire will increase when your chi power increases through the power of meditation.
Also, masturbation does help reduce this desire but if you are going for the Taoist attainments of physical immortality as well as the Buddhist spiritual immortality, then you need to reduce seminal loss and naturally become a celibate person. Hard to hear but here's an article.

Good answer. I do believe some Zen masters were frequenting brothels to spread the dharma to hell realms - their duty as Bodhisattvas. Some were also turning up their nose at fussy Zen tradition that obsessed with lineage and proper form. Some were also likely just confused while passing it off as crazy wisdom :-)

As some of the answers have already noted, you can't control which thoughts arise in the mind. However, to deal with your problem at hand, you must understand the process of thought and action and addiction.
Firstly, The process is a constant loop between thought then action... then a new thought- normally a stronger emotional thought- which was created by the previous- first thought and action. This new stronger emotional thought leads to a new stronger emotional action... and the loop continues until it becomes so power that you then give-in to the unwholesome act or addiction.
Secondly, how to end this loop and thus remove the power of the constant loop. The solution is mindfulness. It's awareness. I can only think of one way to increase such virtues, and that is through meditation.
With an ever-increasing state of mindfulness, you will become aware of the beginning of each and every loop in your waking life- whether it's anger, love, pain or sexual- the loop will always begin as a thought and proceed to an action, again becoming stronger and stronger.
And so, you need to focus on whatever part of the loop you are experiencing, either the thought or the action. By focusing fully on one or the other, the loop will become nomore!! The loop can not exist when you have mindfully focused on one thing- the loop can not continue. I personally would use a mantra- thinking thinking- feeling feeling. But, you need to increase you mindfulness. That is why correctly performed meditation is so important.
Good luck, my friend.
Metta.

To control the sexual desire you must realize the disgusting nature of human body and temporary nature of the comfort we feel. You have to perform aversion meditation(Meditation method to realize disgusting nature of the body) .
In aversion meditation (Pilikul Bawana), we have to realize that our body is filled up with things that cannot even be bared by the person himself or herself. Load Buddha has described that our body is poring excrement form 9 different doors. eyes(2 doors), nose(2 doors), mouth(1 door), ears(2 doors), sexual organ(1 door) and anus(1 door).
Inside the body is filled with excrement, urine, unprocessed food mixed with saliva and other disgusting liquids, skeleton and muscle tissues covered with stinky cover called as skin.
Then there is another meditation method called as Asuba Meditation. In this the meditator looks at a dead body which is rotten. It is very powerful meditation method. But now we cannot see abandoned dead bodies in cemeteries now. (I think you are intelligent enough to realize that you must not kill anyone to do this meditation.)
With these meditation methods people can control their lust and sexual desire for short time period. Can be used to control until perform vipassana meditation and attain nibbana.
After attain anagami, Lust and sexual desire will completely destroyed and never arise.

I fail to see why doing further violence to one's nature is of any use. There is nothing whatever wrong with sex: it is how we all came to be here. It is as natural as breathing. If people could have the sex that they crave, the desire would naturally go down, just as if a person underwater too long gets to the surface, their breathing soon returns to normal. Some level of sexuality is normal and healthy. As far as I can see the OP is not a monk so he did not sign up for abstinence. (But then, I am a Hetaira Archetype person, so I would say that.)


text:
How can a person realize that a particular thing doesn't bring "happiness" without personal experience?
Buddha was, if I'm not mistaken, a privileged prince with money/health/a social life who realized that none of those things make you “happy” (or even content enough).
But how can, for example, somebody who has only known poverty all his life attain a true realization that money won’t make him “happy” without firsthand experience?
Or, how is this poor person to realize that money won't make him content when he is constantly bombarded with "evidence" of the opposite, after all, most people with more than their basic needs covered (I mean people of average economy, not the filthy rich) are content enough to not seek a means to end their "suffering".

I'm not certain that "happiness" is exactly the end goal of Buddhism. I think "deep understanding" is more the point, which means that whether one is experiencing happiness or sadness, that feeling is understood at a deep level, such that it cannot produce suffering.

Through Vipassana meditation  they come to see that there is really nothing in the world that can make you happy. It can maybe make you feel joy and pleasure, but not happiness.

With Vipassana you begin to see the suffering in everything, so you will come to see that there is no happiness in being rich either.

Welcome to Buddhism SE. We've put together some tips for new users on asking questions on the site. Also we have a page of useful resources that you may also find useful. Best wishes and I hope you have a positive experience on the site.

The core teachings of the Buddha are universally applicable.

There is suffering. - Everyone knows suffering, rich and poor alike. The suffering of the poor may seem more obvious, but is there any doubt that the wealthy suffer mentally as well, regardless of their resources?
The cause of our suffering is our attachments. - The wealthy have more to be attached to, in fact.
There is a way to end suffering.
The way to end suffering is the practice of the Eightfold Noble Path.

We really only need to know that we suffer and that we seek relief from our own suffering. But it's a long path. If a person is convinced that money will end his or her suffering, they can give it a go; and then eventually realize that making money didn't end their suffering and pick up where they left off. That sort of thing probably happens a lot. My guess would be that many converts to Buddhism have found the teachings of the Buddha to resonate with them after having first tried other ways of finding happiness. It's because we try other ways of finding happiness first, and learn first hand that the things we thought would bring us happiness, didn't, that we can appreciate the wisdom of the Buddha's teaching.

By realising that whatever it is you haven't had in life, it's not going to be anything other than seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking. In other words, the five aggregates. So it becomes all encompassing, when you see that the five aggregates are impermanent, unsatisfactory and uncontrollable.

OP raises the question of the knowledge beyond some direct perceptions. can you know/comprehend/understand/explain something without experimenting it ?
Well, for many, no. We have either faith, or direct experience or we can use our intellect to derive conclusions, modulo the problem of inference.
An  intellectual path will be able to remove doubts if it is honest, if we accept whatever results brought by the logic that we choose to deduce our conclusions; we must no have fears nor delusions, nor we reject conclusions that we do not like. Be open minded.
The intellectual path takes time, is almost necessary and sufficient to understand something, but the practice can consolidate whatever intellectual results you obtain. The intellectual path trims a lot of potential actions/discourses/thoughts that we can do before we perform them. It is reflecting before living, and the reflection gets us on some path, whereon we agree if the intellectual process has been honest and we destroyed any prejudices beforehand.
If the path of the intellect is not taken, then we have faith where you follow blindly, more or less  blindly since nobody start from scratch and everybody comes with a background on daily life and his view on pleasures and suffering, gradually until we agree unconditionally after we encounter a break point in our behaviours, discourses or thoughts. We understand whatever the doctrine is telling you, plateaux of progress and breaking points after plateaux of progress and breaking points.
Otherwise, if we are not capable of  understanding anything without living, then... just live; live until we take a step back of our experiences and turn to the doctrine wherewith we believe that we will be happy. Too many people  learn only through suffering, but they apply the reflexivity sooner or later.

Hi Mark and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have put together a Guide and a Ressource tab for new users that you might find useful.

Through practicing insight meditation, one gains the knowledge of the arising and passing away of phenomenon, the suffering latent in all phenomenon, the uncontrollable nature of all phenomenon, and the cessation of phenomenon.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Role of suicide in the context of Dalai Lama's birthday and inevitable deathday
His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama recently celebrated his 80th birthday!
I've read that he is very conscious of the fact that after his death, there will be much turmoil, and it's something he thinks about often. "When I pass away, when I die, of course a setback. Very serious setback," he said in an interview. I have read/heard, though I cannot at present time point to the source (I can research further later and add citation, if necessary), that he is aware that many, perhaps thousands or tens of thousands, will commit suicide after he dies.
I believe the Dalai Lama has voiced opposition to suiciding for protests, that it violates Buddhist ethics—
"In the past, he has condemned self-immolations, which many Buddhists
believe are contrary to their faith, but has until now kept a low
profile over the recent wave of protests."
And he is quoted as saying:

"Some people commit suicide; they seem to think that there is
  suffering simply because there is the human life, and that by cutting
  off the life there will be nothing... But, according to the Buddhist
  viewpoint, that's not the case; your consciousness will continue. Even
  if you take your own life, this life, you will have to take another
  body that again will be the basis of suffering. If you really want to
  get rid of all your suffering, all the difficulties you experience in
  your life, you have to get rid of the fundamental cause (greed, hatred
  and delusion) that gives rise to the aggregates that are the basis of
  all suffering. Killing yourself isn't going to solve your problems."

