user-1: According to MN 60 and other suttas, believing in karma and afterlife is right view and believing that there is no karma and afterlife is unskillful and a wrong view because there is actually karma and next world. 

"Now, householders, of those contemplatives & brahmans who hold this doctrine, hold this view — 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves' — it can be expected that, shunning these three skillful activities — good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental conduct — they will adopt & practice these three unskillful activities: bad bodily conduct, bad verbal conduct, bad mental conduct. Why is that? Because those venerable contemplatives & brahmans do not see, in unskillful activities, the drawbacks, the degradation, and the defilement; nor in skillful activities the rewards of renunciation, resembling cleansing.
"Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks, 'There is no next world' is his wrong view. Because there actually is the next world, when he is resolved that 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong resolve. Because there actually is the next world, when he speaks the statement, 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong speech. Because there actually is the next world, when he says that 'There is no next world,' he makes himself an opponent to those arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is the next world, when he persuades another that 'There is no next world,' that is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, he exalts himself and disparages others. Whatever good habituation he previously had is abandoned, while bad habituation is manifested. And this wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong speech, opposition to the arahants, persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, exaltation of self, & disparagement of others: These many evil, unskillful activities come into play, in dependence on wrong view.

This actually make sense. For example, if someone tell you that your mother is dead because he actually saw your mother die then he is telling the truth but if you think that your mother is still alive and not dead then that is a wrong view because your mother is actually dead. In the same way, the Buddha has actually seen how karma works. It is mentioned in MN 36 and some other suttas.

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away & reappearance of beings. I saw — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, & mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech & mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.

So my questions is why don't some buddhists believe in karma and rebirth? The Kalama Sutta does tell us to only believe what we can experience ourself but even then you cannot deny karma and rebirth because it is possible to know them through the fourth jhana. So why don't they just have the view "Karma and rebirth could be real" instead of denying them completely? Is it also kind of a counterfeit dharma if someone says that rebirth and karma are metaphorical and not real? 

user13375: Because they believe there is something real and substantial that ends with the death and breakup of the body. In other words, they (either consciously or subconsciously) believe the atman exists and is real and substantial and that it is utterly annihilated at death with the break up of the body.

user8157: It is wrong view to not believe in kamma & results. However, MN 60 does not refer to any "afterlife". The words "this world" & "the other world" do not necessarily refer to an afterlife. Note: the translation of "next world" is wrong. The Pali word "para" in "para loka" means "other". 
Below is merely a sample of suttas showing "the worlds" are within the mind:

It is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception &
  intellect, that I declare that there is the world, the origination of
  the world, the cessation of the world and the path of practice leading
  to the cessation of the world. AN 4.45

And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is
  contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From
  feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a
  requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite
  condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes
  birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death,
  sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is
  the origination of the world. SN 12.44

I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named ‘Contact’s Sixfold Base.’ There whatever form one sees with the eye is undesirable, never desirable;
  unlovely, never lovely; disagreeable, never agreeable. Whatever sound
  one hears with the ear … Whatever odour one smells with the nose …
  Whatever taste one savours with the tongue … Whatever tactile object
  one feels with the body … Whatever mental phenomenon one cognizes with
  the mind is undesirable, never desirable; unlovely, never lovely;
  disagreeable, never agreeable. SN 35.135

Here, Udayi, the bhikkhu secluded from sensual desires and thoughts of demerit abides in the first jhana: Overcoming thoughts and thought
  processes and the mind in one point internally appeased, without
  thoughts and thought processes abides in the second jhana. Again with
  equanimity to joy and detachment, feeling pleasant with the body too,
  abides in the third jhana. To this the noble ones say abiding in
  pleasantness with equanimity. Udayi, this is the course of actions,
  for realising the world of only pleasant feelings (ekantasukhassa
  lokassa). MN 79

