user5442: I suspect the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in a sense different from its traditional meaning. Probably he meant that our sense of separate self is repeatedly being born, decaying, dying and being reborn until we attain Nirvana. In this sense, rebirth happens only in our present life and not after our physical death. Is there any evidence in the early canon to support that the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in the above sense?

user715: First I will offer some background before I say anything about what the Buddha said or didn't about rebirth.
Logically speaking, both view points are true since consciousness is not affected at the time of physical death or rebirth.
You mention in the comments that you are not comfortable with the traditional idea of rebirth, which is okay, take what you can verify and trust. If tomorrow you change your mind because of new insights, that's okay. If not, that's okay too. You don't have to agree with others, be independent using your logical faculties as your guide.

My submission is that in 2500 years the numerous brilliant minds in Buddhism and other Indian traditions were not all so dense as to not be aware of material reality, and there were certainly some schools (Lokayatika) who were only concerned with impermanence in the material reality.
In fact there is the Lokayatika Sutta where the Buddha specifically confronts the position of material reality being the only truth.

Heraclitus, a near contemporary of the Buddha has a pithy saying that "You could not step twice into the same river." meaning the body and mind is ever changing. This is often quoted by modern dharma teachers in the West because it perfectly reflects the Buddhist teaching on emptiness, and impermanence.
Here is what the Dhammapada says on impermanence in the present moment -

Sabbe sankhara anicca" ti yada pannaya passati atha nibbindati dukkhe
esa maggo visuddhiya.
Dhammapada Verse 277: "All conditioned phenomena are impermanent"; when one sees
this with Insight-wisdom, one becomes weary of dukkha (i.e., the
khandhas). This is the Path to Purity.

Certainly traditional rebirth is heavily referenced in the earliest sutras of the Buddha.

There are many references to rebirth in the early Buddhist scriptures.
These are some of the more important; Mahakammavibhanga Sutta
(Majjhima Nikaya 136); Upali Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 56); Kukkuravatika
Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 57); Moliyasivaka Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya
36.21); Sankha Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya 42.8).
See more: Wikipedia-Rebirth(Buddhism)

The specifics of the concept of rebirth however was left sufficiently vague by the Buddha, since he was first and foremost concerned with liberation from suffering, and not in solving philosophical debates of the intellectual kind.
This has led to several schools of thought regarding a persistent self and nuanced details of rebirth. However, there were no Buddhist schools of thought denying rebirths, which may be instructive.

The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṅa Sūtra, especially influential in East
Asian Buddhist thought, goes so far as to speak of it as our true self
(ātman). Its precise metaphysical and ontolo-gical status is, however,
open to interpretation in the terms of different Mahāyāna
philosophical schools; for the Madhyamikas it must be empty of its own
existence like everything else; for the Yogacarins, following the
Laṅkāvatāra, it can be identified with store consciousness, as the
receptacle of the seeds of awakening.
Source: The Foundations of Buddhism, Gethin, 1998, page 52

I'll finally leave you with this,
SN 56.31 Simsapa Sutta: The Simsapa Leaves

Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa1 forest.
Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the
monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few
simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?"
"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord.
Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous."
"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct
knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have
taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected
with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do
not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to
direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have
not taught them.
"And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of
stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of
practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have
taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected
with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to
disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct
knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught
them.
"Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is
the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your
duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to
the cessation of stress.'"


user13375: 
"In this sense, rebirth happens only in our present life and not after
our physical death. Is there any evidence in the early canon to
support that the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in the above sense?"

This view is incompatible with the doctrine of anatta in Buddhism and thus fails the three seals and cannot be true dhamma. It is also directly contradicted by the Pali Canon and the Buddha himself. See AN 5.38:

They first teach Dhamma to the faithful, not so much the unfaithful.
When their body breaks up, after death, the faithful are reborn in a
good place, a heavenly realm.