—so my question is: If in fact many plan to suicide when he dies, why will they act in a way that is antithetical to their teachings, specifically the beliefs of their religious leader? It seems to this Westerner a totally illogical reaction. My perception, not criticism or judgment, is that it's especially irrational considering Dalai Lama's objection to suicide, Buddha notwithstanding: "If one knows how to treasure oneself, one should protect oneself well."—The Buddha (Dhammapada)
Can light be shed on this question? If I have been misled about the intentions of many followers to terminate their existence as a result of his passing, then my question should be deleted. Also, this is not the same question as "What are the consequences of the 14th Dalai Lama being the last one?" because it's not about the order of things but rather about the contradiction of ethics and action which I am unable to reconcile, hence the question, which I realize hinges completely on the report of planned suicides following his death, and I'm currently scouring for sources (I think it was an NPR radio program, perhaps).

History of martyrdom in Buddhism

The Burning monk of Saigon, Thích Quảng Đức is perhaps the most famous of monks in recent times who self immolated for a cause, however he is hardly the first, in fact he follows a very ancient precedent set since before the beginning of history in Buddhism. The Buddha in his life just preceding his Buddhahood offered himself to a hungry tiger in keeping with his Bodhisattva vow of placing others before the self.
Also see, Benn, James A. (2007), Burning for the Buddha: self-immolation in Chinese Buddhism, University of Hawaii Press, 9-10.
Taking the Bodhisattva precept of protecting others can mean sometimes, usually very senior monks, will set themselves alight, or feed themselves to insects or abandon their body in other ways for a worthy cause.
Often the miraculously unburned tongue or heart is enshrined as a holy relic as a mark of the Bodhisattva's faith.
Technically, this isn't suicide but heroic martyrdom of the non-violent kind.
Specific case of Tibet
As a monk, the Dalai Lama is bound by the pattimokha (monastic rules) to not praise the desirability of death. Any monk who praises death, commits a Pārājika (very grave) (literal translation: defeated one) offence, and entails expulsion from the Sangha.
The Dalai Lama is not any ordinary monk, he knows his word carries enormous weight. If he were to even hint that martyrdom would be appropriate, tens of thousands would self immolate, or destroy themselves without a second's hesitation.
Therefore he is perfectly correct on both humanitarian and monastic grounds to insist vehemently that suicide is not an option.
Last, but not least, it is also tactically wise, since the Chinese would wait for just such an opportunity where a nuanced but confusing utterance can be turned into a controversy. He has to be very careful as a leader of a people, in issuing fool proof statements that cannot be misinterpreted.
However, Buddhism is first and foremost about personal responsibility. As rational beings, Buddhists can weigh the odds and decide for themselves if martyrdom is worthy. Certainly there is room for violating the mundane order of things, when one operates on a rather high level of attainment.
Thus, they are not disobeying the Dalai Lama, as much as respecting their inner conscience and spiritual path.
Often times such acts of martyrdom arise from pure Bodhisattva nature, however sometimes it is a copy-cat act done under peer pressure. Hopefully the Dalai Lama's objections will dissuade the latter kind.

Good answer! An article where the Dalai Lama expresses doubts about the effectiveness of this practice. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/tibet/10117850/Dalai-Lama-doubts-effect-of-Tibetan-self-immolations.html

@Robin111 I've always thought it holds a dharma lesson somewhere in there that though many serious and earnest monks self immolated before and after Thích Quảng Đức in Vietnam, he or his order was the only one smart enough to call the western journalists beforehand, and have them arrive with their camera crew. As a result he chaged the course of the war, and was declared a Bodhisattva, and others were not. In fact, Thích Quảng Đức stepped in at the last moment, and pulled rank on less senior monks, and performed the self immolation himself; he hadn't let on to anyone that he planned to do it.

I think it's pretty amazing that people were jostling to get lit on fire. Their compassion must have been intense. Sometimes I do wonder how it must look to the outside world: like a brainwashed cult perhaps. One thing though, the serenity of the monk while on fire stunned the world.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
According to the Buddha, how is one freed from suffering?
I'm a bit confused about how, according to the Buddha, one is freed from suffering.
I have read that suffering is one of the marks of existence. So can one be freed from it at all? If it's an aspect of existing, is it just something to accept? So the freedom is in accepting the suffering?
I have also read that suffering is only caused by ignorance of the nature of reality. So to be free what does one have to understand?

No-self and impermanence?
Or does it mean to be mindful and see how things are at this very moment? Notice the breath, and your feelings, including the painful ones?

Welcome to Buddhism SE. We've put together some tips for new users on asking questions on the site. Also we have a page of useful resources that you may also find useful. Best wishes and I hope you have a positive experience on the site.

I'm a bit confused about how, according to the Buddha, one is freed
  from suffering.

Glad to hear you are interested in the end of suffering.  Buddha laid out the Four Noble Truths as his very first sermon/teaching and they form the foundation of all Buddhist schools and thinking.  Don't be fooled into thinking it is a pessimistic doctrine simply because it talks so much about suffering.
The basic idea is that everything in the world arises due to causes and supporting conditions.  This is like saying that everything that you feel, see, taste, sense, smell, touch, and experience, arises due to causes coming together in the proper conditions.  A cause is like a seed and the proper conditions are like fertile soil.. water.. sunshine.  When all the conditions are there and the cause is present, there will be a result very naturally.  This is the way things are.
Buddha taught, out of compassion for the plight of all sentient beings, that some actions (of body, speech, and mind) are wholesome and some are unwholesome.  Those which are wholesome and virtuous are the causes of happiness, those which are unwholesome are the causes of suffering.
By abandoning that which creates the causes of suffering, and by acting in ways which create the causes of virtue, one is gradually eliminating the possibility of suffering to manifest in ones experience and increasing the growth and abundance of happiness, prosperity, joy, wealth, comfort, ease, and so forth.
Now, if you want to know more about what actions are harmful and which are helpful, you can read sutras and learn the teachings and thanks to our karma this life we have a good connection with the Buddhas and we can learn a great deal to eliminate what are known as the Obstacles and Obscurations from our mind streams.
Mindful awareness is indeed the greatest remedy of all.  With consistent practice, virtuous actions naturally increase and defiled actions naturally decrease.  One is no longer ruled or overcome by thoughts, and does not need to identify with emotions or thoughts, and one gains freedom from the extremes of "existence" and "nonexistence" as those are also just thoughts.
Historically, the Buddha laid out what is known as the Noble Eightfold Path.  They are like 8 threads which weave together to form a complete solution to our how-does-one-live-a-good-life question.  It is still very much about using our knowledge and understanding to make wise choices, but I think you would benefit from checking out this fundamental presentation of the way to the end of suffering.
Contemporary teachers and Buddhas of our day teach a variety of approaches, and so I would encourage you to develop strong aspirations to meet qualified teachers and sages in order to help you along the way.  We are truly blessed to live in a world where the teachings are available and people are gaining interest in their value, and we are truly fortunate to have so many noble beings and enlightened masters living in our world today.
In short, practice being aware of your bodily sensations, your feelings, and the current instant of the world you are in where-ever you may be.  Practice leaning into the awareness that recognizes and cognizes without identifying with what is recognized or cognized, and with consistent practice you will certainly see great benefits in your life.
Dharma is vast and there are many teachings one can read about but it is most important to put them into practice and really reap their value.  To contemplate them and to put them into your daily life and actions.


text:
What is Dharma?
I have read that Dharma refers to reality as-is (in this wikipedia article).
I have also read that it refers to the teachings of the Buddha.
Does Dharma refer to both these things? The former seems more like "mindfulness of the present".