Bhikkhus, there are three kinds of persons found existing in the world. What three? (1) “Here, bhikkhus, some person generates
  afflictive bodily activities, afflictive verbal activities, and
  afflictive mental activities. In consequence, he is reborn in an
  afflictive world. When he is reborn in an afflictive world, afflictive
  contacts touch him. Being touched by afflictive contacts, he feels
  afflictive feelings, exclusively painful, as in the case of
  hell-beings. (2) “Someone else generates unafflictive bodily
  activities, unafflictive verbal activities, and unafflictive mental
  activities. In consequence, he is reborn in an unafflictive world.
  When he is reborn in an unafflictive world, unafflictive contacts
  touch him. Being touched by unafflictive contacts, he feels
  unafflictive feelings, exclusively pleasant, as in the case of the
  devas of refulgent glory. (3) “Still another generates bodily
  activities that are both afflictive and unafflictive, verbal
  activities that are both afflictive and unafflictive, and mental
  activities that are both afflictive and unafflictive. In consequence,
  he is reborn in a world that is both afflictive and unafflictive. When
  he is reborn in a world that is both afflictive and unafflictive, both
  afflictive and unafflictive contacts touch him. Being touched by both
  afflictive and unafflictive contacts, he feels both afflictive and
  unafflictive feelings, mingled pleasure and pain, as in the case of
  human beings, some devas, and some beings in the lower worlds. “These,
  bhikkhus, are the three kinds of persons found existing in the world.”
  AN 3.23

Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be evident from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. Yet, bhikkhus, from
  actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an animal
  birth a ghostly birth or some other bad state would be evident. AN
  6.39


user11009: Many Buddhist are not Sotapanna hence they still have the self-view.
They think what Buddha taught wat that the same person is re-born.
Buddha never said the same person is re-born. What he taught was the Dependent Origination.
Our action has a result. (kamma and Vipaka)
Once you understand Dependent Origination you can accept the Kamma and Re-birth.
Buddhist Kamma and re-birth is not the same as what is taught in Hinduism.
Some Buddhist think that the  Buddhist teaching of Kamma and rebirth is the same d Hinduism.

user471: If there are any Buddhists who hold the view that no beings are reborn, they are certainly right in that there is no absolute thing as a being or self, as Bhikkhuni Vajira reaffirmed to Mara in SN 5.10:

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
  Mara, have you grasped a view?
  This is a heap of sheer constructions:
  Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
  The word 'chariot' is used,
  So, when the aggregates are present,
  There's the convention 'a being.'
It's only suffering that comes to be,
  Suffering that stands and falls away.
  Nothing but suffering comes to be,
  Nothing but suffering ceases.

However, this does not mean that there are no beings at all. It simply means that "being" is a convention to denote the presence of the five aggregates occurring together. There is no absolute entity called being that exists standalone and independently of everything. The same thing applies to the self. There is no standalone or independent thing called self, but the self arises when the five aggregates operate together in the same way music arises when different parts of a violin work together to produce music.
This does not mean that suffering ends at death. Suffering only ends with Nibbana. Suicide is not a means to end suffering.
The fact that suffering does not end with death is evidenced in so many suttas, including MN 60, MN 36, DN 15, SN 15, MN 19, MN 57, SN 44.9, MN 83, DN 2, Dhp 153-154.
Some secular Buddhists claim that rebirth is a moment-to-moment change in one's state of mind, but it does not refer to physical rebirth. However, in MN 19, the Buddha clearly stated that with the break-up of the body, there are beings who are reborn elsewhere:

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished,
  rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to
  imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away &
  reappearance of beings. I saw — by means of the divine eye, purified &
  surpassing the human — beings passing away & re-appearing, and I
  discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly,
  fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings
  — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who
  reviled the Noble Ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under
  the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after
  death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad
  destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were
  endowed with good conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile
  the Noble Ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the
  influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death,
  have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.'
  Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — I
  saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are
  inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in
  accordance with their kamma.

Also DN 15 clearly shows rebirth into a human womb from the context of dependent origination (also see this answer):

"'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.'
  Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from
  consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If
  consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would
  name-and-form take shape in the womb?"
"No, lord."
"If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart,
  would name-and-form be produced for this world?"
"No, lord."
"If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off,
  would name-and-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?"
"No, lord."
"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this
  is a requisite condition for name-and-form, i.e., consciousness."

Another good sutta is SN 44.9 which states:

And at the moment when a being sets this body aside and is not yet
  reborn in another body, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"
"Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in
  another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its
  sustenance at that time."

Here's another - Dhammapada 400:

Akkodhanam vatavantam
  silavantam anussadam
  dantam antimasariram1
  tamaham brumi brahmanam    
Verse 400: Him I call a brahmana, who is free from anger, who
  practises austerity, who is virtuous and free from craving, who is
  controlled in his senses and for whom this body (i.e., existence) is
  the very last.
Footnote 1. antimasariram: lit., one who has the last body. This is his last body because he will not be reborn; he is an arahat.