Those wishing to advocate that rebirth was not taught by the Buddha should honestly grapple with and explain why we should adopt a tortured reading of the above sutta or disparage the sutta to conform to biased views against the Buddha's teaching on faith leading to a fortunate rebirth.

user20994: In this sense, rebirth happens only in our present life and not after our physical death.
No, there is no support for what you are claiming. The Buddha said beings according to their actions are born in heaven or hell after death. So the teaching is a crucial ethical underpinning to Buddism and should not be discounted or attached as its been done by most of the answered given here.
The Buddha did teach re-birth. Unless there is a hidden agenda to discredit his teaching it should not even be brought to question.
Quoted below is part Tevijjavacchagotta Sutta

"The recluse Gotama knows the three knowledge's. Saying it thus they
would be saying the right thing, and not blaming me falsely. Vaccha,
whenever I desire, I recollect the manifold previous births, such as
one birth, two births, with all modes and all details, thus I recall
the manifold previous births. Vaccha, when I desire, with the purified
heavenly eye beyond human, see beings disappearing and appearing, in
un-exalted and exalted states, beautiful and ugly, in good and bad
states—I see beings, according their actions. Vaccha, destroying
desires, my mind released and released through wisdom, here and now by
myself realizing I abide. Vaccha, if it is said, the recluse Gotama
knows the three knowledge's, saying it thus, you would be saying the
right thing and not blaming me falsely’.
When this was said, the wandering ascetic Vacchagotta said thus to the
Blessed One: "Good Gotama, are there any laymen who without giving up
the lay bonds, would make an end of unpleasantness after death?"
"No, Vaccha, there aren’t any laymen who, without giving up the
fetters of attachment have made an end of unpleasantness.."
"Good Gotama, are there any laymen born in heaven after death without
giving up the fetters of attachment?"
"Vaccha, not one hundred, not two hundred, not three hundred, not four
hundred, not five hundred, many more, are born in heaven after death
without giving up the fetters of attachment."
"Good Gotama, are there any ascetics who have made an end of
unpleasantness after death?"
"No, Vaccha, there isn’t any ascetic, who has made an end of
unpleasantness, after death."
"Good Gotama, are there any ascetics who are born in heaven after
death?
"Vaccha, I recollected so many as ninety one world cycles and did not
see any ascetic born in heaven, except for a certain one who was of
the view, there are results for actions."
"Good Gotama, if that is so, all other faiths are useless even without
a birth in heaven."
The Blessed One said thus and wandering ascetic Vacchagotta delighted
in the words of the Blessed One.


user471: 
OP: I suspect the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in a sense different from
its traditional meaning. Probably he meant that ... sense of separate
self is repeatedly being born, decaying, dying and being reborn until
... Nirvana.

Yes, the above is right. I removed "our" and "we".
When most people think of rebirth, they think the permanent consciousness that has existed from childhood will continue into another life. They think consciousness is self. However, the Buddha taught that consciousness is impermanent, constantly changing and is dependently originated.
This is found in MN 38:

Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to
him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to
him, "Is it true, Sāti, that this pernicious view has arisen in you —
'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this
consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another'?"
"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed
One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not
another."
"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?"
"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to
the ripening of good & evil actions."
"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the
Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently
co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is
no coming-into-play of consciousness'? But you, through your own poor
grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and
produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term
harm & suffering."

The rest of the sutta explains the dependent arising of consciousness and other things.
So, the Buddha did indeed teach that it is the mental idea of the self that is (re)born. It is individuality that is (re)born, not the individual. Please also see this answer.
This is also in line with the teaching of sabbe dhamma anatta - all phenomena is not self.

OP: In this sense, rebirth happens only in our present
life and not after our physical death. Is there any evidence in the
early canon to support that the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in the
above sense?

OUR present life? After OUR physical death? Who is "our"?
From SN 12.20:

“When, bhikkhus, a noble disciple has clearly seen with correct wisdom
as it really is this dependent origination and these dependently
arisen phenomena, it is impossible that he will run back into the
past, thinking: ‘Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past?
What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what
did I become in the past?’ Or that he will run forward into the
future, thinking: ‘Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the
future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future?
Having been what, what will I become in the future?’ Or that he will
now be inwardly confused about the present thus: ‘Do I exist? Do I not
exist? What am I? How am I? This being—where has it come from, and
where will it go?’

