text:
Mindfulness in Everyday Activity
I have been practicing meditation, reading and listening to Buddhist teachings and I undertake the five precepts for about year now. This is the first time that I actually ask a question about my practice. I meditate every morning and then during my daily activities I try to be mindful watching the physical and mental phenomena.
I can be mindful quite well but as soon as I experience an unpleasant mental state such embarrassment or awkwardness fear and aversion come up and I feel kind of lost. It is like I forget what to do and I am not able to be mindful anymore. This happens even if I am well prepared to experience an unpleasant mental state. It happens when people are around and very fast too and even if I am not scared to experiencing them when they come up, it seems that I lose track and I forget everything. So what can I do in these situations?
Sorry for my English. I hope that this make sense.
Thanks for your time, may all beings be happy and free from suffering.

What you are experiencing is normal. It's scary, but very much expected. Until we overcome a particular delusion it will keep harming us, so keep going!
Practising mindfulness means trying to keep your mind on the object you want to keep your mind on. The reason to practice mindfulness is to overcome the opposite mind of forgetfulness. If we never practised mindfulness, forgetfulness would continue to wreak havoc on our mind without end.
When we're practising we can experience a strong wave of the delusion we're trying to oppose and feel like we've failed, but actually it's just the delusion doing what it does. That's how harmful they are.
So yes, sometimes it might feel like you've lost your mindfulness without choice, and this forgetfulness may be too strong to overcome at that time. This doesn't matter because you are training in mindfulness so will eventually be able to remain mindful all the time.
In the meantime, you can simply observe the negative effect of forgetfulness and increase your wish to overcome it.

Thank you  very much for your answer very helpful and you explain it very well!

First, congratulations on your year of practice. Sometimes we overlook the most basic principles of our practice, as such I am referring to the first noble truth: there is suffering. Note that it is not stated, "I suffer". By being stated this way it can be understood that suffering is not, "yours" or "mine". As opposed to viewing these experiences as, "I am embarrassed" or "I am feeling awkward" reflect upon these moments as, "there is embarrassment" or "there is fear". Know they are not yours but emotions that result from a particular experience. Also, bear in mind that as you reflect upon this experience you are being mindful and in the moment (meditating). Being mindful does not in itself guarantee happiness. Mindfulness combined with skillfulness will move you toward your goal. These principles are found in the Eightfold Noble path. Try noting your experience. Saying to yourself for example, "fear" or "embarrassed" as you would during formal or seated meditation, allowing for the physical response to dissipate.
"To let go of suffering, we have to admit it into consciousness. But the admission in Buddhist meditation is not from a position of: "I am suffering" but rather, "There is the presence of suffering" because we are not trying to identify with the problem but simply acknowledge that there is one." - Ajahn Sumedho

First off all thank you for your answer explained very well!Like you say this is what I try to do when there is an experience  I look at it for what it is just labelling  it without "I" without judging it just seen it for what it is , but sometimes it seems that I am not able to do that,is like that I know that there is suffering but I can't labelling it. Sorry again for my english

You're welcome. I am glad you found my answer helpful. You're awareness is an indication of your mindfulness and the necessary first step in your practice. Good job, you are certainly on your way. Patience will be your best friend! May peace be with you and it's been my pleasure to meet you.

It's been a pleasure to meet you too and thanks again! nice to talk to you May peace be with you too.

Your English is fine.
Simple breathing is recommended by Thich Nhat Hanh. I am inhaling, one, I am exhaling one, Repeat for each number up to ten. If get off count go to one.
There is a simplicity to that that does not invoke mental activity and allows one to go to the counting and breathing when thoughts are faced.

"I am still practicing 'one', when I have mastered it I will take the other lessons." (from a well-known story)

To add to the other answers, best is to be always be mindful of the sensations in your body and perhaps if possible the length of your breathing and the sensations around the mouth (below the nose and above the upper lip - also see this: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/3362/295). This helps maintaining your mindfulness in daily life.
Also see some related answers:
How do I integrate Vipassana practice into daily life?
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/3328/295
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/3398/295
What is the Interpretation of Parimukham in the context of Buddhist Meditation?


text:
Is Anapanasati considered Samatha?
I'm new to Buddhism, and I have some trouble understanding some core aspects on meditation. Is Anapanasati considered Samatha or Vipassana?

This is my personal opinion. If you concertate of on the flow of air over the sensation (you sense the flow from the touch sensation) a conceptual image of the the air flowing will form in your mind. This way you can get to Samatha. If your focus is more of the fleshy part and the sensation of the body and air this is more tilted towards Vipassana. In either case both develops to some extent. Pure Samatha you can just be mindful of the flow of air as an body of air that goes in and out. As an alternative it is not necessary to look at sensation to make the Vipassana tilt. You can look at the process (in & out) itself. In this method when you progress you start seeing a process of expansion and contraction. Some lineages advice to look around the stomach but it is not necessary. You can experience the expansion and contraction on the sides of your nose or in the whole body it self or part of the body you look at. (This effect happens when you do Kayanupassana also.)
Main thing is that you should actively be conscious of the start to the end. Be mindful of the length. When the breath starts be very alert. After some time our breath will quickly show down and stop. Then if you keep your stillness of your mind and sharpen your senses you see it has not actually stopped, but jut got finer. Sometimes you can move your attention to you chest area or stomach (do not jump too much or you will loose your stillness). Like vice this cycle goes for some time until it it does actually stop and there is no movement in the body.
Doing the in breath be mindful of the start middle and end of the in and out breath. Each instance be actively mindful of what stage you are in. At the end of the in or out breath evaluate if your mind wondered away. Do this until it becomes second nature to you and you do not actively have to do it any more. If you breath has stopped just be alert and you will start seeing some movement some where again. Repeat until it actually stops. In between you will feel some lightness and pleasantness in your body and at some point it also will disappear into subtle vibration which is very hard to see.
Best is to do it will the Vipassana slant so you develop both. If you do the other and get used to it it might be difficult to change later on.
Also be warned this this is more of my opinion and understanding.
Some related answers:
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/3362/295
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/3328/295
What is the Interpretation of Parimukham in the context of Buddhist Meditation?

It depends on how it is practiced. According to the tradition of the commentaries(I think it comes from the commentary on the Kattavathu, the fith book of Abhidhamma but I'm not totally sure), the distinction between samatha and vipassana meditation lies in what the object of meditation is. In this model, meditation on an object of ultimate reality (that is to say, meditating on that which is experienced directly such as sensations, feelings, etc...) is considered vipassana, and meditating on an abscract concept that is more than just direct experience is samatha.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why mara wants to distract
These davas are always against Buddha, his Dhamma and those who are practicing.
Since they also exist in planes of existence, why do they bother others trying to liberate themselves? They themselves might become a monk in next life.

These devas enjoy sense pleasures created by others for them. Mara,
  the personification of delusion and desire, lives here.

I think your question itself has an answer.

These devas enjoy sense pleasures created by others for them

The closer a being gets to Nibbana, the less sense pleasure he/she will create for Mara. That's probably why he doesn't like beings attaining Nibbana. But he seems to encourage beings to do general good deeds and aspire for heavenly existences.
The Paranimmita Wasawarti realm where the Mara is at has a lifespan of 9216000000 human years. So his next life is not going to come for a long time. But when it does, it'll most probably be one of the hells. Not human realm where one can be a monk. He'll probably be around to trouble Buddha Maitreya as well.

In addition to @Sankha Kulathantille's answer.
The Devaputra Mara is a being living in the Paranimmita Wasawarti realm. His appearance and actions are analogous to that of Cupid in Western literature. Since he lives in a sensual sphere he tries to get the others to be like him. It is some one who parties a lot tires to drag his friend in as well. (See: The Buddha's Encounters with Mara the Tempter)
Moggallāna was one time a Mara Dusi (see: Māra Tajjaniya Sutta), but later liberated hin self as a monk and also becoming a chief disciple of the Buddha, in a later life.

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


text:
Within Tibetan Buddhism, are the Lamas always the same "soul"?
It's my understanding that the belief in Tibetan Buddhism is that when a Lama is reborn he (not meaning to be sexist, but I know of no female Lamas - please let me know if I'm wrong) becomes that same Lama again.  From a western viewpoint, it might be said his soul is put into a new body and he returns as the same Lama in the new body.
However, recent comments by the  Dalai Lama have me wondering about this.  It seems he wants to be reborn in order to continue helping others, but without becoming the Dalai Lama again.  (It has been speculated that there may be political motivation to this, as the Chinese want to designate the next Dalai Lama.)  However, wouldn't the 14th Dalai Lama become the 15th Dalai Lama if he is reborn?  Would a Lama be able to end a series of Lamas even though he is reborn? (I have heard of Lama lines ending, but it's my understanding that the belief is that the Lama chose not to reborn.)
Or is my understanding here completed off base?

