user9982: Elements of Buddhism can be rationally accepted such as the suffering that arises through attachment, the benefits of meditation, and even the acceptance of anatta, or non-self. It seems, however, that a belief in rebirth cannot be accepted rationally. A believer must suspend rationality to accept a theory that describes the migration of some level of consciousness across a lifetime. A common analogy used is the light emitting from a candle. Nothing substantial transmigrates, however something passes over from one life to the next. This theory cannot be directly perceived. Therefore, it cannot be tested, or verified rationally. It is simply a metaphysical inference. 
Buddhism encourages debate and questioning of its theories, and to not accept everything on face value. How then can a Buddhist test this theory? Can one disregard this element of Buddhism? Is it an essential aspect of the philosophy?

user8044: Rebirth is regarded by the Supreme Buddha as essential and foundational to the pursuit of His teachings. This is very evident and is clearly illustrated in the Dependent Origination (Paticca samuppāda) that the being is born in the Becoming (bhava) caused by the grasping or attachment (upādāna) as stated "Upādāna paccaya bhavō, bhava paccaya jati...," But many people have mistaken the Becoming given here to soul or ego (ātma). This clearly shows that 'Rebirth' is integral to the Dependent Origination taught by the Supreme Buddha and is one of the twelve reasons that all of us are unable to comprehend. What are these twelve reasons?

Dependent on ignorance or lack of knowledge arises volitional actions or thoughts or kamma formations: Dependent on volitional actions or thoughts arises consciousness; where the consciousness is created, there exist mind and matter or mental physical phenomena and caused by them, arise spheres of senses (salāyatana) or faculties. Those faculties cause to contact and then get to sensation or feeling. Through feeling arise, desire thirst or craving (tanhā) Through craving arises grasping or clinging which leads to the process of Becoming where the concept of being exists. This existence of the concept of being is subjected to the concept of birth decay, illness and death etc.


user-1: One option is to neither believe nor disbelieve the actions of rebirth.
The very definition of belief is rooted firmly in the absence of fact. The same is true for a non-believer. Somewhere between the two lies a spacious void where one can remain open-minded about the notion of rebirth.
Personally, I shelved it precisely in this way. Two years later insight had occurred and not from books or other people. But still, I'm not able to prove it so it's neither here nor there. You'll have to find out for yourself. Wondering about it in this way may become huge hindrance to your practice. There's nothing wrong with entertaining your curiosity though if you keep the seriousness out of it. 

user10376: Yes, it is. Without it the central concept of kamma would automatically and directly be baseless and meaningless. I would like to offer a down to earth explanation by means of an example from real life. If I am completely wrong, I will appreciate any downvotes and criticism.
If you go to a party, let's say, for clarity's sake, with a lot of your relatives. Let's say it's a wedding party, so conduct is at least somewhat expected. You might get drunk, let loose, and forgo self criticism. You might put up a show, make stupid jokes, hit on ladies that should not be hit on. If you are lucky, some other folks might do similar things while drunk, but especially if you were the only one to misbehave, then, when you wake up in the morning, and it all starts to come back, then it's that feeling that indicates that you have re-emerged (re-born) at a lower plane as a direct result the uncontrolled stupidity you commited during the night before — everyone saw and knew what you did would cause you suffering, but they didn't tell you because you wouldn't have listened, or they did and you didn't listen, so they waited until this very moment that you wake up alone here and now. I would say that is the phenomenon of telepathy. If now, you exit your bedroom and you still "don't remember", people will give you faces of a certain type which will ensure that you cannot ignore your "rebirth", most likely warm and friendly smiles (if they are good people).
And then you say to yourself: "damnit, karma..." (or, "damnit, kamma...", if you are a devout Pāli purist!). And you better go and apologise, and do something to compensate. As well as clean up the mess of your social suicide, after which you will have time to contemplate on the mess prior to the suicide which led you to it in the first place.
This example is easy to follow simply because it all happens very intensely and during a short period of time, and is made up of events of obvious meaning and ramifications, unlike long term deeds and fruits, the connections of which are harder to detect in everyday life — it's like in particle accelerators such as CERN, where everything that is normally slow (spread out in time and space), is made very intense (brought together in time and space), so as to "un-rare" certain normally rare events. You can generalize from the party and hangover example, just as scientists generalize from very intense high-speed collisions. So if for example a man for a long period in his life ignorantly/irresponsibly/uncompassionately, out of sheer sexual desire, sleeps with young easy to seduce drunk girls at parties, one day he will meet a child of one of such girls, who has had to grow up in a family where such a girl, now a mother, still has wounds or scars or emotional voids from such lifestyle, and the upbringing of that child will have been more difficult or lacking as a result. He/she will look you in the eye and something inside you tells you it was you who contributed to it, "in a previous life". Of course the girl/mother herself is at least as responsible obviously, and she might go through a similar rebirth once her child looks her in the eye after having met with such a man, and possibly having connected the ends at some point later in life.
If a person desn't believe in it — and I'm sure every person has experienced something like this first hand, unless perhaps he is Tarzan or Mowgly — then he obviously doesn't believe in reality, i.e. he is ignorant of it. And the Tathagata always teaches us about the reality.