The process of birth and death of the mental idea of the self continues until Nirvana. But you can't ask whose self it is. The first noble truth is that "there is suffering". It's not your suffering or my suffering. It's just suffering. And this suffering is ended by the cessation of craving and ignorance. Also don't ask whose ignorance and whose craving.
Believing that physical death is a special moment that fundamentally changes the process of birth (of the mental idea of the self) that happens from moment to moment is the same as believing that something ultimately existed and has ceased to exist (i.e. annihilationism).

user120: The interpretation you offer is not in line with the Buddha's teachings as I understand them. Other, western Buddhists have suggested similar interpretations, however, literal reincarnation is a repeated theme throughout the suttas. Here are a few reasons that I think the non-literal or 'this lifetime' interpretation of rebirth is not tenable.
(1) When discussing rebirth, as ChrisW pointed out, the phrasing that thematically appears makes it clear that it is meant to be literal, as in the Saleyyaka Sutta: 

"Householders, it is by reason of conduct not in accordance with the
  Dhamma, by reason of unrighteous conduct, that beings here on the
  dissolution of the body, after death (emphasis mine), reappear in states of
  deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. It
  is by reason of conduct in accordance with the Dhamma, by reason of
  righteous conduct, that some beings here on the dissolution of the
  body, after death, reappear in a happy destination, even in the
  heavenly world."

The same phrasing appears elsewhere, e.g., in the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta.
(2) The Buddha occasionally declares the destination of deceased persons; i.e., he says where they have been reborn (or that they will not be reborn).
(3) The Buddhist cosmology explicitly declares the existence of various hell and heaven realms and beings that populate them. These are possible destinations after death for a human being, as are rebirth as an animal or a hungry ghost.
(4) The Buddha distinguishes between the fruits of kamma in the 'here and now' and those in future births. That the Buddha is talking about reincarnation is made perfectly clear by this conversation with his disciple, General Siha, in the Siha Sutta:

When this was said, General Siha said to the Blessed One: "As for the
  four fruits of generosity visible in the here & now that have been
  pointed out by the Blessed One, it's not the case that I go by
  conviction in the Blessed One with regard to them. I know them, too. I
  am one who gives, a master of giving, dear & charming to people at
  large. I am one who gives, a master of giving; good people, people of
  integrity, admire me. I am one who gives, a master of giving, and my
  fine reputation is spread far & wide: 'Siha is generous, a doer, a
  supporter of the Sangha.' I am one who gives, a master of giving, and
  when I approach any assembly of people — noble warriors, brahmans,
  householders, or contemplatives — I do so confidently & without
  embarrassment. (Context note: The Buddha has just finished outlining the fruits of generosity in this life; they are those which the general says he enjoys, i.e., one is dear and charming, admired, of good reputation, and approaches assemblies confidently).
"But when the Blessed One says to me, 'At the break-up of the body,
  after death, one who gives, who is a master of giving, reappears in a
  good destination, the heavenly world,' that I do not know. That is
  where I go by conviction in the Blessed One."
"So it is, Siha. So it is. At the break-up of the body, after death,
  one who gives, who is a master of giving, reappears in a good
  destination, the heavenly world."

Again, the general directly knows how generosity leads to good results and certain consequences within the present life, but needs to rely upon the Buddha in faith for knowledge of what happens after death.
I think there are more reasons but this should be enough to establish that the Buddha of the suttas was talking about literal rebirth.
Finally, in the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha declares that if one undertakes right actions, they will benefit in the here and now and can also be assured that (although they doubt the doctrine of reincarnation) if there is rebirth that is causally connected to one's deeds, then one will be born in a good destination.
Further reading: For what I think is an interesting discussion of this and other issues of western Buddhist modernism, see B. Alan Wallace's critique of Stephen Batchelor's views on Buddhism: Distorted visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and atheist and Batchelor's reply: An open letter to B. Alan Wallace

user4749: I offer this article, "A Secular Evaluation of Rebirth", as a possible answer to your question.

It starts with,

Insofar as we know anything about his dhamma, we know that the Buddha taught literal rebirth.


After looking at evidence gathered by Ian Stevenson, considering whether memories are trustworthy, and whether we have any physical theories for rebirth, it concludes,

It is for reasons such as these that any contemporary, scientifically informed Buddhist practice should reject belief in rebirth and its associated kammic causation. The Path is rich enough without them. And while we can make good use of kamma and rebirth as metaphor for our moment-to-moment lived experience of change, or of skillful and unskillful action, we simply cannot make any more of it and expect to end up with a system which is compatible with our best understanding of the way the world works.



In general, I think the Pali canon does not agree with your interpretation, though the article makes clear that there are Buddhists who do (I am one of them). You might look to "Secular" Buddhism for more about this.

user254: On searching the Pali cannon for the words 'death' and 'reborn' there are many suttas which include the phrase,

... with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn ...