And another - SN 12.19:

The Blessed One said this:
“Bhikkhus, for the fool, hindered by ignorance and fettered by
  craving, this body has originated. For the fool that ignorance has not
  been abandoned and that craving has not been utterly destroyed. For
  what reason? Because the fool has not lived the holy life for the
  complete destruction of suffering. Therefore, with the breakup of
  the body, the fool fares on to another body. Faring on to another
  body, he is not freed from birth, aging, and death; not freed from
  sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair; not freed from
  suffering, I say.

So, why don't some Buddhists believe in kamma and rebirth?
Well, the answer is that they hold the wrong view of annihilationism, as stated in DN 1 (below). Most of them hold the view of physicalism, that nothing exists beyond the physical world, just as flat-Earthers think the Earth is flat because it apparently appears so to their limited senses.

"There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are
  annihilationists and who on seven grounds proclaim the annihilation,
  destruction, and extermination of an existent being. And owing to
  what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins
  proclaim their views?
"Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the
  following doctrine and view: 'The self, good sir, has material form;
  it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father
  and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed
  with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this
  point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim
  the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.
"To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert.
  That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is
  completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self — divine,
  having material form, pertaining to the sense sphere, feeding on
  edible nutriment. That you neither know nor see, but I know it and see
  it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the
  breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this point the
  self is completely annihilated.' In this way others proclaim the
  annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.
"To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert.
  That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is
  completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self — divine,
  having material form, mind-made, complete in all its limbs and organs,
  not destitute of any faculties. That you neither know nor see, but I
  know it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and
  destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death,
  at this point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way others
  proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an
  existent being.
"To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert.
  That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is
  completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self belonging
  to the base of infinite space, (reached by) the complete surmounting
  of perceptions of material form, by the disappearance of perceptions
  of resistance, by non-attention to perceptions of diversity, (by
  contemplating) "Space is infinite." That you neither know nor see, but
  I know it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and
  destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death,
  at this point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way others
  proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an
  existent being.
"To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert.
  That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is
  completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self belonging
  to the base of infinite consciousness, (reached by) completely
  surmounting the base of infinite space (by contemplating):
  "Consciousness is infinite." That you neither know nor see. But I know
  it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed
  with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death — at this
  point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim
  the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.
"To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert.
  That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is
  completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self belonging
  to the base of nothingness, (reached by) completely surmounting the
  base of infinite consciousness (by contemplating): "There is nothing."
  That you neither know nor see. But I know it and see it. Since this
  self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the
  body and does not exist after death — at this point the self is
  completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim the annihilation,
  destruction, and extermination of an existent being.
"To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert.
  That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is
  completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self belonging
  to the base of neither perception nor non-perception, (reached by)
  completely surmounting the base of nothingness (by contemplating):
  "This is the peaceful, this is the sublime." That you neither know nor
  see. But I know it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is
  annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not
  exist after death — at this point the self is completely annihilated.'
  In this way some proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and
  extermination of an existent being.
"It is on these seven grounds, bhikkhus, that those recluses and
  brahmins who are annihilationists proclaim the annihilation,
  destruction, and extermination of an existent being. Whatever recluses
  or brahmins proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination
  of an existent being, all of them do so on these seven grounds or on a
  certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.


-1: <p>According to MN 60 and other suttas, believing in karma and afterlife is right view and believing that there is no karma and afterlife is unskillful and a wrong view because there is actually karma and next world. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Now, householders, of those contemplatives &amp; brahmans who hold this doctrine, hold this view — 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves' — it can be expected that, shunning these three skillful activities — good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental conduct — they will adopt &amp; practice these three unskillful activities: bad bodily conduct, bad verbal conduct, bad mental conduct. Why is that? Because those venerable contemplatives &amp; brahmans do not see, in unskillful activities, the drawbacks, the degradation, and the defilement; nor in skillful activities the rewards of renunciation, resembling cleansing.</p>
  