user295: Rebirth
Rebirth and death is momentarily. Each instance the material composition of your body changes, arising and passing away. Physical death is not different. See this answer, this answer and this answer.
How then can a Buddhist test this theory?
By doing Samatha meditation some people can develop memory of past lives. This way you can ascertain it. Also buy validating what you remember. Also there are studies like: Many Mansions: The Edgar Cayce Story on Reincarnation
Can one disregard this element of Buddhism? Is it an essential aspect of the philosophy?
This is an essential part. Each subatomic particle (Kalapas) arise and pass away. Main practice of Buddhism (vipassana) is to understand this at the experiential level.
And finally use this knowledge and insight at the moment or physical death to release oneself from the cycle of birth and death.

user-1: "Elements of Buddhism can be rationally accepted such as the suffering that arises through attachment, the benefits of meditation, and even the acceptance of anatta, or non-self. It seems, however, that a belief in rebirth cannot be accepted rationally."
Indeed, the Buddha described his Dhamma as "The Dhamma visible here & now". However, if that visibility were immediately accessible, we wouldn't have doubts about it, and it would not be necessary a "path" to help us "see it". So, knowledge and skills are necessary to develop understanding, just like knowledge and skills are necessary in sciences to "see" phenomena (e.g. whether the claim of climate change affected by humans is true or not).
In the same way, knowledge and skills are necessary to see past lives according to the Buddha.

"When my concentrated mind was thus purified, bright, unblemished, rid of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, I directed it to knowledge of the recollection of past abodes. I recollected my manifold past abodes, that is, one birth, two births ... 'There I was so named, of such a clan, with such an appearance' ..."
-- MN 36

"A believer must suspend rationality to accept a theory that describes the migration of some level of consciousness across a lifetime."
One does not need to accept (believe) or reject a theory that one is unable to verify at the moment. One can simply be aware of the competing theories and strive to see which one, if any of them, is true. 
In science something similar happens where researchers point out flaws or remaining questions that need to be answer (i.e. that need more research) before accepting a theory.
I find this similar to the way the Buddha taught as well (e.g. refer to the discourse of DN 1). Thus, generally speaking, it's better to try out methods to see the truth than to hold or cling to any view prematurely. Or, more than that:

Who is attached still enters into doctrinal debates,
  but one unattached, how could he take sides?
  For him nothing is taken up or put down,
  With all views shaken off, relying on none.
-- Snp 4.3

Finally, the idea of "what transmigrates" is an old and on going debate, as the Buddha explicitly denied that any substance transmigrates, which would make that very substance something that endures -- that is, a Self (see this question: Then where did the concept of “rebirth” come from?).
"A common analogy used is the light emitting from a candle. Nothing substantial transmigrates, however something passes over from one life to the next. This theory cannot be directly perceived.  Therefore, it cannot be tested, or verified rationally. It is simply a metaphysical inference."
As explained above, the buddhist doctrine asserts this knowledge can be directly perceived without resorting to fragile or indirect means (like beliefs). So, in the context of buddhism, recalling past lives is as metaphysical and irrational as the idea of remembering what one did a few moments ago.
"Buddhism encourages debate and questioning of its theories, and to not accept everything on face value. How then can a Buddhist test this theory"
I'm not able to recall my past lives, so my knowledge is not rooted in practice, only in reading. The progression of meditative attainments the texts shows seem to indicate that one who has mastered the fourth jhana (samadhi practice) possess enough skills in concentration to direct his/her mind to memories of past lives. I've heard that one practice is to gradually recall childhood, infancy, even memories in the womb, and then, to the past life, and so on.
"Can one disregard this element of Buddhism? Is it an essential aspect of the philosophy?"
This question has been asked here: Is rebirth/reincarnation central to Buddhism?. 
There is, though, a Secular Buddhism movement in the west which seem to, literaly, strip out a lot of things from Buddhism, including rebirth. Also, some buddhists who may not subscribe to this movement may also believe rebirth (as in dying and reappearing in another life) is not true or not part of what the Buddha taught.

user-1: KARMA IS ESSENTIAL TO BUDDHISM. Buddha said that if one doesn't believe in karma then it's wrong view. There are many proof for karma. You just need to look back into your life and remember all the bad things that you did and the similar bad experiences that you suffer.

user8157: If SN 12.2 together with SN 23.2, SN 5.10 & SN 22.81 are studied carefully, it appears what the Buddha actually taught about was "birth" ("jati") rather than "rebirth", which is not physical birth from the womb of a woman but instead the birth of the idea, view or mental concept of "beings" ("satta') or, more simply, "self". 
Thus, the goal of Buddhism is to eradicate the birth of the "self" idea, i.e., eradicate attachment,i.e, realise not-self (anatta). The Alagaddupama Sutta states:

There is the case where a monk's conceit 'I am' is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions
  of development, not destined for future arising.
There is the case where a monk's wandering-on to birth, leading on to further-becoming, is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a
  palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined
  for future arising.