In this Translator's Introduction, Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote,

This sutta teaches how to understand the relationship of consciousness
  to rebirth in a way that helps put an end to rebirth.
Although the Buddha never used any word corresponding to "rebirth" in
  his teachings, he did describe birth as a process following on death
  again and again as long as the appropriate conditions are present. In
  other words, even though he didn't use the word "rebirth," his
  teachings on birth are teachings on repeated birth: how it happens,
  how it inherently involves suffering and stress, and how it can be
  brought to an end.
The idea that death can be followed by birth was not universally
  accepted in India in the Buddha's time. As DN 2 and MN 101 show, some
  prominent contemplative schools actively rejected the idea of rebirth
  while others affirmed it. Thus when the Buddha taught rebirth, he
  wasn't simply following an unexamined cultural assumption. He was
  consciously taking a stand on one of the controversial issues of his
  time. However, his explanation of rebirth differed from other schools
  on both sides of the issue in that he avoided the question of whether
  or not there's a "what" that gets reborn, or if there is a "what,"
  what it is (SN 12.12; SN 12.35). He also discouraged such speculations
  as, "If I take rebirth, what was I in the past, and what will I be in
  the future?" (MN 2)

He also writes the following, which agrees with what you asked in the question (not rebirth-during-this-life instead of rebirth-after-death, but at least rebirth-during-this-life as well as rebirth-after-death),

However, a being — in the Buddha's sense of the term — not only takes birth after the death of the body, it can also take birth, die, and be reborn many times in the course of a day — as attachment develops for one desire, ends, and then develops for another desire. This is why the processes leading to rebirth after death can be observed and redirected in the present moment during life. This is why the ability to understand and observe the processes of dependent co-arising is so important in putting an end to rebirth on all its many levels.


user18: 
I suspect the Buddha used the term "rebirth" 

The entire premise of your question is faulty, unfortunately. The Buddha never, afaik, used a term that could be translated as "rebirth". In fact, the idea of anything being reborn goes against orthodox early Buddhist teachings. Throughout the Buddha's teachings, it is made clear that at the breakup of the body there is birth, not rebirth - as in birth of new things, not the return of anything old.

Probably he meant that our sense of separate self is repeatedly being born, decaying, dying and being reborn until we attain Nirvana. 

Since the Buddha never taught the idea of self and denounced any view of self as leading to suffering (MN 22), this is highly unlikely to be correct.

In this sense, rebirth happens only in our present life and not after our physical death. 

To repeat, according to early Buddhism, rebirth never happens. In this life, there is what is called khaṇika-maraṇa - death of a moment. Each momentary experience is born and dies, never to arise again. At the moment of conceptual death (sammuti-maraṇa), this process of momentary birth and death continues unimpeded unless one has experienced "death by cutting off" (samuccheda-maraṇa) - i.e. of the defilements (q.v. Vism VIII.167) - in which case there is no further arising.
To put it succinctly, physical death isn't even real according to early Buddhism; it is a concept based on the artificial construct of a "being" who is "born".

Is there any evidence in the early canon to support that the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in the above sense?

No.