Dalai Lama's decision is based on the complicated political situation... http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/10/us-china-tibet-idUSKBN0H50ST20140910

'I know of no female Lamas - please let me know if I'm wrong' One seems to be Khandro Rinpoche

Because Buddhism denies the notion of "self", it does not have a concept of Avatar, as someone literally being a reincarnation of the same "self".
Tibetan Buddhism does have a notion of Tulku though, which is similar. Tulku is a new person that inherits the life stories and experiences of a previous person. This is done through teaching this person to deliberately identify with their predecessor, to learn predecessor's history, and to carry on his or her work.
Because the new person's life is so heavily influenced and inspired by the predecessor, we can say that the new person is an embodiment of the abstract energy of the previous one.
The case with your specific question, any person, and even multiple people, regardless of status or title or role, could be designated as Tulkus of Dalai Lama, but to truly qualify as such, the person would need to seriously work on their identity as an embodiment of Dalai Lama's heritage.

that's a really interesting post, thanks, i haven't read much on tibetan buddhism, and it hadn't clicked that's what 'Tulku' means. does your comment apply to all buddhism, the idea of abstract energy rather than series of dharnas?

I think so. Different schools would have different interpretations, but this is how I see it.

maybe i misunderstood, seems like what is reborn is "the continuity of subtle clarity and awareness", which is what i thought in the 1st place

but i don't wnt to sound skeptical, what you said about the nirmanakaya of buddhas being reborn in the abstract is EXACTLY what i believe. what is the best scholarhsip on that, where did you get it from, etc.?

Actually, the person is empty of inherent existence. It is also empty of being a car or a boat, and so forth. However, a person is not empty of being a person. In the same way, John is empty of inherent existence, but is not empty of being John.
Far from being contradictory, it is precisely because a person is empty of inherent existence that a person is able to perform the function of a person.
We believe that after death, John's continuum (which is neither inherently existent, nor John, but just one of the basis of designation of John) is going to take on new bodily aggregates. To come to understand better this issue, you will have to ascertain the [meaning of] the object of negation.
I know even of monks who argue that "H.H. the Dalaï-Lama was reborn as a Tibetan for at least 14 times, whereby he mastered Tibetan every time, so that makes him an authority, not only with regard Dharma, but also in relation to Tibetan language itself. The normalization of Tibetan language should thus consider H.H. the Dalaï-Lama's use of Tibetan language the valid use."

There's a Statement of His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, on the Issue of His Reincarnation (September 24th 2011), which includes a description of "Tulku".

Metempsychosis (Greek: μετεμψύχωσις), in philosophy, is the transmigration of the soul, especially its reincarnation after death. The term is derived from ancient Greek philosophy, and has been recontextualised by modern philosophers such as Arthur Schopenhauer2 and Kurt Gödel;[3] otherwise, the term transmigration is more appropriate. The word plays a prominent role in James Joyce's Ulysses and is also associated with Nietzsche.[4] Another term sometimes used synonymously is palingenesis. ~ Wikipedia

Metempsychosis
@Tenzin Dorje's answer is interesting. The Western concept of reincarnation (soul transmigration) is easier on the mind than the Buddhist one; the latter is, to say the least, rather counterintuitive and hence the question I suppose.
We might need to discuss identity. For instance what makes the Dalai lama XIV the Dalai lama XIV and what is it about the Dalai lama XV that connects him/her to the Dalai lama XIV?

This doesn't look like an answer to the question. Is this an answer to the question or is it a comment? Or do you intend to create a new question?

If it's irrelevant, I'd be happy to delete my post. Do let me know. It was meant to further the discussion by pointing to relevant concepts (identity) and differences in Eastern and Western ideas on reincarnation. I tried creating a new question but it was rejected (duplication).

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


text:
Is it possible to experience powerful sensations, such as orgasm, without getting attached to it?
I used orgasm as an example because it is usually the strongest sensation one can feel due to everything involved and all the chemistry released in the body.
Also, I would say that sexual activity and drinking are probably the two biggest challenges one has to overcome when following the 8 precepts for weeks or months.
So, can one feel it without attachments?!

Ostensibly, yes, I can't imagine why it wouldn't be technically possible for the body to trigger an orgasm without any kind of mental attachment. Of course, it may be that there is some necessary mental trigger involved, but I doubt that is true.
In the vinaya there are several cases that seem to suggest involuntary (physical) sexual arousal involving heat and motion; it seems reasonable to suggest that certain conditions could result in an involuntary ejaculation.
Simpler would be the case where one was intending to bring about an orgasm but then suddenly became mindful, only to find that it was too late (the point being that any attachment created would be in relation to the prior stimulation, not the orgasm itself).
Either way, it is important to clarify that intentionally bringing about an orgasm for the purpose of pleasure invariably leads to the cultivation of attachment.
Incidentally, IIRC, this is one of the issues that led to a split in the sangha, though I can't remember which one. One group thought that the fact that arahants can still experience orgasms meant that they were still not free from defilements; the other claimed that the orgasms were just physical processes with no mental counterpart.

What is IIRC ven. Sir?

@SumindaSirinathSalpitikorala If I Recall Correctly

I have experienced ejaculation without it feeling "pleasant". When ejaculation does not feel pleasant, it feels more like semi-painful spasms. There is no attachment to this experience.
It is not that ejaculation has changed, or even that the experience changed. It is my perspective that has changed. If you look at pleasant sensation very very very carefully, then you will see it as is -- and it will loose it's luster.
The same with pain, if you look at it really close, you will see it as information. No pain, just information.
As Buddha taught, we must learn to see pleasant in non-pleasant and non-pleasant in pleasant. When we can arbitrarily control our evaluation of sensory experience, then we are free from it.

do you have a solution to avoiding "wet dreams" ?
@Andrei Volkov

Does the Buddhist breathe?
Does the Buddhist drink water?
Does the Buddhist eat food?
Does the Buddhist exercise?
If all of these needs can be met without attachment, why should sex be any different?
Sex can be entirely to meet one's biological urges, the way we eat and drink and exercise. I'm not saying it is easy to do so, but it seems to me that clearly the possibility exists.

It is possible to live decades without sexual contact. I can't say the same about oxygen, water, or food.

The experience of breathing and an orgasm are completely different, the chemicals it releases, the desire, the fantasy, we cannot compare it with breathing or drinking water I guess

No. All healthy humans are biologically addicted to dopamine. "The brain includes several distinct dopamine systems, one of which plays a major role in reward-motivated behavior. Most types of reward increase the level of dopamine in the brain, and a variety of addictive drugs increase dopamine neuronal activity."
Dopamine is the hormone that makes you feel good. If you can orgasm without it feeling good then, yes. You can never feel anything good without attachment. Humans are hardwired to like dope just as they do sugar and for the same reason; need. The need to procreate the species and the need to consume calories.

To experience an orgasm you need some form of active arousal. If arousal is involved you are attached and goes against the precept.
If it is from other causes like bed wetting then it may be OK as long as you don't fantasise. If there is fantasy then again there is attachment.
Main thing to remember is sensation is involuntary sometimes but seeking sensations is not without attachments, and seeking sensations can be very subtle.

Here is the thing about Sexual activities....
We do not admire it like the western culture,But the eight fold path is not a hammer on your marriage life.You can still have sex but with her only.
And if you are single there is a set of guidelines established din Buddhism in finding the correct type for sex (Please refer a good source about Five precepts).
You can very well feel anything without getting attached to it,
How do i know it?
well arahants still felt the heat,coldness,soft touch of clothes,the comfort of a breezing wind,the beauty of a jungle.But still they had no disturbance from it they even admired the beauty of nature.
But in the examples you are presenting in your question we can't agree that it can be felt without the addiction to it. Basically the main reason for sex is the attachment that you have for it.
Sex is not a huge deal for a beginner but alcohol is an addiction with no virtual benefit,it is that simple and under n o circumstances can be justified as something a Buddhist would do. You can have some help from meditation to fight the urge to drink and some therapy or rehab would also help.that is something you will have to fight on your own.
Remember what Lord Buddha said
This is an individual's fight against himself,in it he will need good friends,Knowledge of dharma and courage.But he must fight alone.
Well we are here to help so start with one day without alcohol and let's see what happens from there.

According to Alagaddupama Sutta, it isn't possible:

For a person to indulge in sensual pleasures without sensual passion, without sensual perception, without sensual thinking: That isn't possible.

The commentary makes it more precise:

According to the Commentary, "indulge in sensual pleasures" here means indulging in sexual intercourse; the Sub-commentary adds that other acts expressing sexual desire — such as hugging and petting — should be included under this phrase as well.

If all humans relize the ultimatos truth, "that all Beings be happy" all human race will go to an end passing less than 200 years.
All humans produce dopamine but is a litle different to be addicted to This às a drug. Barry komisaruk can explain what are orgasms, non genital orgasms exist naturaly, just google it. While meditating you can gett orgasm and sleping. even if you have your reproductive organs totally inactive you should be atracted to the other may be.

This is a Buddhist community even though we welcome many perspectives your answer is a bit off topic, The question asks about attachment an how to be rid of it while sensations occur. Even-though you are right scientifically you are giving the wrong answer because it is off topic from the expected answers of the questioner. We understand you are new so next time read the question fully before answering it  Good luck and welcome to Stackexchange : )


text:
Was the London Buddhist Society the first Western Sangha?
Christmas Humphreys founded the London Buddhist society in 1924. Would this have been the first sangha in the West? Wikipedia says of it

The Buddhist Society of London is one of the oldest Buddhist
  organisations outside Asia

So were there other groups of western born Buddhists practicing together even earlier than this or would this truly have been the first such grouping?
For the sake of this question I am taking sangha to mean any sort of Buddhist community. I appreciate it often refers specifically to a monastic community however I want to use a broader definition here.