The word dharma is understood to come from the Sanskrit root dhṛ - in regards to holding or keeping. The word has its history in the vedas, where the meaning is something that holds the world together (i.e. maintains order) - religious hymns, gods, etc. Later texts use the word to refer to the order itself - e.g. "going against dharma", etc. The wikipedia article on Dharma says this and more.
By the time the Buddhism arose, there was already an understanding that different religious teachers described different theories of natural order, so the word dharma had come to have the connotation of "teaching", as in "the dharma of the samana Gotama is different from the dharma of the Niganthas."
There was also the sense that dharma was better than adharma, so dharma came to be associated with the idea of "righteousness".
The Buddha expanded upon these ideas, claiming that what he taught was the true natural order - that his dharma (teaching) was the true dharma (natural order). He went even further to describe reality itself as dharma, as in:

"Bhikkhus, whether there is the arising of the Tathagatas or not, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All dhammas are non-self.
-- AN 3.134

He also used the word to refer to righteousness, as in:

dhammacārī sukhaṃ seti, asmiṃ loke paramhi ca.
One who fares by the dharma rests in happiness in this world and the next.
-- Dhp 169

For a full treatment of the word, the PED entry for dhamma would be a good source of how the word is used, but to answer your question, yes, it does refer to both those things, since the Buddha taught what he understood to be the natural order of reality.


text:
Seeking explanation of this image's iconography
I came across the following image on China's Taobao online shopping site and was hoping someone could explain the content. (the seller could not) The central figure is Shakyamuni Buddha, that much is clear. I am unfamiliar with the rest of the setting.

The things I'm sure about - it's tough to see everything with the picture size, but this is a depiction of the Buddha's moment of enlightenment.  The fingers pointed down and the palm up are the "world witnessing" mudra - the Buddha's response to Mara the tempter when asked who would bear witness to his spiritual accomplishments.  The naked women on the lower right are Mara's three daughters - craving, passion, and antagonism (Tanha, Raga, Arati) who came to tempt the Buddha.  All the wacky looking beasts raging around the Buddha is Mara's army.
Less sure about - the "Buddha" up top is probably Maitreya - the Buddha who will supposedly follow the Shakyamuni.  I'm thinking maybe the folks in the two upper corners are depictions of the six paramitas (giving, concentration, energy, virtue, patience, wisdom)?  No idea about the stuff at the bottom.  Maybe that's Dipankara (the Buddha before the current one) in the middle with the attendants?
PS - This should be a comment, but I don't have enough text space!

That's more than enough of an explanation. Thank you!


text:
Why did the Buddha touch the earth at his enlightenment?
At the Buddha's enlightenment, he pointed to the earth or touched the earth, meaning the earth (or world) was adequate witness to his spiritual accomplishment or new status, or, perhaps the only witness that would be acceptable to Mara. Mara accepted the witness. I do not understand the principle or truth of this event. Earth or the world seems to be personified in some way, or endowed with a capacity to accept or reject a plea for witnessing. Explanations and clarifications would be greatly appreciated. Thx.

I've edited the title to better reflect the content of the question. Please roll back if the title isn't suitable. Metta

I knew I needed help with titling and tagging. thx :)

Just discovered this explanation re the "earth-witness mudra":  http://buddhism.about.com/od/eightauspicioussymbols/a/earthwitness.htm . ... an excerpt - "It not only symbolizes Gotama's rejection of Mara's sterile machismo, but makes a profound point that a Buddha does indeed belong to the world. The Dhamma is exacting, but it is not against nature. . . . The man or woman who seeks enlightenment is in tune with the fundamental structure of the universe."

PaPa, I believe touching the earth is a later addition to pali cannon, but i could be wrong.  Bodhirajakumara Sutta is one of the best sutta of autobiography of Bhudda.  Buddha also told Ven Anuruddha in dozens of sutta about himself from the history of sakaya clan, when he came down from Dusita into his mother's womb and so on to after the evening of enlightment.
http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Bodhirajakumara_Sutta

@D.Alkas: So, what's with the significance of relying on the earth to serve as witness? Evidently it was important to both the Buddha AND Mara! Who is/was this "earth"? ... something/someone more than one of the four elements, I.e. earth, water, air, fire?

A legend added later that, before buddha sat down under bodhi tree, he made a determination that he would not get up until he found a way to escape all sufferings.  As night progressed, a mara and his demon army came to face him and demanded the plot under bodhi tree belonged to him.  Buddha moved his right hand and touched the earth and proclaim that as the goddess of earth as his witness, this spot belonged to him.  Goddess of earth appear and flooded the Mara with water supposedly each drop represented a merits collected by buddha over 16+ Asongkaya +100K maha kappa (time measurement) ..

flood washed away mara and his demons, left buddha alone to reach enlightment.  I'm not sure but this story might be later addition to pali cannon. I personally give very little credit to later additions because it contains many contradictions, they do not come from someone with infinite wisdom, and lastly, buddha said not to add or delete his teaching.My way of studying might not be the same as others especially those who seeks buddhist gurus and teachers.  Buddha's words are perfect and none contradiction.if you dont understand one sutta,keep reading and you will find explanation in another.

later additions might contain errors, time specific, frivolous, or even flat out wrong.  Usually Buddha's word or Buddhawajana , the sutta starts with "i have heard"  followerd by place and names but later additions start with a story right away or even gives credit to the author.  Another addition sutta, king King Pasenadi of kosala asked buddha the anisong or merits from building buddha statue....   that sutta was added to pali cannon siamese version about 500 years ago.

I wished i get more space for comments :-)   another subject that i did extensively study was what  karma (verb) is?  my finding, buddha said itstraight forward, "intention is karma".  However, later addition to pali cannons and many modern teachers added "unintentional karma" (eg. accidently step on an ant and killing it" .  IMO, that later addition is contradiction to Buddha's teaching.  I personally concluded that no such thing as unintentional karma.    People, have metta on me if i upset you.  :-)  Buddha also said 40 years of teachings, there was no contradictions whatsoever.

¡Interesting! The image of the Buddha touching the earth with the right hand while holding the left hand up appears to be a mudra, and seems to be popular. I would be keen to know if this image (and the associated story) is important to the various traditions, e.g. Vajrayana, Theravada, Mahayana, Tibetan, etc. Thx :)

The very best way to "get more space for comments" is to edit your answer (click on the little "edit" link just below your answer): i.e. post additional information in your answer instead of posting it in comments.

Because it was on this earth he cultivated the ten Paramithas in 3 different ways. He was training his generals(Dana, Sila, Nekkhamma etc.) for eons for the final battle against the evil one. It wasn't a plea, he was making the ultimate statement, saying that he needs no other witness when the great earth itself has witnessed it all.

perhaps the only witness that would be acceptable to Mara

No, it wasn't a case of finding something that the Mara would accept. Mara had no way to defeat the Buddha. He had no choice but to flee in fear because the earth started trembling.

Some versions of the story include a deva named Prithvi:

Prithvi (pṛthvī, also pṛthivī) "the Vast One" is the Sanskrit name for the earth as well as the name of a devi in Hinduism and Buddhism.
In Buddhist texts and visual representations, Pṛthvī is described as both protecting Gautama Buddha and as being his witness for his enlightenment. Prithvi appears in Early Buddhism in the Pāli Canon, dispelling the temptation figure Mara by attesting to Gautama Buddha's worthiness to attain enlightenment.[2] The Buddha is very frequently illustrated in figurative art wielding bhūmisparśa or "earth-touching" mudrā.

I haven't found it in the Pali cannon.
Various places though say that the story evolved, that people added to it or retold it; for example,

One element, however, is still not evident: Maara does not claim the seat on which the Bodhisatta is seated, and hence the need to call as witness the earth (or the earth-goddess, as the later versions have it) has not arisen.


text:
Working with cycles in meditation
Over the course of my meditation practice I experience pronounced cycles or ebbs and flows. This has been a feature of my practice for several years now and doesn't seem to be lessening - if anything it is intensifying. The pattern is

Meditation goes well. Concentrated and experience vigour
Energy, motivation and concentration increase to a peak
Over the course of one or two days practice seems to fall apart. Poor concentration. Feelings of dullness and lethargy with meditation and lack of motivation. This can bleed over to time off the cushion
After weeks or even months meditation starts to become pleasurable again and the cycle starts again

Sometimes the low point isn't too bad but sometimes it is so dominating that I can't recognize it for what it is. I've cleared my shrine away before now. The Buddha goes away and it's only after some days I remember what is probably going on.
Does anyone have any advice about the best way to work with these kind of cycles. Is it a well documented phenomena or documented at all? I would find references to established texts or teachers on this subject particularly helpful.

could you please edit to include the type of meditation practice? that could have an effect on what the correct answer should be.

The best fix for poor meditation is more meditation.