5442: <p>I suspect the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in a sense different from its traditional meaning. Probably he meant that our <strong>sense of separate self</strong> is repeatedly being born, decaying, dying and being reborn until we attain Nirvana. In this sense, rebirth happens only in our <strong>present life and not after our physical death</strong>. Is there any evidence in the early canon to support that the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in the above sense?</p>
 715: <p>First I will offer some background before I say anything about what the Buddha said or didn't about rebirth.</p>
<p>Logically speaking, both view points are true since consciousness is not affected at the time of physical death or rebirth.</p>
<p>You mention in the comments that you are not comfortable with the traditional idea of rebirth, which is okay, take what you can verify and trust. If tomorrow you change your mind because of new insights, that's okay. If not, that's okay too. You don't have to agree with others, be independent using your logical faculties as your guide.</p>
<hr />
<p>My submission is that in 2500 years the numerous brilliant minds in Buddhism and other Indian traditions were not all so dense as to not be aware of material reality, and there were certainly some schools (Lokayatika) who were only concerned with impermanence in the material reality.</p>
<p>In fact there is the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.048.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Lokayatika Sutta</a> where the Buddha specifically confronts the position of material reality being the only truth.</p>
<hr />
<p>Heraclitus, a near contemporary of the Buddha has a pithy saying that <em>&quot;You could not step twice into the same river.&quot;</em> meaning the body and mind is ever changing. This is often quoted by modern dharma teachers in the West because it perfectly reflects the Buddhist teaching on emptiness, and impermanence.</p>
<p>Here is what the Dhammapada says on impermanence in the present moment -</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>Sabbe sankhara anicca&quot; ti yada pannaya passati atha nibbindati dukkhe
esa maggo visuddhiya.</em></p>
<p><em><strong>Dhammapada Verse 277</strong></em>: &quot;All conditioned phenomena are impermanent&quot;; when one sees
this with Insight-wisdom, one becomes weary of dukkha (i.e., the
khandhas). This is the Path to Purity.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Certainly traditional rebirth is heavily referenced in the earliest sutras of the Buddha.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There are many references to rebirth in the early Buddhist scriptures.
These are some of the more important; Mahakammavibhanga Sutta
(Majjhima Nikaya 136); Upali Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 56); Kukkuravatika
Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 57); Moliyasivaka Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya
36.21); Sankha Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya 42.8).</p>
<p>See more: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia-Rebirth(Buddhism)</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The specifics of the concept of rebirth however was left sufficiently vague by the Buddha, since he was first and foremost concerned with liberation from suffering, and not in solving philosophical debates of the intellectual kind.</p>
<p>This has led to several schools of thought regarding a persistent self and nuanced details of rebirth. However, there were no Buddhist schools of thought denying rebirths, which may be instructive.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṅa Sūtra, especially influential in East
Asian Buddhist thought, goes so far as to speak of it as our true self
(ātman). Its precise metaphysical and ontolo-gical status is, however,
open to interpretation in the terms of different Mahāyāna
philosophical schools; for the Madhyamikas it must be empty of its own
existence like everything else; for the Yogacarins, following the
Laṅkāvatāra, it can be identified with store consciousness, as the
receptacle of the seeds of awakening.<br />
Source: <a href="http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/The%20Foundations%20of%20Buddhism_Gethin_1998.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Foundations of Buddhism, Gethin, 1998, page 52</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>I'll finally leave you with this,</p>
<p><a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 56.31 Simsapa Sutta: The Simsapa Leaves</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa<a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.048.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1</a> forest.
Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the
monks, &quot;What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few
simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord.
Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous.&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct
knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have
taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected
with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do
not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to
direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have
not taught them.</p>
<p>&quot;And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of
stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of
practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have
taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected
with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to
disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct
knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught
them.</p>
<p>&quot;Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is
the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your
duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to
the cessation of stress.'&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
 13375: <blockquote>
<p>&quot;In this sense, rebirth happens only in our present life and not after
our physical death. Is there any evidence in the early canon to
support that the Buddha used the term &quot;rebirth&quot; in the above sense?&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This view is incompatible with the doctrine of anatta in Buddhism and thus fails the three seals and cannot be true dhamma. It is also directly contradicted by <a href="https://suttacentral.net/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the Pali Canon</a> and the Buddha himself. See <a href="https://suttacentral.net/an5.38/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 5.38:</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>They first teach Dhamma to the faithful, not so much the unfaithful.
<strong>When their body breaks up, after death, the faithful are reborn in a
good place, a heavenly realm.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Those wishing to advocate that rebirth was not taught by the Buddha should <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/44599/what-did-the-buddha-mean-in-an-5-38-with-the-fifth-benefit-to-a-person-of-faith">honestly grapple with and explain</a> why we should adopt a tortured reading of the above sutta or disparage the sutta to conform to biased views against the Buddha's teaching on faith leading to a fortunate rebirth.</p>
 20994: <p><strong>In this sense, rebirth happens only in our present life and not after our physical death.</strong></p>