One of the problems in answering is in deciding what would qualify as a Buddhist community, specifically because the word "Buddhist":

Is a relatively modern and Western invention
May not mean today what it meant 100 or so years ago (i.e. around the time of the
suspected first Western sangha), and
Still doesn't have a universally
agreed definition (even taking refuge in the three jewels doesn't
cut it in this context)

With that in mind, you could (given your apparent scholarly bent) bring the Theosophical Society -- 1875 -- into your considerations, as at least being a sangha "precursor", especially given Evan-Wentz's involvement. Clearly it was, by no stretch of the definition, what we'd call "Buddhist" today, but would even the first Buddha and his companions have thought of themselves as "Buddhist" by our contemporary definition? More likely they'd have considered themselves Hindu (although even Hindu is a term which was adopted by late 18th century Europeans to refer to the followers of Indian religions).

Isn't it difficult to call the Theosophical Society "Buddhist" given that its Constitution says that it's "absolutely unsectarian, and no assent to any formula of ... creed shall be required", its initial objective being "study and elucidation of Occultism, the Cabala etc"? See also One of the important factors in his rejection of theosophy centered on this issue of universalism; the price of Buddhism being assimilated into a non-Buddhist model of truth was ultimately too high for him

I am not sure if this fits your definition but the Pali Text Society was older.

There was an organization founded in 1903 in Germany:

But only to study Buddhist philosophy was for some Germans not enough. They wanted to organize themselves in Buddhist communities in order to practice Buddhism and to promote Buddhist teaching. In 1903 Karl Seidenstucker (1876-1936) founded the first German Buddhist organisation in Leipzig, called "The Buddhist Mission in Germany" and published in magazine, ‘The Buddhist’.

The paragraph before that mentions various Germans who at least studied it in the 19th century.


text:
Is there a finite amount of beings?
According to the Buddhist teachings all beings are subject to Samsara and one can escape Samsara as he finds enlightenment.
But if all beings were ultimately to be reborn, with exception of those that reached enlightenment, wouldn't that mean that there is a finite number of beings, which only decrements?

This question can not be answered easily or by the dharma. It is like asking is there a finite amount of stars in the universe. If it could be answered it would not be buddhism that answers these kinds of questions.

I think it's a very elementary question which is only concluding that what is taught, and in my opinion it is certainly up to Buddhism to answer, as it comes forth out the Buddhist philosophy itself.

The questions seems irrerelevent in the way of cesassion of suffering.

Learning mathematics, I was warned to beware of logic based on an informal or naive definition of infinity (it is tricky and error-prone, see for example Zeno's paradoxes).
According to Wikipedia, 4th century BCE Jain mathematicians distinguished between "uncountable" and "infinite" (see ref and ref and ref) but I'm not sure that other (Buddhist) literature/authors supported a similar, specific, precise, or modern meaning of the word "infinity".
Some of The unanswered questions are questions about infinity: including whether the world is infinitely large, and whether it's eternal.
If these two questions were unanswered for good reason, then perhaps your question should be too.

Yes, that's very true and I am familiar with Zeno's paradox. Though I am talking about finite rather than infinite. It's very hard, maybe impossible to answer, but as it was not listed in any of the unanswered questions, the Buddha might have spoken about it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=buddha+"countless+beings" returns results but I'm not sure whether that's helpful: a) whether 'countless' means 'infinite' in that context b) whether the Buddha said it or whether it's a later addition c) whether it's a useful Q+A to consider, compared for example with some of the other things which the Buddha is (more clearly, perhaps more importantly) known to have said.

It seems the Buddha indeed mentioned countless beings as in "How can I care about countless beings" - I find 'countless' really multi interpretable, but let's leave it at there as it becomes very subjective when it comes to interpretation ;)

According to Buddhism there are infinite number of beings. The number of Buddhas are like the grains of the sand in the banks of the Ganges. (Infiniti literally. ) The enlightened beings during a Buddha Sasana in also very large.
Because there are infinite being though and infinite of beings have crossed don't reduce the number of beings.

I think there is a finite amount of grains too to be quite honest, maybe far too much to count but that's really not the point :). Can you refer a link to the teachings you said that do?

Yes but un imaginable / this kind of comparison means infinite literarily in most cases.

I am aware that the question posted is an imponderable and one among the unanswered questions by the Buddha, and doesn't help alleviate my suffering in samsara.
But just to give my thoughts on this, I seem to gravitate towards the notion of "infinite beings", because this universe seems infinitely huge. And only an infinite universe can host either finite or infinite number of beings, and latter is my bet. Not implying that the universe exists only because sentient beings live in it though.
Be that as it may, we will never decipher certain mysteries that lie behind the thicket of veil of ignorance, without rooting it out of our mind and reaching enlightenment. Peace.

According to zen attitude: one could say there are no beings, and also everything is being, and neither are there no beings or everything is being.
This is uncertainty. When one says something with certainty, there is only one side of the subject. The universe if 96% dark matter and energy of which we have no conceptual understanding except to know it exists. How can we speak of certainties.
If we must have confession, I am guilty of trying to make things certain too often.
None of what I said may be true. Or all of it. Or neither of these. Uncertainty is harder to live with than certainty.


text:
Is curiosity, for non Dhamma subjects, a bad thing?
Curiosity can lead to desire (for knowing something), attachment and therefore suffering. Also, questions based on pure curiosity were left unaswered by the Buddha
On the other hand, curiosity is what makes us evolve, so is it good or bad? How should one sees it?

Asking questions / being inquisitive can lead to intelligence.
Having said this the quest for knowledge can lead to:

attachments to per suits of no benefit to this life, after life or liberation hence wasting time and effort
attachments to the quest of seeking answers leading to pure study / research or philosophising, this also may not always be time well spent.

If you are leading a householders life you cannot avoid these always. But your per suits should be fruitful for either:

This life
Next life
Liberation

Beneficial to either:

oneself
others, or
both

If your quest is not profitable best is to leave it a side.

Curiosity is alright, but ego is very tricky! Ego can use anything to lead you away from true dharma. Many things that are not very bad, but not dharma-related (and even some that are dharma-related!), are structured in such a way (made up from such concepts) that touching them reconfirms/reinforces the ego. That's why Buddhist discipline must go first, and curiosity second. Otherwise you think you are learning something useful -- and instead you are feeding your ego!

The Tibetan guru Padmasambhava alledgely said

I do not know, I do not have, I do not understand

The Buddha refused to answer questions on the fate of the universe and what happens after death. From this I would say that curosity about subjects unrelated to liberation isn't going to help you on the Buddhist path. A total fascination with your own mental experiences and the nature of reality might, wondering about the history of Buddhism probably won't. That said being a keen cyclist, building model planes and reading comics won't either. But I think there is something pericious about excessive curosity about Buddhist related things.
Within Buddhism there is the concept of near enemies that I find extremely useful. It's something that seems like it's helpful but really isn't. Sorrow might seem helpful when faced with suffering but it isn't. It's a near enemy of compassion. Being emotionally shut down is the near enemy of equanimity. I think that studying Buddhism can be the near enemy of practicing Buddhism. It looks like it, you can be convince it is it for years but it isn't it at all. It's an easy thing for me to be sucked into but it is really an obstacle to the path. Not true for everyone I'm sure but can be true for me.

There are multiple meanings of curiosity.
Wanting to know the 100 versions of the Diamond Sutra could teach you more about it of it could get you weighed down in facts.
Looking at a worm crawling across the ground and seeing life as the worm sees it could be an awakening.
Both are a type of curiosity, but the first is intellectual curiosity that could be helpful or harmful.
The second curiosity is imbued with innocence like a child. I see only positive outcomes with that.


text:
Is rebirth a delusional belief?
I find it difficult to assign a meaning to the word 'rebirth'.
Here are some hints that rebirth might not be real:

Views regarding one's past and future existence are included in the "62 false beliefs"
Those views are ascribed to non-Buddhist ascetics
Views regarding the future of the Tathagata (after death) are in the 10 or 14 "unanswered questions"
The Buddhist doctrine of "anatta" (there is no self?) and "anicca" (self is impermanent?) seem to me to be saying that, if (it is believed that) there is rebirth, that 'rebirth' is fairly meaningless, i.e. it is a rebirth of nothing in particular: why not just call it a "birth" instead of a rebirth?
If rebirth happens that seems difficult to prove by personal experience; is it an article of faith, not something one can verify by direct experience? If so isn't that (faith instead of experience) unusual in Buddhist doctrine (isn't doctrine meant to be measurable against one's experience of the world)? Or if it is experience, what kind of experience (of other lives) is it, how are you supposed to know that so-called experience is not just a dream?
This web site (which seems to be Thai) says that rebirth is a "parable" for "simple village folks living during the time of the Buddha". It says that "Reincarnation is not a simple physical birth of a person" and "This notion of the transmigration of the soul definitely does not exist in Buddhism." The end of that page suggest that people "lower themselves into hell" or "rise to the Enlightened state of the Buddha" in this life.