@Ryan my meditation practice is mostly metta bhvana and minfulness of breathing but before my last 'crash' I was doing a lot of pure awareness

What is pure awareness? I would suggest you practice vipassana, this practice will help you see these crashes coming a lot sooner and deal with them in a very objective, non-reactive manner.

Everyone experiences ebbs and flows, it is the natural biological cycle of the mind. However its impact varies from individual to individual, and can definitely be controlled.
First, we need a good reason to continue practicing when meditation loses its stickiness. Second, we need to intervene early, before the multiplier effect sets in. If the dullness (which is what doubt is) of mind lasts for too long, then stronger and still stronger medicine becomes necessary, and it can be quite painful.
Best case:
If we are in a retreat setting where our attention and mindfulness are excellent, we can spot the exact moment the mind changes its hum. Doubt begins to creep in, and a lack of confidence, or a desire for samsara grabs one. At these times, provided this change is noticed at the very first moment of arising, it maybe sufficient to just note the change, and it will vanish soon without much harm because our mind will multiply it no further.
Usually for me this would happen on some days at around 3-4pm when I'm having a calorie crunch, being 4-5 hours after lunch, my mind is switching fuels, and has a lower performance initially when burning fat reserves.
Fewer calories coming into the brain = Depression, despondence, laziness etc.
Of course, I can't observe at this level of detail in everyday life, so this only works for me on a retreat or if I am already on the cushion when this happens.
Next best case:
Take the philosophical approach, and ask, 'who is losing faith?', 'what is reality?' etc. Again, this works only if the intervention is quite early in the phase, when the mind still has enough strength to be reasoned with. Maybe within a few minutes of the dullness arising.
Medium - to - Hard cases:
Once the mind has become properly dull by lack of mindfulness, which takes only a few minutes (less than half hour) really, it becomes difficult to reason with. Moods and opinions take root rather firmly, and one may want to get up from meditation if one is already in meditation,  or take a break from reading a book on dhamma etc.
If the lack of mindfulness lasts for a little longer, like an hour, then the mind becomes a proper bucking bronco. It wants pleasures, it wants a movie, it wants distraction, the works. It may want to leave the retreat right away etc.
If we let the dullness persist for a day or two or a week, or more, then yeah, giving up the practice all together becomes a real possibility. There are people who abandon meditation for years because they got dragged away by dullness, and then got caught in daily life.
Solution:
The only option that works on a dull mind that is not sharp enough to reason with is faith and perseverance.
One time when I'd let my mindfulness slip on a retreat (in this particular case it wasn't lack of calories, it was the dukkha nanas), all of a sudden I had thoughts of quitting the retreat. It wasn't my first retreat, so I knew this isn't normal, this isn't right. I had no choice but to walk around in my room, cursing Mara, telling him he won't have his way, he is not going to weaken my resolve. I was simultaneously aware that I was talking to myself like one of those people in cults blaming the devil for everything, but what could I do, my mind was too dull for anything more rational or intelligent. The dull mind can't reflect within and see nuanced internal reality, so blaming the devil is what worked.
It brought me back to the cushion within an hour, because I was quite angry with Mara and wasn't going to let him win. The mood had passed by the evening. All one needs is some convincing reason to continue to practice - devil, biology, philosophy - whatever resonates at that moment. The good thing about blaming the devil is it fights depression and self blame - I don't indulge in the '"I" screwed up' thinking and get demotivated, instead fury at being wronged by Mara gives strength to fight back.
Off the retreat setting, there's been a few times, when I've abandoned all practice for 3-4 days, maybe a week, and binge watched some nonsense TV series or the other usually with a lot of stomach churning violence and sex. All the while knowing I don't really enjoy it, but I'll feel powerless. Of course in these cases I didn't catch the dullness early enough, and allowed it to multiply in strength. Once the mind is properly dull, it looks outside for entertainment. Sex and violence is popular in our present day culture because it is the lowest grade of entertainment - even the dullest mind can appreciate it even though it renders one even weaker. When my mindfulness is quite high I am repulsed by the sight of such things, and my mind will naturally stay away with no effort.
This situation is quite bad, because even after I've decided to pull myself up, which I usually do after a week maximum, I have to make up lost ground, and my concentration won't get back to normal for a week or two, and the whole time my mood and relaxation won't be so good. I might wake up a little extra tired, I might sleep late and wake up late etc.
Exception:
Some other times I've just zapped out of the dullness as if by magic, and got back on the cushion after watching 3 seasons of a TV show back to back, as if nothing happened, and my concentration has not suffered much. This I can't explain.
My problem these days is complacency: I know how all this works, and I know I will eventually always return to the cushion, so I no longer fight it as vehemently as I used to. I'm trying to fix this but I can tell I am taking it easy.

Great answer thank you. I think faith and perseverance is about right. But this entire post really chimes with my experience. It seems like this is it really. It is a manifestation of doubt i think. So do you think that dullness and doubt are the same thing?

My personal observation is all negative states (doubt, depression, diffidence) arise from an initial dullness. The mind takes the dullness and give its a cognizable form as doubt or depression. Fear of the selfview at being eliminated is always waiting for resolve to weaken. I've seen research that says the sympathetic/parasympathetic nervous system is to blame. One inclines us towards samsara, the other towards faith. When one or the other goes out of balance, we fall down. Like learning to walk on two feet, we need to learn to handle the imbalances as we grow our meditation.

The saying the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak comes to mind. Maybe it is junk food, or a man or woman who is attractive but is just trouble to let into our lives, or alcohol, whatever the addiction, we can't often help it. We are not acting rationally in these moments of weakness, we are succumbing to an external pleasure seeking sensation in the brain. Sometimes this leads to crazy conclusions like anger is good, even though anger is certainly not pleasurable. When we completely and always see through this we are enlightened. Even Sakadagamis don't always manage this :)

Meditating with a senior teacher or a class of advanced meditators who can transmit mindfulness energy is very good for this. Like a mother watches over the toddler taking his first steps, and ensures he doesn't have a bad fall, the shared mindfulness energy will prevent dullness and negative states in everyone as and when they need it. This is why often on a good retreat at a monastery with hundreds of seasoned meditators, one can make progress worth a year of meditating on our own in a few days. Again, I don't have anything scientific except my personal observation to back this.

I was wondering about the clearing away of the shrine. It could be that there exists an attachment to the shrine. By clearing it away when periods of stagnation occurs it is like affirming that a period of stagnation is "bad" or "not good" or "a problem".
These are merely concepts designated to a certain situation. In ultimate reality what you experience is only a combination of hearing, seeing, tasting, smelling, feeling, thinking.
Making the situation into either positive or negative is one's own work. We create our own suffering by wishing for reality to be something different than it already is.
The clearing away of the shrine could indicate that there is a self involved in this. It is like saying "i am angry" or "i am sad". There is an affirmation or validation going on here.
In reality there is mental and physical phenomena arising and ceasing on their own accord. Do not identify or take ownership of these impersonal and uncontrollable phenomena.
By reacting to them you provide them further fuel to burn. See them for what they are. You can turn these phenomena into objects of observation and create a foundation for cultivation of insights.
Lastly, here is a great dhamma talk by Ven. Yuttadhammo. Robin was so sweet to post it in one of my questions. In here it is talked about how one can adjust ones own practice by using 4 different tools. This talk is very beneficial for any meditator.
Hope this helps. If you need me to elaborate on anything i've just said, please let me know.

pretty much this. by limiting the experiences you're willing to deem as acceptable, compartmentalizing reality, you hinder your progress. these "undesirable" states aren't the issue...your response to them is.

I agree, learn to observe everything that happens without self blame, or attachment, even to the good times in meditation. No matter how many times the ox runs away, we patiently go and bring it back. (See Zen Ox herding picture series)

@Buddho. Great analogy with the Ox. I heard a Tibetan saying that goes something like this: "If the mind wanders a thousand times, bring it back a thousand times".

@Lanka :-) not my analogy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Bulls   - The calf, bull or ox is one of the earliest similes for meditation practice. It comes from the Maha Gopalaka Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 33). It is also used in the commentaries, especially the one on the Maha Satipahna Sutta (Digha Nikaya 22) and the Satipahna Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 10).