  <p>"Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks, 'There is no next world' is his wrong view. Because there actually is the next world, when he is resolved that 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong resolve. Because there actually is the next world, when he speaks the statement, 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong speech. Because there actually is the next world, when he says that 'There is no next world,' he makes himself an opponent to those arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is the next world, when he persuades another that 'There is no next world,' that is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, he exalts himself and disparages others. Whatever good habituation he previously had is abandoned, while bad habituation is manifested. And this wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong speech, opposition to the arahants, persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, exaltation of self, &amp; disparagement of others: These many evil, unskillful activities come into play, in dependence on wrong view.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This actually make sense. For example, if someone tell you that your mother is dead because he actually saw your mother die then he is telling the truth but if you think that your mother is still alive and not dead then that is a wrong view because your mother is actually dead. In the same way, the Buddha has actually seen how karma works. It is mentioned in MN 36 and some other suttas.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, &amp; attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away &amp; reappearance of beings. I saw — by means of the divine eye, purified &amp; surpassing the human — beings passing away &amp; re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior &amp; superior, beautiful &amp; ugly, fortunate &amp; unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, &amp; mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech &amp; mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified &amp; surpassing the human — I saw beings passing away &amp; re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior &amp; superior, beautiful &amp; ugly, fortunate &amp; unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So <strong>my questions is why don't some buddhists believe in karma and rebirth</strong>? The Kalama Sutta does tell us to only believe what we can experience ourself but even then you cannot deny karma and rebirth because it is possible to know them through the fourth jhana. So <strong>why don't they just have the view "Karma and rebirth could be real" instead of denying them completely?</strong> <strong>Is it also kind of a counterfeit dharma if someone says that rebirth and karma are metaphorical and not real?</strong> </p>
 13375: <p>Because they believe there is something real and substantial that ends with the death and breakup of the body. In other words, they (either consciously or subconsciously) believe the atman exists and is real and substantial and that it is utterly annihilated at death with the break up of the body.</p>
 8157: <p>It is wrong view to not believe in kamma &amp; results. However, MN 60 does not refer to any "afterlife". The words "this world" &amp; "the other world" do not necessarily refer to an afterlife. Note: the translation of "next world" is wrong. The Pali word "para" in "para loka" means "other". </p>

<p>Below is merely a sample of suttas showing "the worlds" are within the mind:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>It is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception &amp;
  intellect, that I declare that there is the world, the origination of
  the world, the cessation of the world and the path of practice leading
  to the cessation of the world. AN 4.45</em></p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p><em>And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye &amp; forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is
  contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From
  feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a
  requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite
  condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes
  birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging &amp; death,
  sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, &amp; despair come into play. This is
  the origination of the world. SN 12.44</em></p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p><em>I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named ‘Contact’s Sixfold Base.’ There whatever form one sees with the eye is undesirable, never desirable;
  unlovely, never lovely; disagreeable, never agreeable. Whatever sound
  one hears with the ear … Whatever odour one smells with the nose …
  Whatever taste one savours with the tongue … Whatever tactile object
  one feels with the body … Whatever mental phenomenon one cognizes with
  the mind is undesirable, never desirable; unlovely, never lovely;
  disagreeable, never agreeable. SN 35.135</em></p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p><em>Here, Udayi, the bhikkhu secluded from sensual desires and thoughts of demerit abides in the first jhana: Overcoming thoughts and thought
  processes and the mind in one point internally appeased, without
  thoughts and thought processes abides in the second jhana. Again with
  equanimity to joy and detachment, feeling pleasant with the body too,
  abides in the third jhana. To this the noble ones say abiding in
  pleasantness with equanimity. Udayi, this is the course of actions,
  for realising the world of only pleasant feelings (ekantasukhassa
  lokassa). MN 79</em></p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p><em>Bhikkhus, there are three kinds of persons <strong>found existing in the world</strong>. What three? (1) “Here, bhikkhus, some person generates
  afflictive bodily activities, afflictive verbal activities, and
  afflictive mental activities. In consequence, he is reborn in an
  afflictive world. When he is reborn in an afflictive world, afflictive
  contacts touch him. Being touched by afflictive contacts, he feels
  afflictive feelings, exclusively painful, as in the case of
  hell-beings. (2) “Someone else generates unafflictive bodily
  activities, unafflictive verbal activities, and unafflictive mental
  activities. In consequence, he is reborn in an unafflictive world.
  When he is reborn in an unafflictive world, unafflictive contacts
  touch him. Being touched by unafflictive contacts, he feels
  unafflictive feelings, exclusively pleasant, as in the case of the
  devas of refulgent glory. (3) “Still another generates bodily
  activities that are both afflictive and unafflictive, verbal
  activities that are both afflictive and unafflictive, and mental
  activities that are both afflictive and unafflictive. In consequence,
  he is reborn in a world that is both afflictive and unafflictive. When
  he is reborn in a world that is both afflictive and unafflictive, both
  afflictive and unafflictive contacts touch him. Being touched by both
  afflictive and unafflictive contacts, he feels both afflictive and
  unafflictive feelings, mingled pleasure and pain, as in the case of
  human beings, some devas, and some beings in the lower worlds. “These,
  bhikkhus, are the three kinds of persons found existing in the world.”
  AN 3.23</em></p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p><em>Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be evident from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. Yet, bhikkhus, from
  actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an animal
  birth a ghostly birth or some other bad state would be evident. AN
  6.39</em></p>
</blockquote>
 11009: <p>Many Buddhist are not Sotapanna hence they still have the self-view.
They think what Buddha taught wat that the same person is re-born.
Buddha never said the same person is re-born. What he taught was the Dependent Origination.
Our action has a result. (kamma and Vipaka)
Once you understand Dependent Origination you can accept the Kamma and Re-birth.
Buddhist Kamma and re-birth is not the same as what is taught in Hinduism.
Some Buddhist think that the  Buddhist teaching of Kamma and rebirth is the same d Hinduism.</p>
 471: <p>If there are any Buddhists who hold the view that no beings are reborn, they are certainly right in that there is no absolute thing as a being or self, as Bhikkhuni Vajira reaffirmed to Mara in <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.bodh.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 5.10</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Why now do you assume 'a being'?<br>
  Mara, have you grasped a view?<br>
  This is a heap of sheer constructions:<br>
  Here no being is found.</p>
  