I think I remember reading, sometime in the distant past, than when someone asked the Buddha about the afterlife, he replied "I'm not here to talk to you about the afterlife: I'm here to talk to you about this life."
Is it OK to believe, is it OK to say that a belief in rebirth isn't important to Buddhism? Not a big part of the historical Buddha's teaching? That when he mentioned it at all, it was to say that it didn't exist ("anatta" and "anicca"), that he didn't expect to be doing it himself, and that it wasn't worth talking about?
And/or is it a non-core part of Buddhism: something which some Buddhists believe and other Buddhists don't, a local/cultural viewpoint?
The article Two Main Schools of Buddhism says,

The areas of agreement between the two schools are as follows:

Both accept Sakyamuni Buddha as the Teacher.
The Four Noble Truths are exactly the same in both schools.
The Eightfold Path is exactly the same in both schools.
The Pattica-Samuppada or teaching on Dependent Origination is the same in both schools.
Both reject the idea of a supreme being who created and governed this world.
Both accept Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta and Sila, Samadhi, Panna without any difference.

A belief in rebirth (even Karma) isn't especially on this list.
I think I agree that the above are essential: that the historical Buddha talked about them, and that they're a necessary part of Buddhist belief.
I agree that tales of rebirth and of other lives feature in some Buddhist literature, e.g. Mahayana literature seems to have the Buddha being reborn.
I don't know a lot about Buddhism so, please, if you answer with a paraphrase of scripture, please include the name of the scripture you're quoting so that I could look it up.

I have not been very inclined to upvote your question due to the conravertiona content but +1 for the research effort behind it.

The cause of this question is presumably my 'wrong view'. That "rebirth" may be part of the doctrine, is part of some preconceptions about Buddhism (i.e. that 'rebirth' is an element of Buddhist faith); and (incredulity or prejudice against a belief in "reincarnation") a reason why some people might reject the Buddhist teachings entirely without close examination. So this seemed to me to be an important question even though it's controversial. I hoped I could ask it without causing offence; thank you for your answer.

@ChrisW Most traditions take the view that the essential permanent self is either extinguished, elevated, or damned at death. The Buddhist viewpoint rejects the idea of the self as an illusion (and a cause of great suffering) so to talk about its fate is meaningless. We are prone to organise experiences by individuals, but that is not reality. This is how cause leads to effect, -- good to good, bad to bad, and so on, -- and also all experience and reality, skipping through an entire unity, not owned by a person and not unduly interrupted by death...

@ChrisW ... I have found that once you really come to know that as experientailly true, and the way the world truly is, it seems to me that something akin rebirth as it is described in scriptures becomes the default, prima facie case for reality. It is the view which most satisfies Occam's Razor. But remember that we are helpless in death. I write these comments as I was in a similar position to you once and practice dissolved the problem, as you suspect it would. I'm no expert, though, so it's not a "proper" answer.  Keep going!

@DanSheppard I think you answered well. When you say, "as it is described in scriptures", would you add a reference, to identify which scriptures' description you're referring to?

@ChrisW Thank you! I'm not a scholar at heart, so I read things and listen to things, and try to put them into practice, but I soon forget who was speaking or what I was reading. Which is why I was hoping a more studious person would answer this question (and why I came to this question in the first place, for instruction, :-) !). I will try to look back, though, and find where I found this.

Just a note -- the site you refer to -- http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/59.htm -- as "Two Main Schools of Buddhism" contains numerous blatant factual errors about Buddhist history and doctrine, and is therefore not reliable.

The ego, if it must accept death, would like to believe in rebirth, wouldn't it? The delusion, if there is one at all, is introduced when the ego presumes to be involved in this future, but it isn't, it won't be no matter how much it needs to believe it will in light of the knowledge of inevitable death. I think this is a humble question that indicates self-awareness.

I have read your question and the first part of the accepted answer (I will read the rest in a moment), though not the comments. I would just like to say my understanding of it, I do not believe in the rebirth that many others believe in, that being you have a soul which makes you separate and it leaves your body and goes into another body. I believe that the Buddha used this term because the reality of it and the meaning of the term could be seen as two different (sort of) ways of describing the same thing.

So it would do for the locals who would already know about "rebirth" and probably would find the other ideas harder to understand. And it would do for those who understand what really happens which could be described by that word. Sorry to be a bit vague, but otherwise this comment would go on and on.

Oh dear, I meant to make a short and clear comment and I've realised it's really difficult to explain! I know what I mean, but I just can't put it into words very elegantly it seems. Probably if I were to explain the entire philosophy behind what I am saying and what I believe "rebirth" to actually be meaning instead of what people normally think, then it would be clearer, but that would definitely be too long!

@ParanoidPanda If you'd like to answer a question it's better to post as an answer than a comment.

@ChrisW: You're right, I just didn't think my comment was worthy enough to be an answer. I will see what I can do though.

@ChrisW: Oh dear, it does not appear that I am able to answer this question as there is no button to post an answer. I see this question is protected, but as I have more than 10 reputation points it should be fine. Unless I'm just missing the really obvious answer button?

@ParanoidPanda No you're right: the question was "protected", and so, "To answer it, you must have earned at least 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count)".

@ChrisW: Oh, oh dear, you won't be getting a proper answer from me then!

Check out Chogyam Trungpa, particularly, The Myth of Freedom.

I have no answer but would observe that while nearly all of Buddhist doctrine may be justified or proved in logic I find rebirth to be an exception or 'lemma''.

@PeterJ Perhaps you mean (not a "lemma") an "axiom" -- i.e. a statement which can't be logically proven as a consequence of other givens, rather a statement whose truth is assumed so that from it you can derive or prove further theorems.

@ChrisW - Not an axiom but also not a lemma. I misused the words. I meant a part of a theory that may or may not be true without affecting the main theory.

"Views regarding one's past and future existence are included in the "62 false beliefs""
A little context: I assume the 62's mentioned above are the same as found in DN 1 (Brahmajāla Sutta) translated as "The sixty-two kinds of wrong views" by Walshe (MN 102 also develops on these wrong views).
Now, "wrong view" is understood as either "not according to the damma" or simply "not in accordance with reality". In this sutta, we read the Buddha say:

There are, monks, some ascetics and Brahmins who are speculators about the past, having fixed views about the past, and who put forward various speculative theories about the past, in eighteen different ways [...]

And he proceeds explaining the many ways in which a person may mislead him/herself into concluding something false about the past. The first, for example, is this:

Here, monks, a certain ascetic or Brahmin has by means of effort, extortion, application, earnestness and right attention attained to such a state of mental concentration that he thereby recalls past existences -- one birth, two births, ... ten births, a hundred births, a thousand births [...] Thus he remembers various past lives, their conditions and details. And he says "the self and the world are eternal, barren like a mountain-peal, set firmly as a post. There beings rush round, circulate, pass away and re-arise, but this remains eternally. Why so? I have by means of effort, extortion, attained to such a state of mental concentration that I have thereby recalled various past existences...That is how I know the self and the world are eternal"

Above he is denouncing the fragile leap of conclusion: a person remembered many past lives [and contractions and expansions of the universe] and without identifying an origin, he/she concludes there is none, "so it is eternal". Now, the buddha, when confronted with this particular question, simply declares there is no discernible beginning (SN 15:3) -- something very different from "it is eternal" and "it is not eternal".
Another example of misleading conclusion:

Here, a certain ascetic or Brahmin is a logician, a reasoner. Hammering it out by reason, following his own line of thought, he argues: "The self and the world are eternal"

In these ways, he alerts about the delicate trap of drawing wrong conclusions based on what one believes to be careful examinations (either by some experience or by some abstract reasoning) but that weren't careful enough. Moreover, he illustrates flaws using as example contemporary theories (eternalism, annihilationism, and the spectrum in between) pushed by other sects.
With these things in mind, he did not claim rebirth or views/knowledge of past existence to be false. Quite the opposite, he declares himself to have the ability to recall his past existences (and often describes episodes from them). Finally, exploring this ability is also part of an often-repeated formula for arahantship (and arahants are also described developing this ability). In MN 39, after exposing the Fourth Jhana:

"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives. He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, [...], many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance

Furthermore, he used to announce the rebirth of disciples who have died -- though not of the ones who reached the supreme goal (SN 44.9).
"Views regarding the future of the Tathagata (after death) are in the 10 or 14 "unanswered questions""
Yes. But it is important to emphasize it is "unanswered"; not a negative or positive. Even if we put aside the fact that this is a question about a Buddha, it is hard to use this to develop a trust on either view.
"The Buddhist doctrine of "anatta" (there is no self?) and "anicca" (self is impermanent?) seem to me to be saying that, if (it is believed that) there is rebirth, that 'rebirth' is fairly meaningless, i.e. it is a rebirth of nothing in particular: why not just call it a "birth" instead of a rebirth?"
As far as I can tell, in the [pali] canon it is not said "there is no self". Rather, mostly we read instructions to observe several [conditioned] things in order to directly see "this [the thing] is not self". Additionally, we read declarations such as "All phenomena are non-self" ("sabbe dhammā anattā" -- AN 3.134).
An important point to consider is that it appears something very particular is meant by "self" which does not fit well with our common understanding of this word. In SN 22:59:

Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: 'Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.'

And:

Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is myself? -- No, venerable sir.