@Lanka thanks for the answer. Helpful as always. I should have filled out the part about the shrine - i cleared it away and put on a record player and bought a load of vinyl. The problem wasn't anger - it was craving. I ended up craving stuff that really I know doesn't cause any lasting happiness. Fortunately the record player broke and I came to my senses!

@Crab Bucket. It happens that one go back and forth in the practice sometimes. When one is practicing one can stir up latent defilements and thereby surface them which results in e.g. a strong sense of craving. Important thing is to work with them. If set back happens then it happens. Dont worry too much about it instead stick to the practice and you will learn from it. The methods for working with this is the antidotes for the 5 hindrances.


text:
Answering Other's Questions About Oneself
Do all people practicing Buddhism have difficulty answering questions like these:
What gives your life meaning?

What do you like about yourself?

Somebody asked me these questions, and I am having a difficult time answering them. I don't know if it's just me and my circumstances, or if it is my Buddhist practice that keeps me from verbalizing the answer.
In Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, Shunyru Suzuki Roshi says a Buddhist should stay away from excitement which I agree with and try to follow. If I knew I wouldn't wake up tomorrow morning, I don't think I would be particularly upset. Is this a normal feeling Buddhists have or come to after they have been practicing?

Edit: added tags to your question to increase discoverability.

One of my teachers at the end of a retreat was offering some guidelines, and one of them was "Decline to answer questions that bring up Story." The word Story means the self-involved ego-related things about life, things we tell other people and ourselves to reinforce a self-concept. That said, I think it is still OK for life to have meaning to you, and for you to like things!

When declining, how should one respond to their question ?

of course they're difficult to answer; they're meaningless questions.

tl;dr: I think it is normal, you just need time to get used to it. It will pass. I think it will be useful for you to investigate, why do you feel the desire to be "normal"? What part of you feels insecure?
I can only offer my anecdotal support - yes, I've felt like this too.
At one point I couldn't even fill out the "About me" section of my social media profile, or a form for a retreat that asked me to describe myself. I mean, what do I put there? I couldn't really define myself by my samsaric interests of the past, and I didn't identify as a Buddhist or some other "ist" either because it's my present vehicle to the truth, it is not me.
Then I began to wonder if my friends will consider me weird. And I also realized it didn't matter much to me what anyone thought.
It took me a while to accept totally that this identity-less person is who I am, and I am fine with it. What helped me was to listen to several interviews of spiritually awakening people on batgap.com - after hearing several hundred interviews I had the confidence that this is quite okay. I was not very different from the people being interviewed in my mind state and experiences, and they all seemed pretty together in their external identities after a few years of being lost, so I felt okay.
These days if someone asks me who I am, I don't have the deer in the headlights look - instead I try to imagine what the person wants to hear, and reveal that aspect of my externally visible identity, even though internally I have none.
And yes, being okay with dying is pretty normal at this stage of acceptance.

Wow that gives me a lot of consolation. I'm so glad you shared your experience. Thank you.

Glad it helped. You're welcome.

Thank you for this great answer Buddho. Btw I sent you an email.

There is a subtle danger here that I think a lot of people fall into - namely identifying with non-identity (says the guy with the username Nemo...heh).  I think one of the more glaring examples of this sort of thing are the people who refuse to capitalize the letter "I" when talking about themselves.  They make a big show of being beyond the confines of ego.  They can't wait to tell you just how humble they are and how their existence and personal identity is of petty importance.
This a whole lot of rubbish, really.  Buddhism doesn't seek out to wipe away all traces of your personality.  It doesn't try to dash your dreams or eradicate the joys you find in life.  What it does try to do is keep your from being dominated by them.  If you've ever had the pleasure of meeting someone who has been practicing for awhile, one thing you'll notice is that they aren't stick-in-the-mud types, holier-than-thou, disconnected, or aloof.  If anything, they are a bigger, bolder, and braver version of who they were before they began practicing.  They are more themselves, not less.
Personally, I think anyone who says they have no fear of death is blowing smoke too.  I know people who are deeply enlightened who fear social gatherings, public speaking, and flying!  If you practice, you might not be faced with the same kind of existential dread of your own demise as someone else might be, but let's be honest here.  It's a journey into what poet Francois Rabelais called a "great perhaps".  There's always some trepidation in journeying into the unknown.
A little Zen story to summarize:

In ancient days an old woman made offering to a hermit over a period
  of twenty years, and one day she sent her sixteen-year-old niece to
  take food to the hermit, telling her to make advances to him and to
  see what he would do.  So the girl lay her head on the hermits lap and
  said, How is this?
The hermit said, The withered tree is rooted in an ancient rock in
  bitter cold during winter months; there is no warmth, no life.
The girl reported this to her aunt, and the old woman said, That
  vulgarian!  How outrageous!  To think that I have made offerings to
  him for twenty years!
So she drove the hermit away and burnt down his cottage.

In the version of that story which I had read, the complaint isn't that the monk didn't respond with passion, the complaint is that he didn't respond with "loving-kindness": No Loving-Kindness

They aren't mutually exclusive.  ;-)

Incidentally, I'm fairly certain the bit about compassion was added later as people tried to intellectualize the content into something more "Buddhist" sounding.  The koan originally appears in Entangling Vines and does not include anything about loving kindness.  http://postimg.org/image/677lkrtw7/

The teachers on the retreat I went on a year ago spoke about Character, Story and Texture. These are three important concepts for navigating an awakening life.
Character is the person in the role of you at the time. You are free to do whatever you wish with this actor. It is put on, so you can change it. I actually have about 10 personality facets which respond to life and act at various times, although mostly it is "just doing". People always wonder how this is progress, to have more facets and not just one. One is a trap. An inflexible one is a trap. A defined one is a trap. So, just get on with it, don't chain yourself to a self-image.
Story is what we tell ourselves and others to reinforce the safety of knowing what we are. Story is to be avoided, by not telling it to others, and not allowing the tape to run in your mind. We do not know what we are, and it is none of our business. In this way, as you said, it does not matter if "we" live or die. Good call.
Texture is the experience of living. Whatever is. It is irrefutable and unarguable, because it is what is happening. It needs no justification. If you are drinking bad coffee, the texture of your experience is bad. If you are having good sex, the texture of your experience is good. As one of the teachers said, "Why would we want Texture to flatline?" Why indeed? Texture is truth. Personally, I think you can learn a lot from excitement. The old Zen saying is: "Anyone can hold a sleeping baby!"
So, when people ask you questions about yourself, you should... haw haw, you thought I was going to answer, didn't you? This response will self-destruct in 5 seconds. (Cue Mission Impossible theme music) aaand... Cut! [This message was brought to you by Heiligtum, R'Tah and Gina]


text:
Did the Buddha mean this by "rebirth"?
I suspect the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in a sense different from its traditional meaning. Probably he meant that our sense of separate self is repeatedly being born, decaying, dying and being reborn until we attain Nirvana. In this sense, rebirth happens only in our present life and not after our physical death. Is there any evidence in the early canon to support that the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in the above sense?

Was this same question already asked and answered in Rebirth as cycle of consciousness?, or is this question somehow different from that (and if so, in what way)?

Hi Soumen and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource section that you might find useful.

My question is different from the question cited above according to which rebirth continues after physical death. But if my interpretation is right, it happens only in the present life.

I'm not quite understanding the basis for the question. Is this your own opinion that the Buddha used the term "Rebirth" in this way? This looks like a primarily opinion-based question to me. Correct me if im wrong.

I must admit that I do not have any evidence to support this proposition. Perhaps I have not read it anywhere explicitly but it occurred to me in the course of studying and thinking about Buddhism. Honestly, I do not feel logically comfortable with the traditional meaning of "Rebirth" in Buddhism. So this idea seems attractive to me. That is why I want to know whether it can be supported by evidence or should be discarded. I am sorry if this question is against the norm of this site. In that case, I must delete it.

Thanks for the clarification. Could you reword the last sentence "Can it be true?" into another phrase? I think that would change the primarily-opinion-based part of the question. Asking "Can it be true?" is like asking "What do you think about this?" and that type of questions is not good to ask on SE. That's because we are a "Best answer format" so in order for you to get the best answer possible to your question these opinion-based questions cannot generate that. This is not a critique of you. It's more of a helping hand. It can be difficult in beginning to know how to phrase a question:)

You could for example ask "Is this approach stated in any of the texts?" or "What does the texts say about the term Rebirth?". Let me know if you need any help.

