How do your opening comments square with the advice in the Kalama Sutta? In that Sutta the Buddha introduced the possibility of a ‘provisional’ acceptance of rebirth and then explores some possible repercussions that would follow. He does not discuss the possible repercussions of simply keeping an open-mind on the topic. However, in other contexts he explicitly encourages open-minded inquiry. I cannot see any logical reason why an undecided view about rebirth should prove to be an impediment to new and novel discoveries - including rebirth? However, a point-blank refusal to consider the teaching as an open-question could prove problematic. Even in this situation it is possible for people to change their mind - as in the case of some NDE and Rebirth researchers.
Yes, stream-enterers understand rebirth. This is the four noble truths, which is the fundamental insight of the stream-enterer. They also see dependent origination.
The rebirth knowledge that comes with seeing the Dhamma is not seeing the details of past lives, but understanding the principles behind them. Consider the difference between a TV repairer who fixes your TV set, and someone who watches TV. A repairer knows how the thing works, what the parts are, how the transmission is interpreted, and so on. But they don’t know the plot of the show that you’re watching.
When we test pain medication, we ultimately have to ask people about their subjective experience of pain.
Just because pain is subjective, doesn’t mean you can’t take a bunch of people, give them a drug, ask them about the pain and compare it to a control group. If people subjectively report less pain than the control group, and others replicate the experiment and find the same thing, then we have a good reason to think that the drug has an effect (beyond placebo).
Imagine if we took a large group of people; one group spent 20 years as monastics studying and practicing the Buddha’s teaching, the other group spent 20 years in a placebo monastery, doing mindfulness and reading general philosophy.
The groups could be subject to all sorts of scales for anxiety, depression, pain sensitivity, brain activation patterns, and so on, and we could begin to tease out if the Buddha’s dhamma has any observable effect beyond meditation and philosophy.
The Buddha also suggests – if we can’t read minds – to investigate a teacher in terms of defilements of speech and body, there’s also the acts an arahant can’t do; so there are observable symptoms of someone’s subjective mental development.
With rebirth, we could have a very large amount of people keep secret diaries, keep the diaries in a secret database, and when the diary keepers die, we could look for any children who claim to have been them, and see if their testimony corroborates with the secret diaries.
With near death experiences, we could send out boxes with random items inside to cardiac wards, and have a nurse or doctor open the box whenever a patient dies on the table, and close it before the patient is revived. Then we could ask the patients who report a near death experience if they saw any particular objects.
Given enough time and money, there are tons of empirical work that could be done. For reference, the large hadron collider costs about 1 billion USD a year, “finding” the Higgs boson cost about 13 billion USD.
Metaphysics have a tendency to turn into physics if you throw 13 billion dollars at it 
Indeed, a glimpse at the very least.
Now this has been said by the Blessed One: “One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent origination.”
-MN 28
Just as a clean cloth, free from stain, would take the dye perfectly, even so, to Upāli, the householder, whilst seated in that place, there arose (in him) the spotless, stainless vision of Truth [Dhamma]. He knew: Whatsoever has causally arisen must inevitably pass utterly away.’
Then Upāli, the householder, having thus, in the Dispensation of the Exalted One seen the Truth; attained to the Truth; comprehended the Truth, penetrated the Truth, overcome doubt; cast off uncertainty and gained full confidence without dependence on another, said to the Blessed One:
“Well, Venerable Sir, we must be going now. We have much to do.”
“You, householder, are aware of the hour.
MN 56
And what is the sequence of dependent origination? It starts with ignorance, not with birth. But the materialist worldview regards birth as the beginning of the causal chain rather than ignorance, with one’s birth itself due to chance (fortuitousness).
Yes, but it’s more explicit than that: see SN 12.41:
Householder, when five fearful animosities have subsided in a noble disciple, and he possesses the four factors of stream-entry, and he has clearly seen and thoroughly penetrated with wisdom the noble method, if he wishes he could by himself declare of himself: ‘I am one finished with hell, finished with the animal realm, finished with the domain of ghosts, finished with the plane of misery, the bad destinations, the nether world. I am a stream-enterer, no longer bound to the nether world, fixed in destiny, with enlightenment as my destination.’ …
And what is the noble method that he has clearly seen and thoroughly penetrated with wisdom? Here, householder, the noble disciple attends closely and carefully to dependent origination itself thus: ‘When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this does not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases. That is, with ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations; with the cessation of volitional formations, cessation of consciousness…. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.’