Often times, when a challenger debates with the buddha claiming a self/eternalist view, he is debunked with questions such as "if that is so, can you change your form?". Therefore, I guess we need to, first, understand what is meant by "self" from propositions extracted from such discourses.
As for "birth" instead of "rebirth", though it's not clear to our reasoning "what re-borns" (all things above considered), the minimum takeaway of the use of this word in the discourses is that it denotes continuity.
"If rebirth happens that seems difficult to prove by personal experience"
Difficult indeed. But the texts support the possibility of personally testify it.
"is it an article of faith, not something one can verify by direct experience? If so isn't that (faith instead of experience) unusual in Buddhist doctrine (isn't doctrine meant to be measurable against one's experience of the world)?"
I guess it depends on what you mean by faith. I find it difficult to recall important claims made by the buddha that weren't suppose to be verified by one's effort in this lifetime -- so, as far as my knowledge goes, yes it would be unusual. From the canon alone, I wouldn't say this is a matter of faith in the devotional or "Belief" way, where one just take it as it is and assign a special value to it, often developing an emotional dependency towards it -- the clinging buddha frequently alerted about.
But faith as in a trust we give to something or someone while we are applying ourselves to personally verify it, I think it fits pretty well with everything else.
"Or if it is experience, what kind of experience (of other lives) is it, how are you supposed to know that so-called experience is not just a dream?"
I honestly don't know how I would proceed to scrutinize an experience of recalling my past lives.
"is it OK to believe, is it OK to say that a belief in rebirth isn't important to Buddhism? Not a big part of the historical Buddha's teaching? That when he mentioned it at all, it was to say that it didn't exist ("anatta" and "anicca"), that he didn't expect to be doing it himself, and that it wasn't worth talking about?"
One thing we can see explicitly in the texts is that he discouraged speculations, and this subject draws speculations easily, giving its such a puzzle for reasoning and concerns the mystery of our future. Having said that, I think its safe to say it wouldn't make much sense for him to require listeners to believe and internalize "the fact of rebirth", to consider it something central to the training (if it was that important, he could have made an extra noble truth out of it :).
There are a lot of aspects of the Dhamma that receive special attention and frequent emphasis. Urging people to believe rebirth as some sort of requirement or at face value is not something I've seen (MN 60 illustrates how the buddha approached this specific matter).
Now to the specific question: from the canon alone, rebirth is important (though, arguably not an urgent concern in the most practical sense). And, to say the least, the Buddha apparently considered worth talking about, so widespread this subject appears in the suttas, fulfilling roles therein, either as an aspect of the Dhamma, providing a broader exposition of our condition, or simply used to inspire and help us take the road to do something about it, etc. In the case of Dhamma, and this is significant, "no rebirth" does feature in wrong view.
But again, one thing is saying rebirth is important in buddhism. Other is saying (the belief of) rebirth is important to the practice. Other is saying rebirth is important to some buddhists ...

Edited to include a few more references (thank you @Unrul3r) and provide more direct answers to the questions

Great effort. Keep up the good work. +1

Indeed, good answer. In case you want to complement it further, here are some additional references concerning this issue that are worth reading: MN 60, MN 120, SN 12.19, SN 44.9.

thank you! I did some minor clean up (two questions I didn't directly elaborated on) and took the opportunity to add a few more references.

@ThiagoSilva Looking to see more participation on the site. Very good content indeed!

In the case of Dhamma, and this is significant, "no rebirth" does feature in wrong view it appears this is found in Apannaka Sutta, e.g.  here and here.

Rebirth is a metaphor. There is no literal rebirth (of the same person). This hope for literal rebirth is really a hidden attachment to "I", the desire to continue. Let go. It's Ok, you will die -- and never exist again. In fact, "you" do not exist even now, as a separate being. It is just wrong understanding that is called "I". The world is continuous global process of matter/energy/information transformation, with no rigid boundaries in space nor in time. The boundaries are imputed by the analytic mind, they are concepts, abstractions, simplifications. It is attachment to concepts that we liberate from in Buddhism. Attachment to concepts is what leads to fear and suffering, because the concepts always fall behind the ever changing world. When your idea of how something is "supposed to be" mismatches your idea of "how it is" -- hereby is suffering. But the world is always there, behind ideas, infinitely more nuanced and multifaceted than any conceptual model.
Rebirth is a metaphor for the continuity of information and influences. Nothing ever goes away completely. Nothing ever stays the same. Something transforms, something splits apart, something joins with something else, something pushes something. These chains of causes and effects go on like this, infinitely forking and joining. This is what rebirth is. My existence did not start when I was born, it goes way into past. My consciousness did not start when I was born. I inherited it gradually (not in one piece!) from mother and father, from books, from people, -- and they inherited it from each other and from the past. The sea of consciousness goes on like this, having its roots in the basic relationships, of fundamental patterns of the universe.
This is the part of the "rebirth" metaphor that is useful: that things are fluid and have continuity. Crude materialists assume that things completely disappear, like person disappears when it dies. But it does not disappear, it just looses its solidness, its togetherness. The knot unties, but the threads are still here. The truth is, this solidness was mostly a fiction anyway. Did you think you actually were a source of your decisions? Where do you think your desires came from, your preferences came from?
When most people think of "self" they think of some abstract core that is the subject of all experience and the agent of all actions. Buddha taught (and modern cognitive science tends to agree) that upon careful examination there is no such single core. Instead experiences result from interactions of multiple perceptory functions. Similarly, our actions are performed by a conglomerate of functions, without a single agent responsible for all choices.
When the notion of individual rebirth exists as an unexamined belief, it depends on this unexamined notion of "self" as its necessary foundation. Once practitioner is free from illusion of self (in practice, not just conceptually), the notion of individual birth/death/rebirth no longer applies. From this perspective, rebirth is a byproduct of attachment to a (substantial) self.
But because karma at large still continues to function (after Awakening), the infinitely forking/joining threads of causation that once were the subject of attachment continue to participate in activity and serve as causes for subsequent effects. In this sense, rebirth as principle goes on continuously whether we posit an individual or not.

To reference scripture, perhaps a description of Skandhas, which I once saw translated into English as (five separate) "heaps", help to explain what is meant by the self's not being a "single core".

That's right! Also, the Twelve-Nidanas are about attachment to self and letting go of attachment to self. The notion of my death depends on the notion of my birth. The notion of my birth depends on identification with a living being. Identification with a living being depends on ignorance (via some intermediate steps).

I'm surprised I can't find the word "ego" anywhere on this page.

I am extremely sympathetic to this view. However, I want to note that I think there is probably daylight between this answer and what many in our tradition of Tibetan-Buddhism believe. In other words, to believe this I think is equivalent to saying that the teaching of the truth of rebirth in the first turning of the wheel of dharma was a skillful means of the Buddha. Agree?

Yes of course. Well, I don't think it's only a useful fiction, I just think it's a major simplification. There's certainly such thing as "past lives" and "future lives" they are just not exactly mine or yours, they are "our lives".

Hmm, I don’t think things we can’t prove are metaphors. See my answer. But I respect your ways to see how rebirth by metaphor works because what you say is very good fact.

I'm a secular Buddhist who takes Mahayana as my starting point. What you are discussing is the cosmology-- the idea that there are six realms, maybe one or more pure lands, and places you can go after you die.
In Glenn Wallis's book "Basic Teachings of the Buddha," I think he persuasively argued that the historical Buddha was an extinctionalist and had no use for the hindu cosmology, but everywhere he went, that is what people wanted to talk about and hear about. So he recast his basic teachings in the jargon and images of the religious beliefs around him.
As a secular believer, I have to look at the various ideas that don't square with science, or as you observe, don't square with a lot of statement you find about Buddhism, an decide  what to do with it. Is it a metaphor? Is it a useful one?
The central realization in Buddhism is that we naively think we have a permanent self (or soul) that will always be with us. One re-formulation of reincarnation to illustrate this is that, essentially every second I change and the me of a second ago is dead and gone, but there is a new one, right now. The only connection is the cause and effect of this chain of phenomena that naively looks like a permanent person or soul or self.  So every second I die and am reborn into a new person, somewhat connected to the old.
This illustrates some central Buddhist themes but breaks down when we get to the point where we die. At that point, we are just dead. We live on in our actions in the people and world that survive us, but that really is stretching the metaphor.
Another point to remember about Buddhism is that there are many version of it and within each version you generally can find a sophisticated version, focused on things like philosophical questions (do we have a permanent self, what are the consequences of the answer), mediation, maybe ethics, and there is another for lay consumption, that involves devotion, magic for this worldly benefit and a keen interest in where we go after we die.
Personally, this all works for me. I don't have to worry about where I go after I die because the thing I wanted to survive my death (my eternal self, soul or what have you) was an illusion all along.
That said, there are many forms of Buddhism, which find it mandatory to retain a Hindu-style reincarnation, or literal heavens and hells and sometimes they have very interesting mental gymnastics to square how we can come back to life after we die or make it to a pure land, despite annata being such central theme in historical Buddhism.

I know too little to have an opinion on this matter, but here is an article where Thanissaro Bhikkhu argues that rebirth is "an important working hypothesis in following the path all the way to the end of suffering", that is, that the belief in rebirth is an important part of practising Buddhism.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/truth_of_rebirth.html

"Anatta" does not mean "no-self". It means "not-self". Therefore, the Buddha did not deny the arising of the "self" concept in the mind. In fact, the Buddha taught extensively about how the idea of "self" leads to suffering (refer to Nakulapita Sutta).
The work "birth" ("jati") can mean the birth of the "self" idea or self-identity. In this context, you may refer to the Parileyyaka Sutta, which explains very simply.
Clinging to experiences as "self" is inherent to the operation of karma (action) & its results (vipaka). The enlightenment of the eight fold path ends karma (refer to Nibbedhika Sutta) since there is no more "self" attachment to create karma & obsess about its results.
The teachings of good & bad karma are called mundane or worldly teachings and are not related to enlightenment (refer to MN 117). Therefore, unenlightened people still have the belief in "self" and when they do karma, they rejoice in a personal way about the results of their good karma and suffer in a personal way about the results of their bad karma.
Therefore, whatever the unenlightened person does, be it good or bad, "self-view" keeps arising in relation to their karma.
This re-arising of "self-view" is one interpretation of "rebirth".
Try this essay: ANATTĀ & REBIRTH
by Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu

The hyperlink in your answer was 404 (not found) now, so I changed the link -- I hope (you might check that) I'm still linking to the same document as the one you meant to reference.