It is my opinion -- hence I don't feel comfortable posting this as an answer -- that what you are saying is, in fact, the case. However, I doubt there is anything in Pali canon to support this, and the idea is unpopular in many Buddhist circles. You might look into what is unfortunately called "Secular" Buddhism for more discussion on this topic. I'm happy to discuss in more depth privately, as well.

I'd have preferred to send this to you, @Soumen, by PM, but that option does not seem to exist here. This article may be of help to you: http://secularbuddhism.org/2013/05/29/a-secular-evaluation-of-rebirth/

@Zefareu Even if it weren't your own opinion, that link seems to me on-topic as an answer to this question. IMO it would be better to repost it as an answer than as a comment.

I suspect the Buddha used the term "rebirth"

The entire premise of your question is faulty, unfortunately. The Buddha never, afaik, used a term that could be translated as "rebirth". In fact, the idea of anything being reborn goes against orthodox early Buddhist teachings. Throughout the Buddha's teachings, it is made clear that at the breakup of the body there is birth, not rebirth - as in birth of new things, not the return of anything old.

Probably he meant that our sense of separate self is repeatedly being born, decaying, dying and being reborn until we attain Nirvana.

Since the Buddha never taught the idea of self and denounced any view of self as leading to suffering (MN 22), this is highly unlikely to be correct.

In this sense, rebirth happens only in our present life and not after our physical death.

To repeat, according to early Buddhism, rebirth never happens. In this life, there is what is called khaṇika-maraṇa - death of a moment. Each momentary experience is born and dies, never to arise again. At the moment of conceptual death (sammuti-maraṇa), this process of momentary birth and death continues unimpeded unless one has experienced "death by cutting off" (samuccheda-maraṇa) - i.e. of the defilements (q.v. Vism VIII.167) - in which case there is no further arising.
To put it succinctly, physical death isn't even real according to early Buddhism; it is a concept based on the artificial construct of a "being" who is "born".

Is there any evidence in the early canon to support that the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in the above sense?

No.

Would you please reconcile, "The Buddha never, afaik, used a term that could be translated as 'rebirth'" with for example The Truth of Rebirth which starts, "Rebirth has always been a central teaching in the Buddhist tradition", and/or Does Rebirth Make Sense? which says, "The teaching of rebirth crops up almost everywhere in the Canon", and, "rebirth occurs "with the breakup of the body, after death," which clearly implies [...] literally"?

@ChrisW OP is implying that something that has ceased might arise again. This doesn't happen. Talking about rebirth as a theory is fine, as long as we understand that in reality nothing is actually "reborn". It's a poor name for what really happens.

So did you mean, not literally, "the Buddha never used a term that could be translated as 'rebirth'", but rather, "... never described moment-to-moment experiences and never described self using a term that could be translated as 'rebirth'"? For example there is a description of kamma in which "he reappears in a happy destination" that's cited as an example of the "rebirth" doctrine; when you say "birth not rebirth" perhaps you're saying that "he reappears" means "he [re]appears however that's a new 'him' and not the same 'him'".

@ChrisW no, I meant "The Buddha never used a term that could be translated as rebirth." just as I said. New birth is related to old birth, but nothing is ever reborn.

Well, and I hope you don't mind me asking, what about "he reappears" in Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta: is "reappears" not a term used by the Buddha that could be translated as rebirth?

@ChrisW that's okay, but no, the pali word is "upapajjati", which means something like "he arises". No sense of "re-" at all.

It is too bad that @yuttadhammo is not around anymore, because I would love to know how he would reconcile this answer with AN 5.38 and provide an answer here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/44599/what-did-the-buddha-mean-in-an-5-38-with-the-fifth-benefit-to-a-person-of-faith

On searching the Pali cannon for the words 'death' and 'reborn' there are many suttas which include the phrase,

... with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn ...

In this Translator's Introduction, Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote,

This sutta teaches how to understand the relationship of consciousness
  to rebirth in a way that helps put an end to rebirth.
Although the Buddha never used any word corresponding to "rebirth" in
  his teachings, he did describe birth as a process following on death
  again and again as long as the appropriate conditions are present. In
  other words, even though he didn't use the word "rebirth," his
  teachings on birth are teachings on repeated birth: how it happens,
  how it inherently involves suffering and stress, and how it can be
  brought to an end.
The idea that death can be followed by birth was not universally
  accepted in India in the Buddha's time. As DN 2 and MN 101 show, some
  prominent contemplative schools actively rejected the idea of rebirth
  while others affirmed it. Thus when the Buddha taught rebirth, he
  wasn't simply following an unexamined cultural assumption. He was
  consciously taking a stand on one of the controversial issues of his
  time. However, his explanation of rebirth differed from other schools
  on both sides of the issue in that he avoided the question of whether
  or not there's a "what" that gets reborn, or if there is a "what,"
  what it is (SN 12.12; SN 12.35). He also discouraged such speculations
  as, "If I take rebirth, what was I in the past, and what will I be in
  the future?" (MN 2)

He also writes the following, which agrees with what you asked in the question (not rebirth-during-this-life instead of rebirth-after-death, but at least rebirth-during-this-life as well as rebirth-after-death),

However, a being — in the Buddha's sense of the term — not only takes birth after the death of the body, it can also take birth, die, and be reborn many times in the course of a day — as attachment develops for one desire, ends, and then develops for another desire. This is why the processes leading to rebirth after death can be observed and redirected in the present moment during life. This is why the ability to understand and observe the processes of dependent co-arising is so important in putting an end to rebirth on all its many levels.

I will add that https://suttacentral.net/an5.38/en/sujato is a very good example of such a sutta. It is hard to understand how the Buddha was describing anything other than a straightforward notion of rebirth in a fortunate realm (after death and the breakup of the body) as a consequence of faith.

I offer this article, "A Secular Evaluation of Rebirth", as a possible answer to your question.

It starts with,

Insofar as we know anything about his dhamma, we know that the Buddha taught literal rebirth.

After looking at evidence gathered by Ian Stevenson, considering whether memories are trustworthy, and whether we have any physical theories for rebirth, it concludes,

It is for reasons such as these that any contemporary, scientifically informed Buddhist practice should reject belief in rebirth and its associated kammic causation. The Path is rich enough without them. And while we can make good use of kamma and rebirth as metaphor for our moment-to-moment lived experience of change, or of skillful and unskillful action, we simply cannot make any more of it and expect to end up with a system which is compatible with our best understanding of the way the world works.

In general, I think the Pali canon does not agree with your interpretation, though the article makes clear that there are Buddhists who do (I am one of them). You might look to "Secular" Buddhism for more about this.

I find the article linked to in this answer to be problematic in a number of ways; is it appropriate to point out what I take to be flaws in a comment like this (very) one?

@Adamokkha For what it's worth, I am happy to have an answer I point out criticized, that's why I'm here! I think we're all hear to learn, and whether at the end we agree or not, I appreciate all the feedback!

The interpretation you offer is not in line with the Buddha's teachings as I understand them. Other, western Buddhists have suggested similar interpretations, however, literal reincarnation is a repeated theme throughout the suttas. Here are a few reasons that I think the non-literal or 'this lifetime' interpretation of rebirth is not tenable.
(1) When discussing rebirth, as ChrisW pointed out, the phrasing that thematically appears makes it clear that it is meant to be literal, as in the Saleyyaka Sutta:

"Householders, it is by reason of conduct not in accordance with the
  Dhamma, by reason of unrighteous conduct, that beings here on the
  dissolution of the body, after death (emphasis mine), reappear in states of
  deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. It
  is by reason of conduct in accordance with the Dhamma, by reason of
  righteous conduct, that some beings here on the dissolution of the
  body, after death, reappear in a happy destination, even in the
  heavenly world."