This is the noble method that he has clearly seen and thoroughly penetrated with wisdom.
What you are saying is: a Dhamma-inquirer may not have recollections of past lives and still have a direct realisation or understanding of rebirth. Does this mean they have ‘seen’ how dependent origination works - directly - and this is equivalent to an understanding of rebirth? The rebirth process is constant - is it not? We are not the self-same identical being from one moment to the next. We have complete cellular rebirths in many cycles over a lifetime - assuming we don’t pass-away as young children. Is this also related to the ‘granular’ quality or nature of consciousness mentioned by Ajahn Brahm? 
Hello, I have a question, specifically to venerables @sujato and @Brahmali, as you both advocate the reality / existence of rebirth.
a) In the suttas self is said to be a view, an illusion - ie. nothing of substance.
b) death is defined as putting down of the body, the breakup of khandhas
It seems to me that there is nothing of substance left to be reborn.
So, bhikkhave, let’s start with defining what we are talking about here. What is it that gets reborn?
Yes, that’s right. And the converse may also be true: you can recollect details of past lives and not really understand how it all works, like someone who watches a show but has no idea how a TV set works. They know something is going on, but might interpret it wildly incorrectly, thinking, say, that there are little people inside the set acting out the scenes, AKA the soul theory.
The general rule is, the quicker and deeper your understanding is, the less information you need. So someone with very deep wisdom can understand DO based purely on insight supported by samādhi. Whereas someone with slower wisdom needs to keep on gathering more and more information by recollecting past lives, reminding themselves again and again, seeing the same patterns playing out again and again, before it finally gets through.
The five aggregates.
Consider again the above TV simile: the soul theory is that there are little men inside the set who act out the scenes. The Buddhist theory is that there are wires and components that work together creating the illusion of real people.
Thank you Bhante. I did not recall that sutta. To be clear, I was trying to build bridges by laying stones gently, if you catch my drift. Perhaps, a wasted effort. However, I really do appreciate your laying down of the stones…assertively.
Indeed. I think the history of how science gradually took over from the dogma of the Christian church is instructive. There comes a point when the scientific evidence is just too compelling.
I agree that we should be careful with all such cosmological material. What I find astonishing about the EBTs is not that some of their cosmological ideas may be dubious, but that some of the ideas are remarkably modern. An example is the Seven Suns Sutta (AN 7.66), where the heat of the sun is said to gradually increase until the earth burns up. How can it be that such ideas are found in such ancient literature? I have my own ideas about this, but this is not the time and place for discussing it.
This was not meant to be sourced from the EBTs. My point is just that the teaching of the Buddha is presented as an insight into reality. Different ways of accessing reality need to be compatible.
Sure. This is what I meant. There is always some degree of interpretation when we deal with texts.
I apologise in return if over-interpreted what you said. It was just too tempting to invoke Stephen Jay Gould’s well-known phrase.
This is why I referred to Thomas Kuhn. We tend to get stuck in paradigms. The present physicalist philosophy of mainstream science is such a paradigm, and it follows that those with appropriate expertise will tend to defend it. I think there are important problems with this paradigm and I would not be surprised if we eventually see a shift in the scientific outlook. Exactly what that shift will be is of course impossible to say. But I certainly think it is possible that we will have to radically reconsider the place of mind in nature. Some philosophers such as Thomas Nagel and David Chalmers are already proposing this.
I am trying my very best to be diplomatic, but I accept that I will sometimes fail. I am apologising for my all too human failings. I am not doing this with the intent to provoke anyone.
Faith and confidence are a first step towards knowledge. Where there is no faith, knowledge may sometimes be impossible.
The former.
It is almost impossible to write anything without offending someone, and this is why I apologised at the outset. I can only try my best. Please give me the benefit of the doubt.
Yet the Buddhist idea of rebirth requires a non-physicalist understanding of nature. The physicalist conception of rebirth that you propose in your next paragraph is very different from the Buddhist one.
But the claim of some researchers is that people can sometimes be conscious even when there is no measurable brain activity. Some of this research is quite prestigious, such as the article written for the British Medical Journal by Pim van Lommel. In dreams, by contrast, the brain is still active. To me it seems that some of this research on the edges of science is both interesting and hard to explain from a physicalist point of view.
