muni wrote:"To remain undistracted right now practicing Dharma through the rolling train of life is the way to respect rebirth.
By merely reading and rejecting laws of nature, we are like an elephant running through a small shopping street, having all knowledge in plastic bags, while forgetting impermanence, interdependency and no any solidness to grasp to. We forget breath is not independent. " By a simple being.
Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche and Sakya Trizin expressed it a bit the same: "Your present life is just one life, future lives are inummerable.
Do not sacrifice so many lives to your illusionary being and its' welbeing".
Both are well-said.
Rather than focusing on what's true, I also think it's easier to understand rebirth if we understand what it's not.
It's not eternalism or annihilationism. I think some people are very self-deceptive in how they define those two terms. Some Buddhists might think "agnosticism," isn't connected to annihilationist biases, while others may try to sneak in some kind eternal non-dual transcendental mind object or process which isn't a self, but actually is, not seeing that this is a form of eternalist bias too.
For instance, I could dispute something like this:
conebeckham wrote:Forget "nonreferential awareness" then, and let's substitute "nonreferential awakeness."
My point being, there is something there beyond the dualistic "mind consciousness"--
There is no "thing" I know beyond samsara (if you do, can you prove it?
) and everything in samsara is dependent and impermanent, even the highest states of blissful non-dual awareness. Whatever is subject to arising is subject to cessation. If it can be gained, it can be lost. And if it can be lost, there is suffering.