<p>No, there is no support for what you are claiming. The Buddha said beings according to their actions are born in heaven or hell after death. So the teaching is a crucial ethical underpinning to Buddism and should not be discounted or attached as its been done by most of the answered given here.</p>
<p>The Buddha did teach re-birth. Unless there is a hidden agenda to discredit his teaching it should not even be brought to question.</p>
<p>Quoted below is part Tevijjavacchagotta Sutta</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;The recluse Gotama knows the three knowledge's. Saying it thus they
would be saying the right thing, and not blaming me falsely. Vaccha,
whenever I desire, I recollect the manifold previous births, such as
one birth, two births, with all modes and all details, thus I recall
the manifold previous births. Vaccha, when I desire, with the purified
heavenly eye beyond human, see beings disappearing and appearing, in
un-exalted and exalted states, beautiful and ugly, in good and bad
states—I see beings, according their actions. Vaccha, destroying
desires, my mind released and released through wisdom, here and now by
myself realizing I abide. Vaccha, if it is said, the recluse Gotama
knows the three knowledge's, saying it thus, you would be saying the
right thing and not blaming me falsely’.</p>
<p>When this was said, the wandering ascetic Vacchagotta said thus to the
Blessed One: &quot;Good Gotama, are there any laymen who without giving up
the lay bonds, would make an end of unpleasantness after death?&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;No, Vaccha, there aren’t any laymen who, without giving up the
fetters of attachment have made an end of unpleasantness..&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;Good Gotama, are there any laymen born in heaven after death without
giving up the fetters of attachment?&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;Vaccha, not one hundred, not two hundred, not three hundred, not four
hundred, not five hundred, many more, are born in heaven after death
without giving up the fetters of attachment.&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;Good Gotama, are there any ascetics who have made an end of
unpleasantness after death?&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;No, Vaccha, there isn’t any ascetic, who has made an end of
unpleasantness, after death.&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;Good Gotama, are there any ascetics who are born in heaven after
death?</p>
<p>&quot;Vaccha, I recollected so many as ninety one world cycles and did not
see any ascetic born in heaven, except for a certain one who was of
the view, there are results for actions.&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;Good Gotama, if that is so, all other faiths are useless even without
a birth in heaven.&quot;</p>
<p>The Blessed One said thus and wandering ascetic Vacchagotta delighted
in the words of the Blessed One.</p>
</blockquote>
 471: <blockquote>
<p><strong>OP:</strong> I suspect the Buddha used the term &quot;rebirth&quot; in a sense different from
its traditional meaning. Probably he meant that ... <strong>sense of separate
self</strong> is repeatedly being born, decaying, dying and being reborn until
... Nirvana.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, the above is right. I removed &quot;our&quot; and &quot;we&quot;.</p>
<p>When most people think of rebirth, they think the permanent consciousness that has existed from childhood will continue into another life. They think consciousness is self. However, the Buddha taught that consciousness is impermanent, constantly changing and is dependently originated.</p>
<p>This is found in <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 38</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to
him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to
him, &quot;Is it true, Sāti, that this pernicious view has arisen in you —
'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this
consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another'?&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed
One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not
another.&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here &amp; there to
the ripening of good &amp; evil actions.&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the
Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently
co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is
no coming-into-play of consciousness'? But you, through your own poor
grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and
produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term
harm &amp; suffering.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The rest of the sutta explains the dependent arising of consciousness and other things.</p>
<p>So, the Buddha did indeed teach that it is the mental idea of the self that is (re)born. It is individuality that is (re)born, not the individual. Please also see <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/44426/471">this answer</a>.</p>
<p>This is also in line with the teaching of <em>sabbe dhamma anatta</em> - all phenomena is not self.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>OP:</strong> In this sense, <strong>rebirth happens only in our present
life and not after our physical death</strong>. Is there any evidence in the
early canon to support that the Buddha used the term &quot;rebirth&quot; in the
above sense?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>OUR present life? After OUR physical death? Who is &quot;our&quot;?</p>
<p>From <a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn12.20/en/bodhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 12.20</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“When, bhikkhus, a noble disciple has clearly seen with correct wisdom
as it really is this dependent origination and these dependently
arisen phenomena, it is impossible that he will run back into the
past, thinking: ‘Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past?
What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what
did I become in the past?’ Or that he will run forward into the
future, thinking: ‘Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the
future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future?
Having been what, what will I become in the future?’ Or that he will
now be inwardly confused about the present thus: ‘Do I exist? Do I not
exist? What am I? How am I? This being—where has it come from, and
where will it go?’</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The process of birth and death of the mental idea of the self continues until Nirvana. But you can't ask whose self it is. The first noble truth is that &quot;there is suffering&quot;. It's not your suffering or my suffering. It's just suffering. And this suffering is ended by the cessation of craving and ignorance. Also don't ask whose ignorance and whose craving.</p>
<p>Believing that physical death is a special moment that fundamentally changes the process of birth (of the mental idea of the self) that happens from moment to moment is the same as believing that something ultimately existed and has ceased to exist (i.e. annihilationism).</p>
 120: <p>The interpretation you offer is not in line with the Buddha's teachings as I understand them. Other, western Buddhists have suggested similar interpretations, however, literal reincarnation is a repeated theme throughout the suttas. Here are a few reasons that I think the non-literal or 'this lifetime' interpretation of rebirth is not tenable.</p>