Can their be rebirth or death if what one believes will be born or die turns out to be a deception?
Being under the influence of karma and this deception of identity is a result of believing in a self that one believes is an aggregate, that is born into form, that grows and changes, that dies and decomposes. Attachment is not to matter, but to a belief that we are matter or we are in matter and must get out of it, or we are somehow under the influence of matter and must get free of that.
If you have a dream that you are a child lost in the wilderness and you are starving to death, what happens to that child when you wake up? Does it go away or does it disappear because it never had any existence in the first place?
That is what karma is. Of course there can be seeds from previous interactions. I am not saying that one can just say a magic word and karma has no effect. But when we do not feed it on a daily basis, it withers like a weed that is without water.
Zen practice of Dogen diminished the role of death as of little importance.

In every society some children gain spontaneous recollection of their past birth. Many authors have investigated such stories and found them correct. Read 'Twenty suggestive cases of reincarnation' written by psychiatrist Ian Stevenson on the phenomena of what he calls spontaneous recall of information about previous lives by young children and some adults through hypnotism.
Read Edgar Cacy's stories about rebirth.He had discovered many stories of rebirth through self hypnosis. Rebirth is a natural phenomenon discovered by many Brahmins in India long before Load Buddha's enlightenment. Your next birth depends on the Karmic force for which the person concern is responsible for. How those man and the woman became your parents? How do some people become experts in some fields. How those people become your children? These relationships occur life after life according to the power of love and cravings. However, whether you like it or not you will be reborn some day after this life. However, no one cannot explain this philosophy in a short message like this.

I've read this 'skeptical' article about Ian Stevenson's work, which says "There is nothing that could be discovered by this method that could ever falsify the reincarnation hypothesis." IOW Stevenson spent a lifetime looking for stories which he couldn't prove to be false, and found some.

The type of rebirth stated here The Buddha debunked as extremely rare, he says "In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn among human beings" (Pansu Sutta).
It's really rare for anyone after death as a human to be reborn as a human in their next existence again, it's more common that they go to the other destinations (hell, the animal realm, the realm of ghosts, heavenly world).
When The Buddha speaks of people as humans in their previous existences he's not talking about their immediate past existence just some existence in the past

The Buddha is like a doctor (Iti 100) who treats the illness which is suffering (dukkha). Please also see this answer.
A lay beginner who still has self view (sakkāya ditthi) i.e. someone who is not yet a stream entrant, may need a different medicine compared to someone who is more advanced.
For a beginner with self view, the Buddha prescribed the following medicine:

Taking refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha; and adopting the five precepts as basic training rules. (AN 8.39)
For cultivation of virtue in volitional thoughts and actions, one should think (AN 5.57), "I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do".
To promote cultivation of virtue in volitional thoughts and actions, the Buddha also taught that it is a safe bet (in MN 60) to assume that one would be reborn according to one's kamma. You can also think of this as the "rebirth wager".
To reduce clinging, he (MN 143) also taught to not associate oneself with the five aggregates, but this does not apply to the thought "I am the owner of my kamma".

To someone who is more advanced or is on a higher training path, like a fully ordained monk, the Buddha taught that consciousness is not self, consciousness is dependently originated, and the SAME consciousness does not wander on, as taught in MN 38 (quoted below).

The Blessed One then asked him: “Sāti, is it true that the following
pernicious view has arisen in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught
by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and
wanders through the round of rebirths, not another’?”
“Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders
through the round of rebirths, not another.”
“What is that consciousness, Sāti?”
“Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here
and there the result of good and bad actions.”
“Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in
that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness
to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no
origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have
misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored
up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a
long time.”

Usually, when people think of "rebirth", they are thinking of the SAME consciousness which "speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions", as wandering on in this life and would be reborn into the next life.
In SN 12.61 (quoted below), the Buddha also talks of the mind, including consciousness, as arising as one thing and ceasing as another within a day.

“Bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling might experience revulsion
towards this body composed of the four great elements; he might become
dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it. For what reason?
Because growth and decline is seen in this body composed of the four
great elements, it is seen being taken up and laid aside. Therefore
the uninstructed worldling might experience revulsion towards this
body composed of the four great elements; he might become
dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it.
“But, bhikkhus, as to that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and
‘consciousness’ —the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience
revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be
liberated from it. For what reason? Because for a long time this has
been held to by him, appropriated, and grasped thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’ Therefore the uninstructed worldling is
unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become
dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it.
“It would be better, bhikkhus, for the uninstructed worldling to take
as self this body composed of the four great elements rather than the
mind. For what reason? Because this body composed of the four great
elements is seen standing for one year, for two years, for three,
four, five, or ten years, for twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty years,
for a hundred years, or even longer. But that which is called ‘mind’
and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as
another by day and by night. Just as a monkey roaming through a forest
grabs hold of one branch, lets that go and grabs another, then lets
that go and grabs still another, so too that which is called ‘mind’
and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as
another by day and by night.

So, if the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness are dependently originated, impermanent, not-self (SN 35.85); and arising and ceasing from time to time, then who is it that lives on in this life? And who is it that gets reborn into another life? The self?
It does not mean that there is no self at all (which is nihilism or annihilationism). There is a self, but it is a mental idea (Snp 4.14) that is constructed by the five aggregates via dependent origination. The self is dependently originated, impermanent, not self (as in an eternal core of one's being, like a soul); and arising and ceasing from time to time. Just like consciousness, it is not the SAME self that wanders on within this life, and on to the next life.
Yes, there is rebirth in the suttas, but it is not rebirth of a specific person or a self or a transmigrating soul. It is the "rebirth" or continuation of suffering. Suffering has been going on for a very very long time, without a clear beginning point (SN 15.3). Suffering that continues whenever and wherever there is craving (SN 44.9). And craving appears whenever and wherever there is ignorance. Suffering does not end with physical death (which is itself suffering). Suffering is only ended by Nibbana. Nibbana is the only "place" where there is no suffering.
In my opinion, whenever the suttas speak of the recollection of past lives, it is not the recollection of the past lives of a specific person, but rather the recollection of the past lives of suffering. And whenever the suttas speak of "rebirth" or birth, it is also the "rebirth" or continuation of suffering.
Kamma and its consequences also exist. It is simply the continuity of the cause-effect chain of dependent processes. However, it's impossible to analyze how kamma works precisely (AN 4.77).

This is dependent of the meaning of rebirth.
Taking one meaning rebirth happens from moment to moment as one set of Kalapas pass away and a new set of Kalapas arise. In this context we can reason about it through Vipassana as it all happens within this lifetime. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)#Rebirth_as_cycle_of_consciousness)
If it takes the meaning of Patisandhi still it is subjected to the same flow.

The bhavanga-citta is the same type of citta as the first citta in life, the patisandhi-citta (rebirth-consciousness). When the patisandhi-citta falls away it conditions the next citta to arise which is the second citta in that life. This citta is the first bhavanga-citta in life.

(source: Chapter 12 of Abhidhamma in daily life by Nina Van Gorkom)
By understanding mind matter process in this life you can understand it's working over many lives also. So the Dhamma the Buddha preached was verifiable in this life: Sandiṭṭhiko. Hence for your practice the fact that there is rebirth or not is not very relevant. From the time of birth you would have experienced stress some for or the other as per in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta.
Also developing Abhijñā you can verify rebirth by your self. Even this is not perfect hence can lead to wrong views. Many non Buddhist also had these abilities but this lead to wrong views (or a dilutional view in some cases).
One does not have absolute control over ones rebirth hence Annatha.

Belief in rebirth is as delusional as belief in self.

Rebirth is real and eventually will be proven, as is the afterlife (with heavenly and hellish worlds).
As The Buddha explained:

"Sariputta, there are these five destinations. What are the five? Hell, the animal realm, the realm of ghosts, human beings and devas." - MN 12

"Secular Buddhism" and other modern day forms of Buddhism are heretical and fit into wrong views:

"And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view" - MN 117 (recurs many times over and over again in the Pali canons)

Secular Buddhism and other modern day forms of Buddhism were predicted by The Buddha:

"In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who
  won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep,
  deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are
  being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing
  them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering.
But
  they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works
  of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of
  outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and
  set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as
  worth grasping & mastering.
In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the
  Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with
  emptiness — will come about." - Ani Sutta (SN 20.7)

We see that outsiders and disciples have come to replace Buddhism with new fundamentally different forms of Buddhism, so different how can they be Buddhism?
These new type of Buddhists teach people to cling to views, become attached to ideas, and use incredulity rather than trying to observe the truth.
Looks like Buddhism is almost already exterminated!
If you achieve higher states your wrong views will naturally automatically disappear and you will see that it's really true that re-birth or re-existence really is true.
The Buddha explained how many births there are:

What do you think, monks: Which is
  greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this
  long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is
  displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in
  the four great oceans?"
"As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is
  the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating & wandering
  this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is
  displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in
  the four great oceans."
"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand
  the Dhamma taught by me.
"This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating &
  wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined
  with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not
  the water in the four great oceans.....
"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A
  beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance
  and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have
  you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss,
  swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all
  fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be
  released." - Assu Sutta

So why the down votes? Is it because many realize that what's happening to Buddhism strikingly matches into the prediction in the Ani Sutta? Or is it because many disagree with the assertion that rebirth is really literally real? Soon in the future Buddhism will be completely exterminated, by new, replaced teachings.