The same phrasing appears elsewhere, e.g., in the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta.
(2) The Buddha occasionally declares the destination of deceased persons; i.e., he says where they have been reborn (or that they will not be reborn).
(3) The Buddhist cosmology explicitly declares the existence of various hell and heaven realms and beings that populate them. These are possible destinations after death for a human being, as are rebirth as an animal or a hungry ghost.
(4) The Buddha distinguishes between the fruits of kamma in the 'here and now' and those in future births. That the Buddha is talking about reincarnation is made perfectly clear by this conversation with his disciple, General Siha, in the Siha Sutta:

When this was said, General Siha said to the Blessed One: "As for the
  four fruits of generosity visible in the here & now that have been
  pointed out by the Blessed One, it's not the case that I go by
  conviction in the Blessed One with regard to them. I know them, too. I
  am one who gives, a master of giving, dear & charming to people at
  large. I am one who gives, a master of giving; good people, people of
  integrity, admire me. I am one who gives, a master of giving, and my
  fine reputation is spread far & wide: 'Siha is generous, a doer, a
  supporter of the Sangha.' I am one who gives, a master of giving, and
  when I approach any assembly of people — noble warriors, brahmans,
  householders, or contemplatives — I do so confidently & without
  embarrassment. (Context note: The Buddha has just finished outlining the fruits of generosity in this life; they are those which the general says he enjoys, i.e., one is dear and charming, admired, of good reputation, and approaches assemblies confidently).
"But when the Blessed One says to me, 'At the break-up of the body,
  after death, one who gives, who is a master of giving, reappears in a
  good destination, the heavenly world,' that I do not know. That is
  where I go by conviction in the Blessed One."
"So it is, Siha. So it is. At the break-up of the body, after death,
  one who gives, who is a master of giving, reappears in a good
  destination, the heavenly world."

Again, the general directly knows how generosity leads to good results and certain consequences within the present life, but needs to rely upon the Buddha in faith for knowledge of what happens after death.
I think there are more reasons but this should be enough to establish that the Buddha of the suttas was talking about literal rebirth.
Finally, in the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha declares that if one undertakes right actions, they will benefit in the here and now and can also be assured that (although they doubt the doctrine of reincarnation) if there is rebirth that is causally connected to one's deeds, then one will be born in a good destination.
Further reading: For what I think is an interesting discussion of this and other issues of western Buddhist modernism, see B. Alan Wallace's critique of Stephen Batchelor's views on Buddhism: Distorted visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and atheist and Batchelor's reply: An open letter to B. Alan Wallace

First I will offer some background before I say anything about what the Buddha said or didn't about rebirth.
Logically speaking, both view points are true since consciousness is not affected at the time of physical death or rebirth.
You mention in the comments that you are not comfortable with the traditional idea of rebirth, which is okay, take what you can verify and trust. If tomorrow you change your mind because of new insights, that's okay. If not, that's okay too. You don't have to agree with others, be independent using your logical faculties as your guide.

My submission is that in 2500 years the numerous brilliant minds in Buddhism and other Indian traditions were not all so dense as to not be aware of material reality, and there were certainly some schools (Lokayatika) who were only concerned with impermanence in the material reality.
In fact there is the Lokayatika Sutta where the Buddha specifically confronts the position of material reality being the only truth.

Heraclitus, a near contemporary of the Buddha has a pithy saying that "You could not step twice into the same river." meaning the body and mind is ever changing. This is often quoted by modern dharma teachers in the West because it perfectly reflects the Buddhist teaching on emptiness, and impermanence.
Here is what the Dhammapada says on impermanence in the present moment -

Sabbe sankhara anicca" ti yada pannaya passati atha nibbindati dukkhe
esa maggo visuddhiya.
Dhammapada Verse 277: "All conditioned phenomena are impermanent"; when one sees
this with Insight-wisdom, one becomes weary of dukkha (i.e., the
khandhas). This is the Path to Purity.

Certainly traditional rebirth is heavily referenced in the earliest sutras of the Buddha.

There are many references to rebirth in the early Buddhist scriptures.
These are some of the more important; Mahakammavibhanga Sutta
(Majjhima Nikaya 136); Upali Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 56); Kukkuravatika
Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 57); Moliyasivaka Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya
36.21); Sankha Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya 42.8).
See more: Wikipedia-Rebirth(Buddhism)

The specifics of the concept of rebirth however was left sufficiently vague by the Buddha, since he was first and foremost concerned with liberation from suffering, and not in solving philosophical debates of the intellectual kind.
This has led to several schools of thought regarding a persistent self and nuanced details of rebirth. However, there were no Buddhist schools of thought denying rebirths, which may be instructive.

The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṅa Sūtra, especially influential in East
Asian Buddhist thought, goes so far as to speak of it as our true self
(ātman). Its precise metaphysical and ontolo-gical status is, however,
open to interpretation in the terms of different Mahāyāna
philosophical schools; for the Madhyamikas it must be empty of its own
existence like everything else; for the Yogacarins, following the
Laṅkāvatāra, it can be identified with store consciousness, as the
receptacle of the seeds of awakening.
Source: The Foundations of Buddhism, Gethin, 1998, page 52

I'll finally leave you with this,
SN 56.31 Simsapa Sutta: The Simsapa Leaves

Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa1 forest.
Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the
monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few
simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?"
"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord.
Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous."
"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct
knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have
taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected
with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do
not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to
direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have
not taught them.
"And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of
stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of
practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have
taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected
with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to
disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct
knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught
them.
"Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is
the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your
duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to
the cessation of stress.'"

I suspect the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in a sense different from its traditional meaning. Probably he meant that our sense of
  separate self is repeatedly being born, decaying, dying and being
  reborn until we attain Nirvana.

Yes. The above is correct. The term that needs to be understood is "satta" ("a being"), which is synonymous with "sense of self" and which defined in SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 as "attachment" and "a wrong view". In the suttas with the sloppy translation of "rebirth", what is "reborn" is "the being" or "self-delusion" in another mental state of attachment (such as the state of suffering or hell due to bad kamma), as found in the following stock phrase:

When my mind had become immersed in samādhi like this—purified, bright, spotless, rid of taints, pliable, workable, steady, and
  imperturbable—I extended it toward knowledge of the death and rebirth
  of beings (sattānaṃ).
So evaṃ samāhite citte parisuddhe pariyodāte anaṅgaṇe vigatūpakkilese mudubhūte kammaniye ṭhite āneñjappatte sattānaṃ cutūpapātañāṇāya
  cittaṃ abhininnāmesiṃ.
With clairvoyance that is purified and superhuman, I saw beings passing away and being reborn—inferior and superior, beautiful
  and ugly, in a good place or a bad place. I understood how
  beings are reborn according to their deeds: ‘These dear beings did bad
  things by way of body, speech, and mind. They spoke ill of the noble
  ones; they had wrong view; and they chose to act out of that wrong
  view. When their body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in a
  place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell. These dear beings,
  however, did good things by way of body, speech, and mind. They never
  spoke ill of the noble ones; they had right view; and they chose to
  act out of that right view. When their body breaks up, after death,
  they’re reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.’ And so, with
  clairvoyance that is purified and superhuman, I saw sentient beings
  passing away and being reborn—inferior and superior, beautiful and
  ugly, in a good place or a bad place. I understood how beings
  are reborn according to their deeds.
MN 4
Note: I removed the English word "sentient" from the above translation; since it does not exist in the Pali

In this sense, rebirth happens only in our present life and not after our physical death. Is there any evidence in the early canon to
  support that the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in the above sense?

Correct. I have provided the evidence. The word "a being" ("satta") or "beings" ("sattānaṃ") refers to "attachment" and "wrong views" rather than a metaphysical organism. Similarly, the word "kaya", sloppily translated as "body", actually means a "collection" or "grouping" of the five aggregates. Similarly, the word often translated as "death", namely, "marana", does not generally mean physical death but means the "death of the being" or the "death of a self-delusion". This is literally defined in the teaching of Dependent Origination (SN 12.2), where "birth" and "death" are literally defined as the production of views of "beings" based on the manifestations of different aggregates acquired via sense experience and the subsequent aging & death of these wrong views of "beings" (such as "my hair is getting grey", "my teeth are rotting", "my wife's once beautiful skin is wrinkling", "my mother, my father, my son, my daughter has died").
Suffering can only occur when these wrong views of "beings" exist. If there are no views of "beings" then when the aggregates end no suffering occurs. Thus in SN 22.85, for example, the ending of the life of an arahant is simply regarded as the ending of the aggregates (rather than the "death" of a "self" or "a being").

"In this sense, rebirth happens only in our present life and not after
our physical death. Is there any evidence in the early canon to
support that the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in the above sense?"

