Respectfully, I think some people must read more things of Buddhadhasa before these precipitated judices.
Those of yours who claim Buddhadhasa is overly intellectual, please compare in this thread viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1764&p=23134#p23134
the texts cited by some people with that from Buddhadhasa cited by myself. What is the more intellectual approach?
"It happens often and continuously, but there is no rebirth. There is no such thing, in reality, as rebirth or reincarnation" is not the deny of rebirth but the deny of a concrete (and widely spread) understanding of rebirth. When one is able to understand that explanation rebirth is not a subject to be affirmed or denied.
- How rebirth can be possible when there is not a self to continue?
- How non-rebirth can be possible when finally there is not a self to die?.
Paticcasamuppada is a deep teaching. Buddhadhasa was able to develop two levels for the explanation. One level is what he named of "Dhamma language". Another level is the common view, in where arises the discussion about rebirth or non.rebirth. One need read and study Buddhadhasa carefully before talking about his teaching.
On my side, I think one must be always far to judge the teaching of wise people with the feeling of being in a supermarket, choosing this or that, to satisfy our intellectual pleasures. Instead that, one must look this wisdom assortment like the sick person inside a medical store: luckily here there is a good assortment of medicines. What medicine can be good for my illness?. We can take the pill if we don't like suppositories but we cannot add doubts over the rest that we don't know neither we have tested.