Persistence of experience, in a continuous event during the time we are alive gives the mistaken impression that, if we pay insufficient attention, we may reach the conclusion that we who experience do not change, and are something other than the changing physical animal we are. Insight into the error of supposing an essence which sustains experience and endures beyond it is the benefit of learning the truth of the principle of Anatman or Anatta.
The desire for such a continuity and endurance may lead us to affirm it and find reasons to promise and explain it, and this is what led to doctrines of essentialism and also to the teachings of rebirth in Buddhism. Taken as a metaphor, we are reborn each and every day upon waking in the sense that, using the raw materials of memory and the rudiments of our character, we reconstruct once more reflecting on the actions (karma) attributed to our cause the glamour of being a particular person with unchanging features, when in fact what is happening is the resumption of our attachment to this narrative and the particular character it preserves.
The same metaphor allows for an interpretation of the quality of past, present, or future experiences as 'heaven(ly)' or 'hell(ish)', yet need not have anything to do with experience which occurs after we die.
In consideration of dreams versus waking experience, the former are of a different character and conform to different principles. Dreams are less enduring and rational, are dependent solely on imagination for their content, whereas the waking world is far more consistent and has a physical basis of function and endurance. Knowledge of the latter is easy to acquire and just involves careful reflection and testing. Departure from this functional basis is one of the clearest indicators of being in a dreamstate.
The expansive significance of refusing to comment on what is not currently operative (gods or demons being present or absent, death presenting a continuity or discontinuity of experience, for examples) allows us also to refuse to comment upon what The Buddha did or did not say or do in any particular event.
Outside the confines of a sangha wherein doctrines are outlined as practical platforms from which one may benefit in supposing their veracity, believing or ceasing to believe things is inconsequential, save that it informs one's own motivation and response. This will have bearing on what steps will be taken to participate in or catalyze one's own realization, and so decisions of this type can become crucial in following the Path, abandoning it, or becoming lost in delusion.
Within the foregoing it might be transparent that certain conventions are supposed effective or authentic, such as the existence of the Path or Marga, the efficacy at least in part of the sangha or congregation of aspirants in walking this Path, and most importantly, the possibility of realization and insight which might arise from walking it.
The only warnings i have repeatedly received relating to beliefs or doctrines have in fact pertained to essentiality, and were characterized as Essentialism and Nihilism, these being coupled as twin errors of extremity. Whether one's ideas adhere to main schools, if one's beliefs could be identified as core to Buddhism so-called, or even if the Four Noble Truths or Eight-Fold Path were defined differently, this seemed far less problematic than to suppose there exists a central substance from which all of reality arises which itself does not change, or to suppose that the constantly changing quality of the cosmos indicates that nothing exists at all.

Nihilism is the view a 'self' ends at 'death' (rather than the view there is no new life after the termination of life). Refer to Iti 49, DN 1 & SN 22.85. Regards

I'd thought it cosmology rather than to personal interruption or continuity. For example:
"Nāgārjuna suggests that to regard something as existent amounts to eternalism and to regard as non-existent amounts to nihilism. So a wise  person should avoid both the ontological commitments, positive and negative, of the forms 'something exists' and 'something does not exist' respectively."
-- http://www.academia.edu/1436237/Essentialism_Eternalism_and_Buddhism
Is this primarily a Mahayana vs. Theravada discernment, then?

Nagarjuna's views are different to Buddha. For Buddha, eternalism & nihilism are 'self-views'. 'Self' means 'ego'. For example, a tree, rock, car, house, cloud, etc, is not a self or ego.

I am fairly new to this forum and came across this question via another question where my answer was controversial. I was surprised it was controversial on this forum and wanted to explain why in a calm and reasoned way. I hope this is a good place to do so.
I'm a student in the Gelug branch of Tibetan Buddhism where fostering a healthy faith in rebirth is considered core to the Buddhist path. In fact, rebirth is taught by my teachers - including His Holiness the Dalai Lama - to be a phenomena the truth of which can be known with certainty through reasoning alone although I still struggle to understand how.
However, I'm also a westerner and a skeptic who has a fairly hard time with the doctrine of rebirth in my tradition. In particular, it seems to me that rebirth is a matter of faith and I have a difficult time understanding how it can be known definitively through reason alone as taught in my tradition. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm (relative to my tradition) considered a skeptic about rebirth.
One thing I am not skeptical at all about is that the historical Buddha taught a doctrine of literal rebirth. That is to say, while I have some doubt about the doctrine of rebirth I find it hard to understand how anyone could doubt that the Buddha taught this doctrine. The doctrine of rebirth is laced throughout the Sutras. And not just the Mahayana Sutras either, but the Theravada as well.
As a purely factual matter, I just don't see how the notion that the Buddha did not teach the doctrine of rebirth can be entertained. The Pali canon is suffused through and through with the Buddha speaking about rebirth.
This is a great resource, rounding up many of the places in the Sutras where the Buddha taught rebirth:
The Truth of Rebirth
And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice
by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
Consider this:

"There are, headman, some contemplatives & brahmans who hold a doctrine & view like this: 'All those who kill living beings experience pain & distress in the here-&-now. All those who take what is not given... who engage in illicit sex... who tell lies experience pain & distress in the here-&-now.'
"Now there is the case where a certain person is seen garlanded & adorned, freshly bathed & groomed, with hair & beard trimmed, enjoying the sensualities of women as if he were a king. They ask about him: 'My good man, what has this man done that he has been garlanded & adorned... as if he were a king?' They answer: 'My good man, this man attacked the king's enemy and took his life. The king, gratified with him, rewarded him. That is why he is garlanded & adorned... as if he were a king.'
"Then there is the case where a certain person is seen bound with a stout rope with his arms pinned tightly against his back, his head shaved bald, marched to a harsh-sounding drum from street to street, crossroads to crossroads, evicted through the south gate, and beheaded to the south of the city. They ask about him: 'My good man, what has this man done that he is bound with a stout rope... and beheaded to the south of the city?' They answer: 'My good man, this man, an enemy of the king, has taken the life of a man or a woman. That is why the rulers, having had him seized, inflicted such a punishment upon him.'
[The Buddha then cites similar cases where some people are rewarded for stealing, engaging in illicit sex, and lying, whereas other people are punished.]
"Now, what do you think, headman: Have you ever seen or heard of such a case?"
"I have seen this, lord, have heard of it, and will hear of it [again in the future]."
"So, headman, when those contemplatives & brahmans who hold a doctrine & view like this say: 'All those who kill living beings [etc.] experience pain & distress in the here-&-now,' do they speak truthfully or falsely?"
"Falsely, lord."
"And those who babble empty falsehood: Are they moral or immoral?"
"Immoral, lord."
"And those who are immoral and of evil character: Are they practicing wrongly or rightly?"
"Wrongly, lord."
"And those who are practicing wrongly: Do they hold wrong view or right view?"
"Wrong view, lord."
"And is it proper to place confidence in those who hold wrong view?"
"No, lord."
— SN 42.13

I just don't see how you can square the above or many, many, many other places where the Buddha teaches about the truth of rebirth with the notion that the Buddha did not teach about the truth of rebirth.
Now, many skeptical about rebirth - like me - would point out that the Buddha often used skillful (upaya) means to help others. They might argue that Sutras like the one above and many of the other places are simply instances of the Buddha using skillful means to those who come to the Dharma already having great faith in the truth of rebirth. I can respect and understand that viewpoint even if I don't necessarily agree with it.
Another thing that skeptics say about rebirth say is that perhaps the Buddha was just wrong about this. I also have to respect this viewpoint even if I don't necessarily agree with it.
Another option is to just deny the authenticity or validity of the Sutras where the Buddha speaks about rebirth, but this would leave so many Sutras cut from the canon that I just don't know how you could intellectually justify that. It sounds like motivated reasoning: denying authenticity of only those Sutras that explicitly talk about a doctrine you have a hard time believing or understanding. Maybe there is a way to honestly justify it, but I don't see how.
These are the reasons I was so surprised that my answer was controversial. It could be that I am just wrong and completely misunderstanding something, but I just wanted to explain my reasoning.