This view is incompatible with the doctrine of anatta in Buddhism and thus fails the three seals and cannot be true dhamma. It is also directly contradicted by the Pali Canon and the Buddha himself. See AN 5.38:

They first teach Dhamma to the faithful, not so much the unfaithful.
When their body breaks up, after death, the faithful are reborn in a
good place, a heavenly realm.

Those wishing to advocate that rebirth was not taught by the Buddha should honestly grapple with and explain why we should adopt a tortured reading of the above sutta or disparage the sutta to conform to biased views against the Buddha's teaching on faith leading to a fortunate rebirth.

In this sense, rebirth happens only in our present life and not after our physical death.
No, there is no support for what you are claiming. The Buddha said beings according to their actions are born in heaven or hell after death. So the teaching is a crucial ethical underpinning to Buddism and should not be discounted or attached as its been done by most of the answered given here.
The Buddha did teach re-birth. Unless there is a hidden agenda to discredit his teaching it should not even be brought to question.
Quoted below is part Tevijjavacchagotta Sutta

"The recluse Gotama knows the three knowledge's. Saying it thus they
would be saying the right thing, and not blaming me falsely. Vaccha,
whenever I desire, I recollect the manifold previous births, such as
one birth, two births, with all modes and all details, thus I recall
the manifold previous births. Vaccha, when I desire, with the purified
heavenly eye beyond human, see beings disappearing and appearing, in
un-exalted and exalted states, beautiful and ugly, in good and bad
states—I see beings, according their actions. Vaccha, destroying
desires, my mind released and released through wisdom, here and now by
myself realizing I abide. Vaccha, if it is said, the recluse Gotama
knows the three knowledge's, saying it thus, you would be saying the
right thing and not blaming me falsely’.
When this was said, the wandering ascetic Vacchagotta said thus to the
Blessed One: "Good Gotama, are there any laymen who without giving up
the lay bonds, would make an end of unpleasantness after death?"
"No, Vaccha, there aren’t any laymen who, without giving up the
fetters of attachment have made an end of unpleasantness.."
"Good Gotama, are there any laymen born in heaven after death without
giving up the fetters of attachment?"
"Vaccha, not one hundred, not two hundred, not three hundred, not four
hundred, not five hundred, many more, are born in heaven after death
without giving up the fetters of attachment."
"Good Gotama, are there any ascetics who have made an end of
unpleasantness after death?"
"No, Vaccha, there isn’t any ascetic, who has made an end of
unpleasantness, after death."
"Good Gotama, are there any ascetics who are born in heaven after
death?
"Vaccha, I recollected so many as ninety one world cycles and did not
see any ascetic born in heaven, except for a certain one who was of
the view, there are results for actions."
"Good Gotama, if that is so, all other faiths are useless even without
a birth in heaven."
The Blessed One said thus and wandering ascetic Vacchagotta delighted
in the words of the Blessed One.

OP: I suspect the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in a sense different from
its traditional meaning. Probably he meant that ... sense of separate
self is repeatedly being born, decaying, dying and being reborn until
... Nirvana.

Yes, the above is right. I removed "our" and "we".
When most people think of rebirth, they think the permanent consciousness that has existed from childhood will continue into another life. They think consciousness is self. However, the Buddha taught that consciousness is impermanent, constantly changing and is dependently originated.
This is found in MN 38:

Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to
him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to
him, "Is it true, Sāti, that this pernicious view has arisen in you —
'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this
consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another'?"
"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed
One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not
another."
"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?"
"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to
the ripening of good & evil actions."
"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the
Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently
co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is
no coming-into-play of consciousness'? But you, through your own poor
grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and
produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term
harm & suffering."

The rest of the sutta explains the dependent arising of consciousness and other things.
So, the Buddha did indeed teach that it is the mental idea of the self that is (re)born. It is individuality that is (re)born, not the individual. Please also see this answer.
This is also in line with the teaching of sabbe dhamma anatta - all phenomena is not self.

OP: In this sense, rebirth happens only in our present
life and not after our physical death. Is there any evidence in the
early canon to support that the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in the
above sense?

OUR present life? After OUR physical death? Who is "our"?
From SN 12.20:

“When, bhikkhus, a noble disciple has clearly seen with correct wisdom
as it really is this dependent origination and these dependently
arisen phenomena, it is impossible that he will run back into the
past, thinking: ‘Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past?
What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what
did I become in the past?’ Or that he will run forward into the
future, thinking: ‘Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the
future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future?
Having been what, what will I become in the future?’ Or that he will
now be inwardly confused about the present thus: ‘Do I exist? Do I not
exist? What am I? How am I? This being—where has it come from, and
where will it go?’

The process of birth and death of the mental idea of the self continues until Nirvana. But you can't ask whose self it is. The first noble truth is that "there is suffering". It's not your suffering or my suffering. It's just suffering. And this suffering is ended by the cessation of craving and ignorance. Also don't ask whose ignorance and whose craving.
Believing that physical death is a special moment that fundamentally changes the process of birth (of the mental idea of the self) that happens from moment to moment is the same as believing that something ultimately existed and has ceased to exist (i.e. annihilationism).

Does the process of rebirth - given your def. - continue after physical death in the same manner as it occurred before physical death? If not, then why and in what way is the process different?

@YesheTenley The process of birth and death of the mental idea of the self continues until Nirvana. But you can't ask whose self it is. The first noble truth is that "there is suffering". It's not your suffering or my suffering. It's just suffering. And this suffering is ended by the cessation of craving and ignorance. Also don't ask whose ignorance and whose craving.

I don't think this answers the question. Do you think it is wrong - from a conventional standpoint - to say that Ruben is continuously reborn in this very life? Using your def. of reborn? I don't understand your insistence on not being able to ask certain questions... I'm just speaking conventionally and these are conventional questions, right?

@YesheTenley Think about "all phenomena is not self" and ponder the quote from SN 12.20. A specific identity like Yeshe Tenley is just a convention.

I agree! What I don't understand here is the inability to answer the straightforward question whether 'rebirth' continues in the same manner and same process before physical death as it does after physical death. I contend there is no difference whatsoever. Do you agree? I also contend that anyone who disagrees will necessarily be in contradiction to the doctrine of not-self. Do you agree?

@YesheTenley That's the hard part. The Theravada Abhidhamma consciousness posits a rebirth-linking consciousness (patisandhi-citta) that connects death to rebirth, but the suttas are less clear. There is a sutta (SN 44.9) that says that between one body (after break-up of the body) to another body, one is sustained by craving. But the term translated as "body" here could also mean the five aggregates i.e. mind-body phenomena, which is breaking up and forming again from moment to moment. So, it's a momentary rebirth.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

meant that our sense of separate self is repeatedly being born, decaying, dying and being reborn until we attain Nirvana. In this sense, rebirth happens only in our present life and not after our physical death.

Buddha explained that there is a doctrine of self. Like there is a doctrine where a Santa Claus is climbing through the chimney,  bringing gifts at night. Likewise there is a doctrine of a self & things belonging to a self.
Children might be inclined to adhere to the doctrine of Santa, grasping the circumstances with wrong view, seeing what isn't there, not seeing what is there.
Intellect adheres to the doctrine of self as that adherence is also the base underdeveloped nature of the intellect.
Santa Claus isn't nothing, the words mean something, they mean something in that doctrine of the Santa Claus.
A man working as a Santa at the mall might be grasped with wrong view to be a Santa due to adherence to the doctrine and a child might experience a range of experiences because of it.
A discerning person will know the doctrine of Santa as a false doctrine when it comes to understanding the senses & what the senses present and will not see what isn't there.
Similarly there is a doctrine of self, the word self means something. Because of the adherence to the doctrine there is a grasping with wrong view of the senses & what the senses present, there being a grasping with wrong view there comes to be seeing of what isn't there and a range of experiences can be spoken of as coming into play because of the delusion.
As to rebirth, when we speak about a being, that is discussing the doctrine of self because we here assume that there is a being. If we speak about a Santa, we are talking about  something associated with the doctrine of the Santa according to which Santa is at the North Pole etc.
Therefore when we talk about a being reborn we shouldn't look for or try to deduct that which is reborn because that would be like getting up in the middle of the night to catch Santa.
It's like changing your name. Your name went from being thus to being otherwise due to past development but we know your name can't be pinned down as a truth & reality neither before nor after the change. Therefore when we talk about names we are making certain assumptions for a doctrinal framework.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/