Well then we can agree to disagree.

Hi,

Here’s an interpretation, which I put forth because it is actually practical (can be personally applied right this moment), makes sense (does not presuppose odd metaphysical views), and jives with the traditional texts more so than other interpretations I’ve seen (which makes it useful for understanding the context of other practical discourses). I am not proposing this is necessarily the “correct reading,” so I won’t respond to any critiques of that nature.

The “cycle of rebirth” pertains only to the moment-to-moment rebirthing (arising & passing) of a ‘self.’ Let’s say a person is in a situation in which an identity is triggered. It (past karma) arises (accompanied with a feeling-felt stress): “wow, it is awful that you don’t believe in God.”[1] This is said to arise due to "past karma" because the identification was created in the past (perhaps it was originally handed down from parent to child in this case, then built upon from there-after [2]). This iteration of the cycle can go one of three ways:

(1) The identification is entrenched more deeply by obsessing about it ("but God has to exists, he answers my prayers!"), justifying it with new evidence ("see, page X of the bible says Y!"), or by adding new layers to it (such as unforgiving indignation toward the supposed offender: "I don't like John-Doe very much"). This specific part of the cycle has not been uprooted and additional karma has been added to the cycle.

(2) Shortly after being triggered, an identification of ‘higher priority’ arises and so the other temporarily passes (immediately preceding the new arising). This specific part of the cycle has not been uprooted, but little to no additional karma has been added.

(3) The identification is seen through in some way—as silly, or delusional, or stressful, or not-self, or impermanent, or whatever [3]-- and is thus released. This specific part of the cycle of rebirth has ended; it has been uprooted entirely, and no further karma can come from it.

Now consider that ‘beings’ in general cling tightly to a myriad of identifications and are consciously or unconsciously creating more of them all the time. Further, 'beings' typically cycle through several different identifications at a time; sometimes rapidly, sometimes slowly, some in the foreground, some in the background. Hence: a perpetual cycle of ‘me’ being 'reborn' all the time, a cycle of 'me' justifying ‘my’ existence. This is why an arhat (using the 10 fetter model definition) is said to have ended the cycle of rebirth itself, as there is no more self, no more identification, no more being, no more stress, etc; there is no ‘me’ to arise: “Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world.”

Helpful?
Trent

[1] What is perceived to be “good” (“bright”) or “bad” (dark) is self referencing (inherited from institutions, culture, some are inborn, etc) and does not specifically reference some universal set of dogmatic principles (unless those dogmatic principles have been adopted as identifications / have been incorporated into one’s self). And so it is amorality which leads to ending the entire mess: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.235.than.html

[2] Humans are born with instinctual identifications, and from the moment they're able to take on new ones / build upon the inborn, they do so (blindly). This may provide some clue as to the seemingly-literal statements about rebirth, as all 'selves' are fundamentally the same (and so any passing on of 'you' to 'another' is also just 'you' passing on to another 'you').

[3] It doesn’t matter how or why a bit of the self is eliminated, because none of it actually fundamentally exists anyway (hence ‘delusion’). A contemplative simply has to sincerely decide to eliminate whatever mental defilement arises. Perhaps one reason for this mention: (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html).