The truth/falseness of rebirth depends on the conceptualization or model of the rebirth being assessed. For ex. One may ask if kamma is true or not, but different Brahmin and sramana sects had different models or conceptualizations of kamma. Which version is true and which is false? In practice, each abide in their own view, thinking their model of kamma/rebirth etc is the correct one and those of others are false.
Is the conceptualization of rebirth you speak of true or not? That’s what is being asked. Frankly, I wish not to misrepresent your conceptualization. My goal isn’t to adopt or argue against your conceptualization, but rather share a different take.
I equate rebirth and rebecoming with the psychological fabrication of “I”, selfhood, identity view, and notions of “me and mine”. That is to say rebirth and rebecoming occurs at the exact moment when one generates a self in the mind and grasps at the khandhas and holds them to be part of that self. This process is constantly reoccurring in minds and beings here and there. It’s a tendency that most beings haven’t freed themselves from, with the exception of Arahants who have blown out the self and no longer engage in this frivolous, uncomfortable “me-making”. Am “I” an arahant? No, I constantly engage in (re)becoming and me-making, my self concept (the “I” and “me”) is constantly being reborn and is re-dying in the mindstream. Why focus all worries and attention on rebirth after death if mentally constructed selves already experience painful rebecoming and rebirth in this very life, here and now, in this body and mind. That is much more important.
For this reason, I’m more concerned with rebecoming that occurs in this mind, presently, in this life, then rebecoming that may have occurred before the body’s composition or rebecoming that may occur following its dissolution. Yes, many do indeed worry about that, but that concern does not arise here and is not a source of fear or anxiety. After all, the re-arising and rebirth of self concept, of me, myself and I, is already taking place here and that’s enough of a problem to deal with!
I need not need to adhere to abhidharma theories about conventional or ultimate truth, as I find the dichotomy unnecessary to begin with and not fully supported in EBTs. The concept of the body indeed is a construct. I do not need to worry whether bodies “conventionally” or “ultimately” exist or not, because what matters in practice are that they are mental constructs. Constructs may indeed arise, this is true, but the danger is not with the constructs themselves but grasping at these constructs, craving them or hating them.
Our society is already too engrossed with and fettered to what you would call conventional truths. Constructs are everywhere because they are delightful and pleasurable to grasp after. Rather than operating within the boundaries of conventional truth, the focus should be on unbinding from them.
I find little reason to encourage people to accept this conventional truth. It’s like handcuffing someone to a pole then telling them here is how to get the key. Doing away with the burden and limitations imposed by conventional truth one can focus on abandoning unskillful “run of the mill” conventional qualities, crossing the flood, unbinding, and mindful non-grasping.
Take ordinary person for example. If you told him that there is no evidence of rebirth etc, there is no self etc. And then you told him to end self-view. He will ask, “why?” After all, everything will just end in death. Why do any effort? Suffering? Just drown in sense pleasure and forget about it. (Most of people in the world already doing this)
I’d tell there an ordinary person there is no permanent self because all constructs are impermanent. I’d tell him that the self in their minds is a mental construct that arises and fades. I’d tell that the self is a double edged sword, capable of causing pleasure yes, yet also capable of causing immense fears, lamentations, and sufferings. With mindfulness that person can realize how their selves and inner "I"s are being born and are dying.
It’s not so much that everything ends in death- that’s not what I am saying. Rather it is of the nature of all constructs to decay and die.
Most people are willing to take the risk of potential suffering if it means potentially experiencing pleasure in the here and now. They think that by experiencing that pleasure their suffering will diminish. But the wise know that the suffering is merely being masked by the pleasure, much in the same way a curtain drapes over a window and blocks out the rays.
Suffering? Just drown in sense pleasure and forget about it. (Most of people in the world already doing this)
Easier said than done. Sense pleasures are delightful but when the source of the pleasure fades or when we don’t get we want or when the pleasure fades, suffering rears its head again.
The “folk” definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That is essentially the problem with sense pleasures. We think they will permanently satisfy us but they always fail to do so.