Many answers here.
I will not surprise if mine was ignored.
My perception come from what I have saw all over my life.
My practitioners, A numbers people around me.
All of those can recall past life.
Can know the future.
Can see heaven hell, even some can see Nirvana.
Can know karma.
Can know what ever someone thought in real-time.
Can even see what happened in from far places.
Can control, Not just a dream.
I can completely say that whatever Buddha teach was no metaphor to make us confuse.
And I can guarantee that these abilities can be intentionally practised. Not happened randomly.
And I also know how to practice even though I’m not currently success. And there are so many ways to practice.
So I will conclude the very short answer here.
Except you’re seeing rebirth as metaphor, It would be nonsense if when the Buddha teaches was unprovable -- Buddhism would be no different than theist religions.
So there are 40 meditation subjects. A couple of them can make these abilities happen.
One of those abilities is divine eyes.
And it happened for everyone who have successfully practised. Not just random.
Those subjects are

Light Kasina
White Kasina

Also what I saw in my life these abilities can be practised in shortcut ways, easy way that most people can practice.
Even it’s not perfect as Kasina at first, but can make people prove how rebirth, hell, heaven, karma is actually real. No metaphor here.
Please don’t get me wrong here.
I’m not saying that we need those super natural abilities.
I don’t think we necessary need these if people already walked in the ways Buddha teach.
But it really need for the one who’re with very high scepticism and does not belief things easily.
My intention is these will clarify everything you doubt, and the really true reason why to practice in Buddhism.

Rebirth is the one of the main reasons to practice Buddhism otherwise you are just following nihilism, just kill yourself and its done. It will not match the concept of dependent origination or the middle way. Its no included in the agreements of the Theravada and Mahayana because it is not part of practice and also assumed knowledge, if you go to a Buddhist country and ask a Buddhist about rebirth they will undoubtedly believe it but they might not know the four noble truth. In the same way both schools recognize there are Gods,Asuras, Animals, Hells why not add it too?

I was wondering whether it was a contemporary belief but not a necessary piece of Buddhist doctrine ... whether it's possible to understand Buddhism without understanding what "rebirth" supposedly means. I find it difficult to understand that doctrine for the reasons stated in the OP (it seems to contradict other bits of doctrine), so I was wondering if I could, wondering if it would be better to, stop trying to understand it.

Not all people believed in Rebirth back in the day including several prominent Sramana Religions who were Materialistic/Atheist that the Buddha heavily criticizes.

IMO the Buddha criticizes the view that "There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions" (e.g. here).

I agreed. Im from buddhist country. There’re some places we can practices to prove and understand about this.

@ChrisW I’d agree that it’s not necessary to understand.But I’m not agree not to belief this. It’s the only core of why Buddhist exist.

It could be argued that any belief or disbelief is delusional, particularly when there is attachment or aversion to views. In any case the suttas do describe beings reappearing in different realms according to their actions, and I see little point in trying to "prove" this wasn't a part of the Buddha's teaching. On the other hand I don't see any need to believe in rebirth and the realms, particularly when it doesn't seem relevant to daily practice. IMO agnosticism is the pragmatic response here.

There is no reincarnation. There is rebirth. Rebirth is merely the continuation of that-which-flows in the realm of space-time.

I would just like to add that rebirth is automatic. That-which-flows has rebirth based on the amount of awareness gained during previous lives. Nothing goes on. No reincarnation. That-which-flows is not mind, has no ego, is unborn. It creates mind, hence rebirth.

Rebirth is like consequent experience after death.
It is also consequent arising of suffering after the breakup of the body.
"Rebirth" is pivotal to the inference of all transient phenomena being classed as suffering.
For feelings to be categorically classed as suffering you need to infer the dependent origination of existence, in particular you need to infer desire as demonstrable basis for birth.
If you can't do that then one can neither prove that all desire for feeling is categorically delusional and won't be able to refute statements like this;
"Pleasure in moderation is not a problem"
When one explains how feelings are bait, one needs to show that even slightest amount of desire leads to birth, aging, sickness & death by itself.
Otherwise people will just say there is no problem in pleasure if done in moderation & kept to a minimum because in the here & now (over the course of a lifespan) there are little to no apparent bad results evident for one skilled in restraint & moderation.
One who does not get it won't achieve disenchantment because  he does not see the long term as the long term and is shortsighted even tho he considers the entire lifespan.
He may repeat as a mantra "impermanent phenomena are suffering" but that is just lipsevice and he does not comprehend it fully.
Imo this the most explicit sutta support for rebirth;

[...]'Lord, Anathapindika the householder is diseased, in pain, severely ill. [...]Then Ven. Sariputta, having put on his robes and, taking his bowl & outer robe, went to the home of Anathapindika the householder with Ven. Ananda as his attendant.[...] Then, not long after they left, Anathapindika the householder died and reappeared in the Tusita heaven. Then Anathapindika the deva's son, in the far extreme of the night, his extreme radiance lighting up the entirety of Jeta's Grove, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, bowed down to him and stood to one side. [...] Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Lord, that must have been Anathapindika the deva's son. Anathapindika the householder had supreme confidence in Ven. Sariputta."
"Very good, Ananda. Very good, to the extent that you have deduced what can be arrived at through logic. That was Anathapindika the deva's son, and no one else." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.143.than.html

Just like an apple falls from a tree to the ground because of gravity, in the same way beings are born because of ignorance.
And what ignorance?
Not knowing the cause of suffering.
By not knowing the cause, beings search an end to suffering.
While searching for an end, beings do activities. Activities like:
"This is me."
"This is mine."
"I am this and that and that."
"When I die, I'll go to heaven."
"When I die, I'll be reborn."
"I wish I had a better life."
"I want that!"
"That is what would make me happy."
"Oh I'm miserable! Let me be better."
etc.
These same activities in the moment of our death are the cause of rebirth.
Activities is karma. Karma in the present, which defines our future. Karma from the past, which defines our present. Karma which gives us form over and over again. Which propels our births.
In most beings activities arise because of not knowing an end to suffering.
And how to see all this for yourself?
Close your eyes and let go.
Let go even of the perception of the object of meditation.
Let go even of the perception that you let go of the object of meditation.
Let go of everything.
...
In this very same "state" truth can be realized by asking yourself the question "who am I?"
By doing this, and asking yourself the question "who am I" a path will be entered.
"Who am I?", observe and let go.
Observe. Let go.
Learning will occur. New knowledge will be gained.
Many questions will be asked.
Many answered.
One will lead to the next naturally.
Just like an experienced detective drills to the motive of a murder, in the same way you will drill to the cause of suffering.
This path will lead you to the end of suffering. Along it, the truth about reincarnation will be realized too.

If I'm reading this answer correctly, I think that the only thing you say about 'rebirth' in this answer is that "These same activities in the moment of our death are the cause of rebirth"? That was the subject of another question, Last thought before death?.

Yes. But even more important, the answer to your question must be experienced. Observe carefully and it will be seen.

Why do we so desperately want to believe that we were once eagles or lions and some person’s relation, despite genetics saying no?
Here is what I believe: we either had one past life where were once immortals, our real selves from before the past. The other possibility in my mind is that after the first rebirth, we became God’s enemies and we were killed by false doctrines or to stop it, around eight or nine times, this life being our ninth or tenth and likely our last. That might explain why we keep finding human fossils that look like us but we keep failing to find one that bridges the latest fossil with our own bones.
If you want more, let me know in the comments.


text:
What can go wrong in Mindfulness Therapy as used in Clinics?
I just stumbled across the article Mindfulness therapy comes at a high price for some, say experts. Even when mindfulness is practiced correctly, side effects may occur, like feeling lost or disconnected from the world. What could be the cause of the side effects? Do these techniques deviate a lot from the Suttas or orthodox practice? Do the staff have the necessary training and awareness required to give meditation advice (Kammaṭṭhāna)? Can something be wrong with how the clinic administers the training / teaching?

I saw that same article. In my experience of practice, that seems rather unreal to me. Mindfulness has only ever cultivated love and happiness in me and the members of my sangha. I would like to know the validity of that article and if it has a possible agenda.

@ChristopherLee One could ask for a second opinion at the Skeptics site (whose purpose is to find/present evidence for or against any unreferenced claims); but to post on Skeptics one would have to ask about a specific claim/allegation/assertion within the article (there are too many statements in the article, to verify them all). Read it carefully: is there any specific specific sentence or paragraph in the article, whose truthfulness you doubt?

This is a real phenomenon and it is discussed in the Visuddhimagga and the writings of the Mahasi Sayadaw. Some of the stages of insight knowledge can potentially manifest themselves in this kind of way. I think for most people these stages are relatively easy, but I suppose for some they could be much more difficult. Just from my own practice I can say that these particular knowledges can be very mild
It really is just the result of seeing impermanence on a direct level. When one has a lot of attachments this is not a fun experience because one is holding onto things while at the same time seeing the suffering involved in clinging. The answer to this is that one needs to accept that this is part of the practice and a part of giving up attachment, and continue to practice. Eventually one will let go and move on and progress.
This is actually one of the reasons why I personally have reservations about practicing mindfulness meditation in a purely secular context. The teacher probably won't know about this and without understanding general Buddhist doctrine it isn't possible to understand how to move on.

The article refers to side effects of the meditation practice on people with very deep mental illness. Mindfulness certainly is good for anyone, but meditation can be harming.
Normal people could experience boredom and sleep at worse. People with depression and anxiety have very sharp minds, and meditation (not mindfulness) could possibly worsen their state.
I think the problem they are trying to address is that on meditation you leave people to look and feel for themselves, and it is not safe to leave these mentally ill people "wander" on their thoughts and feelings by themselves.

My main concern about mindfulness, that some describe as meditation without the Buddhism, is that is construed to be a physical tool to make people happier.
Without the practice of compassion for others and dedication of one life to some degree to helping others, mindfulness can degenerate to a feel good thing.
But I do not condemn it. It is a start that can lead those with real inner yearnings to a meditation practice.
It is baby steps, but there are so many babies in the world, it certainly has its place.