  <p>Just as, with an assemblage of parts,<br>
  The word 'chariot' is used,<br>
  So, when the aggregates are present,<br>
  There's the convention 'a being.'</p>
  
  <p>It's only suffering that comes to be,<br>
  Suffering that stands and falls away.<br>
  Nothing but suffering comes to be,<br>
  Nothing but suffering ceases.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>However, this does not mean that there are no beings at all. It simply means that "being" is a convention to denote the presence of the five aggregates occurring together. There is no absolute entity called being that exists standalone and independently of everything. The same thing applies to the self. There is no standalone or independent thing called self, but the self arises when the five aggregates operate together in the same way music arises when different parts of a violin work together to produce music.</p>

<p>This does not mean that suffering ends at death. Suffering only ends with Nibbana. Suicide is not a means to end suffering.</p>

<p>The fact that suffering does not end with death is evidenced in so many suttas, including <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 60</a>, <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 36</a>, <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN 15</a>, <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/index.html#sn15" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 15</a>, <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 19</a>, <a href="http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/23.11-Kukkuravatika-S-m57-piya.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 57</a>, <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.009.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 44.9</a>, <a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn83/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 83</a>, <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html#recollection" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN 2</a>, <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.11.than.html#dhp-154" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dhp 153-154</a>.</p>

<p>Some secular Buddhists claim that rebirth is a moment-to-moment change in one's state of mind, but it does not refer to physical rebirth. However, in <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 19</a>, the Buddha clearly stated that with the break-up of the body, there are beings who are reborn elsewhere:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished,
  rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, &amp; attained to
  imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away &amp;
  reappearance of beings. I saw — by means of the divine eye, purified &amp;
  surpassing the human — beings passing away &amp; re-appearing, and I
  discerned how they are inferior &amp; superior, beautiful &amp; ugly,
  fortunate &amp; unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings
  — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech &amp; mind, who
  reviled the Noble Ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under
  the influence of wrong views — <strong>with the break-up of the body, after
  death, have re-appeared</strong> in the plane of deprivation, the bad
  destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were
  endowed with good conduct of body, speech, &amp; mind, who did not revile
  the Noble Ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the
  influence of right views — <strong>with the break-up of the body, after death,
  have re-appeared</strong> in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.'
  Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified &amp; surpassing the human — I
  saw beings passing away &amp; re-appearing, and I discerned how they are
  inferior &amp; superior, beautiful &amp; ugly, fortunate &amp; unfortunate in
  accordance with their kamma.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Also <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN 15</a> clearly shows rebirth into a human womb from the context of dependent origination (also see <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26610/471">this answer</a>):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.'
  Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from
  consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If
  consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would
  name-and-form take shape in the womb?"</p>
  
  <p>"No, lord."</p>
  
  <p>"If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart,
  would name-and-form be produced for this world?"</p>
  
  <p>"No, lord."</p>
  
  <p>"If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off,
  would name-and-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?"</p>
  