<p>(1) When discussing rebirth, as ChrisW pointed out, the phrasing that thematically appears makes it clear that it is meant to be literal, as in the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.041.nymo.html" rel="nofollow">Saleyyaka Sutta</a>: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Householders, it is by reason of conduct not in accordance with the
  Dhamma, by reason of unrighteous conduct, that beings here <strong>on the
  dissolution of the body, after death</strong> (emphasis mine), reappear in states of
  deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. It
  is by reason of conduct in accordance with the Dhamma, by reason of
  righteous conduct, that some beings here on the dissolution of the
  body, after death, reappear in a happy destination, even in the
  heavenly world."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The same phrasing appears elsewhere, e.g., in the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.136.nymo.html" rel="nofollow">Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta</a>.</p>

<p>(2) The Buddha occasionally declares the destination of deceased persons; i.e., he says where they have been reborn (or that they will not be reborn).</p>

<p>(3) The Buddhist cosmology explicitly declares the existence of various hell and heaven realms and beings that populate them. These are possible destinations after death for a human being, as are rebirth as an animal or a hungry ghost.</p>

<p>(4) The Buddha distinguishes between the fruits of kamma in the 'here and now' and those in future births. That the Buddha is talking about reincarnation is made perfectly clear by this conversation with his disciple, General Siha, in the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.034.than.html" rel="nofollow">Siha Sutta</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>When this was said, General Siha said to the Blessed One: "As for the
  four fruits of generosity visible in the here &amp; now that have been
  pointed out by the Blessed One, it's not the case that I go by
  conviction in the Blessed One with regard to them. I know them, too. I
  am one who gives, a master of giving, dear &amp; charming to people at
  large. I am one who gives, a master of giving; good people, people of
  integrity, admire me. I am one who gives, a master of giving, and my
  fine reputation is spread far &amp; wide: 'Siha is generous, a doer, a
  supporter of the Sangha.' I am one who gives, a master of giving, and
  when I approach any assembly of people — noble warriors, brahmans,
  householders, or contemplatives — I do so confidently &amp; without
  embarrassment. (<strong>Context note:</strong> <em>The Buddha has just finished outlining the fruits of generosity in this life; they are those which the general says he enjoys, i.e., one is dear and charming, admired, of good reputation, and approaches assemblies confidently</em>).</p>
  
  <p>"But when the Blessed One says to me, 'At the break-up of the body,
  after death, one who gives, who is a master of giving, reappears in a
  good destination, the heavenly world,' that I do not know. That is
  where I go by conviction in the Blessed One."</p>
  
  <p>"So it is, Siha. So it is. At the break-up of the body, after death,
  one who gives, who is a master of giving, reappears in a good
  destination, the heavenly world."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Again, the general directly knows how generosity leads to good results and certain consequences within the present life, but needs to rely upon the Buddha in faith for knowledge of what happens after death.</p>

<p>I think there are more reasons but this should be enough to establish that the Buddha of the suttas was talking about literal rebirth.</p>

<p>Finally, in the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html" rel="nofollow">Kalama Sutta</a>, the Buddha declares that if one undertakes right actions, they will benefit in the here and now and can also be assured that (although they doubt the doctrine of reincarnation) if there is rebirth that is causally connected to one's deeds, then one will be born in a good destination.</p>