Indeed. And I would never suggest for anyone to wait for scientific confirmation.
Exactly. I would say this is because he hadn’t personally discovered rebirth at this point.
That the Buddha may not have gone forth motivated by the problem of rebirth does not mean that it cannot be a powerful motivational force. The Buddha was clearly quite an exceptional human being, and I am not sure how far we should model our lives on his. The fact that he places rebirth in such a prominent position in his teachings suggest to me that he saw it as a very useful tool for propelling us forward on the path. I think part of the problem here is that too many people think that right view is merely some sort of intellectual consent. But this is far too shallow an understanding. We need to reflect on right view, to integrate it as much as possible into our outlook, and only gradually does it dawn on us what the full implications of rebirth actually are. This takes time and commitment. Perhaps I may venture to suggest that those who regard rebirth as unimportant to the practice have not properly internalised the consequences of viewing the world in this way.
The Buddha was seeking freedom from suffering, and at this point he didn’t even know if such a thing was possible. It was the awakening experience that gave him the necessary information. Only then did he understand the reality and the implications of rebirth, and the necessity of cessation.
Certainly, but this is the goal of the path. In the meantime we have no option but to attach, at least to some extent. This is the nature of the sense of self.
The point to me is that certain views reflect reality better than others. If we are going to make good and beneficial decisions, we are far better off if we see things the way they are. Any decision based on delusion is bound be less than fully satisfactory. This is true in all spheres of life, and no less so on the spiritual path. And because some degree of attachment is unavoidable - at least until the sense of self is abandoned - we are better off attaching to views that make the practice more powerful.
Yes, and this the position of the EBTs, found for instance in MN 60.
Good question. It appears to me that most of these Buddhists, although not looking to the EBTs, accept them as the word of the Buddha. But the fact that they don’t emphasise the EBTs is, in my opinion, a great weakness in their practice.
I think this is a good point. It’s not about believing in rebirth for it’s own sake, but that it has an important practice function, as pointed out by Ven. Cintita.
Generally speaking, however, it is the truth that helps us navigate the world in a wise way. Whenever we are deluded about reality, we tend to make silly decisions. To take a banal example, if you are to invest in the stock market you want the best possible advice on which companies are likely to prosper, advice that sees the companies as they really are, not deluded advice. Seeing things as they really are does have a powerful effect in guiding us in the right direction, whether worldly or spiritual.
You may be cutting a few corners here on the atman-theory dear Ajahn. But I have benefited from the TV analogy a lot! We have to remember : not all atman-theorists are on the same page. There are dualists, qualified non-dualists and, non-dualists in the tradition we now call Hinduism. None of them believe in many ‘little people’ inside the TV - the various characters and scenes, whether they are understood or misunderstood, are ‘mental events’. Whereas, the Jiva-Atman is singular i.e. there is only one of them in each ‘incarnation’. An exception to this rule would be 'ghostly, demonic or, dhevic possession. All three are possible in some Hindu traditions.
In the case of Advaita-Vedanta things are not this clear cut - they talk about the existence of an ‘absolute’ Self that is not multiple or one entity. This Self does not have a specific location like a Jiva-Atman - in the heart-centre - the (hridayam). For them, the Jiva-Atman is an illusory self. The true Self is non-local! Furthermore - according to Adi Shankaracharya - the true Self is identical with Brahman. Brahman is ‘nirguna’ (without qualities). Therefore, Brahman - the ‘brahma-satya’ in Advaita-Vedanta - is as (good as nothing). It is beyond consciousness it is emptiness and it is void of positive content. I know this to be the case through studying the teachings of two highly regarded non-dualist teachers in the Vedic tradition.
On a list of the names of Vishnu - in Hinduism - there is ‘Shunya’ - so the matter is not as clear-cut as commonly believed.
You mean to say that in one silly little analogy I failed to capture the full depth and wisdom of a three-thousand year old philosophical tradition? How can this be!
But yes, the Brahmanical theories are highly sophisticated and varied; and in some cases they explicitly reject the “little atman” explanation of rebirth.
Actually, let me take out the mention of ātman and just say “soul”, which works well enough.
It seems to me, that it is incorrect, or at least unskillful to call that rebirth. Where is there continuation that would be ended with nibbaba?