  <p>"No, lord."</p>
  
  <p>"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this
  is a requisite condition for name-and-form, i.e., consciousness."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Another good sutta is <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.009.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 44.9</a> which states:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>And at the moment when a being sets this body aside and is not yet
  reborn in another body, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"</p>
  
  <p>"Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in
  another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its
  sustenance at that time."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Here's another - <a href="http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=400" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dhammapada 400</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Akkodhanam vatavantam<br>
  silavantam anussadam<br>
  dantam antimasariram<sup>1</sup><br>
  tamaham brumi brahmanam    </p>
  
  <p>Verse 400: Him I call a brahmana, who is free from anger, who
  practises austerity, who is virtuous and free from craving, who is
  controlled in his senses and for whom this body (i.e., existence) is
  the very last.</p>
  
  <p>Footnote 1. antimasariram: lit., one who has the last body. This is his last body because he will not be reborn; he is an arahat.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And another - <a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn12.19/en/bodhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 12.19</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The Blessed One said this:</p>
  
  <p>“Bhikkhus, for the fool, hindered by ignorance and fettered by
  craving, this body has originated. For the fool that ignorance has not
  been abandoned and that craving has not been utterly destroyed. For
  what reason? Because the fool has not lived the holy life for the
  complete destruction of suffering. <strong>Therefore, with the breakup of
  the body, the fool fares on to another body</strong>. Faring on to another
  body, he is not freed from birth, aging, and death; not freed from
  sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair; not freed from
  suffering, I say.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So, why don't some Buddhists believe in kamma and rebirth?</p>

<p>Well, the answer is that they hold the wrong view of annihilationism, as stated in <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN 1</a> (below). Most of them hold the view of <a href="https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_physicalism.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">physicalism</a>, that nothing exists beyond the physical world, just as flat-Earthers think the Earth is flat because it apparently appears so to their limited senses.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are
  annihilationists and who on seven grounds proclaim the annihilation,
  destruction, and extermination of an existent being. And owing to
  what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins
  proclaim their views?</p>
  
  <p>"Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the
  following doctrine and view: 'The self, good sir, has material form;
  it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father
  and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed
  with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this
  point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim
  the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.</p>
  
  <p>"To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert.
  That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is
  completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self — divine,
  having material form, pertaining to the sense sphere, feeding on
  edible nutriment. That you neither know nor see, but I know it and see
  it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the
  breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this point the
  self is completely annihilated.' In this way others proclaim the
  annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.</p>
  
  <p>"To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert.
  That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is
  completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self — divine,
  having material form, mind-made, complete in all its limbs and organs,
  not destitute of any faculties. That you neither know nor see, but I
  know it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and
  destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death,
  at this point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way others
  proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an
  existent being.</p>
  
  <p>"To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert.
  That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is
  completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self belonging
  to the base of infinite space, (reached by) the complete surmounting
  of perceptions of material form, by the disappearance of perceptions
  of resistance, by non-attention to perceptions of diversity, (by
  contemplating) "Space is infinite." That you neither know nor see, but
  I know it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and
  destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death,
  at this point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way others
  proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an
  existent being.</p>
  
  <p>"To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert.
  That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is
  completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self belonging
  to the base of infinite consciousness, (reached by) completely
  surmounting the base of infinite space (by contemplating):
  "Consciousness is infinite." That you neither know nor see. But I know
  it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed
  with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death — at this
  point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim
  the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.</p>
  
  <p>"To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert.
  That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is
  completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self belonging
  to the base of nothingness, (reached by) completely surmounting the
  base of infinite consciousness (by contemplating): "There is nothing."
  That you neither know nor see. But I know it and see it. Since this
  self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the
  body and does not exist after death — at this point the self is
  completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim the annihilation,
  destruction, and extermination of an existent being.</p>
  
  <p>"To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert.
  That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is
  completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self belonging
  to the base of neither perception nor non-perception, (reached by)
  completely surmounting the base of nothingness (by contemplating):
  "This is the peaceful, this is the sublime." That you neither know nor
  see. But I know it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is
  annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not
  exist after death — at this point the self is completely annihilated.'
  In this way some proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and
  extermination of an existent being.</p>
  
  <p>"It is on these seven grounds, bhikkhus, that those recluses and
  brahmins who are annihilationists proclaim the annihilation,
  destruction, and extermination of an existent being. Whatever recluses
  or brahmins proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination
  of an existent being, all of them do so on these seven grounds or on a
  certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.</p>
</blockquote>