<p><strong>Further reading:</strong> For what I think is an interesting discussion of this and other issues of western Buddhist modernism, see B. Alan Wallace's critique of Stephen Batchelor's views on Buddhism: <a href="http://fpmt.org/mandala/archives/mandala-issues-for-2010/october/distorted-visions-of-buddhism-agnostic-and-atheist/" rel="nofollow">Distorted visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and atheist</a> and Batchelor's reply: <a href="http://fpmt.org/mandala/archives/mandala-issues-for-2011/january/an-open-letter-to-b-alan-wallace/" rel="nofollow">An open letter to B. Alan Wallace</a></p>
 4749: <p>I offer this article, &quot;<a href="https://secularbuddhism.org/a-secular-evaluation-of-rebirth/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">A Secular Evaluation of Rebirth</a>&quot;, as a possible answer to your question.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>It starts with,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Insofar as we know anything about his dhamma, we know that the Buddha taught literal rebirth.</p>
</blockquote>
</li>
<li><p>After looking at evidence gathered by Ian Stevenson, considering whether memories are trustworthy, and whether we have any physical theories for rebirth, it concludes,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is for reasons such as these that any contemporary, scientifically informed Buddhist practice should reject belief in rebirth and its associated kammic causation. The Path is rich enough without them. And while we can make good use of kamma and rebirth as metaphor for our moment-to-moment lived experience of change, or of skillful and unskillful action, we simply cannot make any more of it and expect to end up with a system which is compatible with our best understanding of the way the world works.</p>
</blockquote>
</li>
</ul>
<p>In general, I think the Pali canon does <em>not</em> agree with your interpretation, though the article makes clear that there are Buddhists who do (I am one of them). You might look to &quot;Secular&quot; Buddhism for more about this.</p>
 254: <p>On <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/search_results.html?cx=015061908441090246348%3Adj4lxnh4dda&amp;cof=FORID%3A9%3BNB%3A1&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;q=death+reborn&amp;sa=Search&amp;siteurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.accesstoinsight.org%2F" rel="noreferrer">searching the Pali cannon for the words 'death' and 'reborn'</a> there are many suttas which include the phrase,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>... with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn ...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In this <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html" rel="noreferrer">Translator's Introduction</a>, Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>This sutta teaches how to understand the relationship of consciousness
  to rebirth in a way that helps put an end to rebirth.</p>
  
  <p>Although the Buddha never used any word corresponding to "rebirth" in
  his teachings, he did describe birth as a process following on death
  again and again as long as the appropriate conditions are present. In
  other words, even though he didn't use the word "rebirth," his
  teachings on birth are teachings on repeated birth: how it happens,
  how it inherently involves suffering and stress, and how it can be
  brought to an end.</p>
  
  <p>The idea that death can be followed by birth was not universally
  accepted in India in the Buddha's time. As DN 2 and MN 101 show, some
  prominent contemplative schools actively rejected the idea of rebirth
  while others affirmed it. Thus when the Buddha taught rebirth, he
  wasn't simply following an unexamined cultural assumption. He was
  consciously taking a stand on one of the controversial issues of his
  time. However, his explanation of rebirth differed from other schools
  on both sides of the issue in that he avoided the question of whether
  or not there's a "what" that gets reborn, or if there is a "what,"
  what it is (SN 12.12; SN 12.35). He also discouraged such speculations
  as, "If I take rebirth, what was I in the past, and what will I be in
  the future?" (MN 2)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>He also writes the following, which agrees with what you asked in the question (not rebirth-during-this-life instead of rebirth-after-death, but at least rebirth-during-this-life as well as rebirth-after-death),</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>However, a being — in the Buddha's sense of the term — not only takes birth after the death of the body, it can also take birth, die, and be reborn many times in the course of a day — as attachment develops for one desire, ends, and then develops for another desire. This is why the processes leading to rebirth after death can be observed and redirected in the present moment during life. This is why the ability to understand and observe the processes of dependent co-arising is so important in putting an end to rebirth on all its many levels.</p>
</blockquote>
 18: <blockquote>
  <p>I suspect the Buddha used the term "rebirth" </p>
</blockquote>

<p>The entire premise of your question is faulty, unfortunately. The Buddha never, afaik, used a term that could be translated as "rebirth". In fact, the idea of anything being reborn goes against orthodox early Buddhist teachings. Throughout the Buddha's teachings, it is made clear that at the breakup of the body there is birth, not rebirth - as in birth of new things, not the return of anything old.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Probably he meant that our sense of separate self is repeatedly being born, decaying, dying and being reborn until we attain Nirvana. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Since the Buddha never taught the idea of self and denounced any view of self as leading to suffering (MN 22), this is highly unlikely to be correct.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In this sense, rebirth happens only in our present life and not after our physical death. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>To repeat, according to early Buddhism, rebirth never happens. In this life, there is what is called <em>khaṇika-maraṇa</em> - death of a moment. Each momentary experience is born and dies, never to arise again. At the moment of conceptual death (<em>sammuti-maraṇa</em>), this process of momentary birth and death continues unimpeded unless one has experienced "death by cutting off" (<em>samuccheda-maraṇa</em>) - i.e. of the defilements (q.v. Vism VIII.167) - in which case there is no further arising.</p>

<p>To put it succinctly, physical death isn't even real according to early Buddhism; it is a concept based on the artificial construct of a "being" who is "born".</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Is there any evidence in the early canon to support that the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in the above sense?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>No.</p>