Aggregates of one person break up, new aggregates are born, but I don’t see any continuation here that would justify calling it rebirth instead of birth.
Matter from Buddha’s body was recycled in nature, his ideas and mind patterns are recycled in all of us here. What was finished at his death that wasn’t finished at death of e.g. Plato?
Take it up with the Buddha, I am just the messenger.
With you Ajahn, it would not surprise me in the slightest if you could encapsulate a 3 thousand year old tradition in a few paragraphs. I have seen you perform more amazing things than this without even trying.
I thought your analogy was the best thing since ‘sliced bread’. Don’t underestimate your ability as a teacher. With that silly little analogy I now see clearly something that is very very valuable. If that was silly tell me when you are about to get serious! 
Is there a chance for answering the questions?
Where is there continuation that would be ended with nibbaba?
What was finished at Buddha’s death that wasn’t finished at death of e.g. Plato?
To answer the question: what is finished at death? You may first ask the question: what is present in life? When you have answered that question in a way that is commensurate with the Buddha’s findings you will then have the Buddha’s answer to the question: what is finished at death?
You have to understand what life is before you can answer the question about what is lost when all the lights go out. However, if you want the answer to your question according to the Buddha’s teachings - until you have ‘direct’ insight into his teachings on ‘dependent origination’ you will not have that answer.
If, you feel you already have the answer to your question and, it has nothing to do with the Buddha’s teachings on ‘dependent origination’ then you will have an answer that is incommensurate with the Buddha-Dhamma. This does not make you wrong it just means you have come to a different conclusion. Enjoy your conclusion - all good!
The simple answer to your question is: there is no breath’ - circulation - metabolic process. That much is clear! If you have decided that your life is completely ‘defined’ in terms of your functional metabolic processes then I guess you are ‘nothing’ after death. If that is the case, and you are OK with that prospect, then I guess you have nothing to worry about.
Regarding the fate of Plato after death? Was he reborn or was he not? If Plato was available for comment he could answer the question. Unfortunately, this will have to remain an open-question as Plato is not available and none of us have joined him yet?
Plato was a disciple of Socrates. It is clear that Socrates believed in reincarnation. Maybe, you should ask Plato - through the medium of his teachings - what was his likely fate after death? You might find a rough correlation between his teachings and those of the Buddha?
As to whether Plato was pari-nibbana’d or not - who knows? Maybe there was no difference in what happened to the Buddha and what happened to Plato? Perhaps they were both pari-nibbana’d after they stopped breathing? That would be wonderful - may all beings be liberated! May you be liberated and enjoy the perfect peace of Nibbana! That was good-fun and thankyou for your question.
Thanks for your replies.
Yes, I understand that, and hoped I’d sufficiently indicated a recognition of that in my comment.
I have to admit, however (and this is by no means a criticism of your post), this latest round of ‘rebirth, rebirth, rebirth’ has for me neither built faith nor confidence, but only served to underscore what I don’t know and have absolutely no sense of.
Hi Erik,
The problem I see with this sort of research is what scales could be used to measure aspects of experience that would be truly Dhammic in nature. Being more relaxed, and reducing anxiety and depression are clearly good effects, but in terms of Dhamma aren’t they just side-effects?
In fact, it is not clear to me that Dhamma practice will necessarily be better according to those measures. Why should it be?
The problem of measuring awakening, or progress towards awakening, seems to me to be a rather difficult problem, worse than what David Chalmers labelled the “hard problem of consciousness”:
Of course, not everyone agrees with Chalmers, and there may well be some clever development that makes measuring Dhammic effects possible, but for now I can’t even imagine an approach.
To use Bhante @Sujato’s analogy, we can see what’s on our TV screen (experience). The scientific experiments I’m aware of seem to me to be analogous to taking the back off the TV and measuring which parts are active when certain images appear (brain activity), and how to set the controls to keep the operating temperature low (relaxation, stress reduction). With those measurements, we could see various correlations, but we wouldn’t know how the TV works, or how to fix it so we can tune into the Nibbana channel…
As I said above, the five aggregates.
I’m sorry if this answer isn’t satisfactory for you, but I’m afraid I have spoken on this issue at great length on very many occasions, and I don’t have time right now to do it any more justice. Hopefully some of our lovely Discoursers can help!