It is obvious believing in post-mortem "rebirth" is not essential to Buddhism because many fully enlightened beings came into existence after the Buddha spoke his first three sermons and none of those three sermons mentioned "rebirth". Each of those sermons only mentioned the eradication of craving & self-view. 
The Pali scriptures explicitly state that the dhamma of the Buddha is visible here-&-now & is to be verified by each wise person thus "rebirth" cannot fall into the dhamma of the Buddha.
The common analogy about the light emitting from a candle is not logical, which is why the Buddha never taught such an analogy. In Buddhism, only a later-day monk famed for teaching Greeks is known for such an analogy. This is because the light of the candle depends on the wick & wax. The light (flame) of a candle cannot move to a second candle if the first candle is devoid of wick & wax. Further, the first candle cannot even be lit without fuel from other source. This is why the Buddha taught consciousness cannot arise without a physical body & without sense organs & admonished a monk for teaching consciousness is reborn (refer to Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta & Upaya Sutta). 
Buddhism originally criticized other religions that believed in unverifiable things  (refer to Canki Sutta, Tevijja Sutta, Tittha Sutta, Bhūmija Sutta, etc) but later-day Buddhism over the years must have started to teach & write scriptures about unverifiable things. 
The Pali scriptures themselves explain any belief about any kind of "rebirth" is not a factor of the noble eightfold path but is, instead, a polluted right view that sides with only morality (refer to Maha-cattarisaka Sutta). 

user2282: From Ven. Bodhi's excellent short essay "Dhamma Without Rebirth?":

The aim of the Buddhist path is liberation from suffering, and the Buddha makes it abundantly clear that the suffering from which liberation is needed is the suffering of bondage to samsara, the round of repeated birth and death. To be sure, the Dhamma does have an aspect which is directly visible and personally verifiable. By direct inspection of our own experience we can see that sorrow, tension, fear and grief always arise from our greed, aversion and ignorance, and thus can be eliminated with the removal of those defilements. The importance of this directly visible side of Dhamma practice cannot be underestimated, as it serves to confirm our confidence in the liberating efficacy of the Buddhist path. However, to downplay the doctrine of rebirth and explain the entire import of the Dhamma as the amelioration of mental suffering through enhanced self-awareness is to deprive the Dhamma of those wider perspectives from which it derives its full breadth and profundity. By doing so one seriously risks reducing it in the end to little more than a sophisticated ancient system of humanistic psychotherapy.


9982: <p>Elements of Buddhism can be rationally accepted such as the suffering that arises through attachment, the benefits of meditation, and even the acceptance of anatta, or non-self. It seems, however, that a belief in rebirth cannot be accepted <em>rationally</em>. A believer must suspend rationality to accept a theory that describes the migration of some level of consciousness across a lifetime. A common analogy used is the light emitting from a candle. Nothing <em>substantial</em> transmigrates, however something passes over from one life to the next. This theory cannot be directly perceived. Therefore, it cannot be tested, or verified rationally. It is simply a metaphysical inference. </p>

<p>Buddhism encourages debate and questioning of its theories, and to not accept everything on face value. How then can a Buddhist test this theory? Can one disregard this element of Buddhism? Is it an <em>essential</em> aspect of the philosophy?</p>
 8044: <p>Rebirth is regarded by the Supreme Buddha as essential and foundational to the pursuit of His teachings. This is very evident and is clearly illustrated in the Dependent Origination (Paticca samuppāda) that the being is born in the Becoming (bhava) caused by the grasping or attachment (upādāna) as stated "Upādāna paccaya bhavō, bhava paccaya jati...," But many people have mistaken the Becoming given here to soul or ego (ātma). This clearly shows that 'Rebirth' is integral to the Dependent Origination taught by the Supreme Buddha and is one of the twelve reasons that all of us are unable to comprehend. What are these twelve reasons?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Dependent on ignorance or lack of knowledge arises volitional actions or thoughts or kamma formations: Dependent on volitional actions or thoughts arises consciousness; where the consciousness is created, there exist mind and matter or mental physical phenomena and caused by them, arise spheres of senses (salāyatana) or faculties. Those faculties cause to contact and then get to sensation or feeling. Through feeling arise, desire thirst or craving (tanhā) Through craving arises grasping or clinging which leads to the process of Becoming where the concept of being exists. This existence of the concept of being is subjected to the concept of birth decay, illness and death etc.</p>
</blockquote>
 -1: <p>One option is to neither believe nor disbelieve the actions of rebirth.</p>

<p>The very definition of belief is rooted firmly in the absence of fact. The same is true for a non-believer. Somewhere between the two lies a spacious void where one can remain open-minded about the notion of rebirth.</p>

<p>Personally, I shelved it precisely in this way. Two years later insight had occurred and not from books or other people. But still, I'm not able to prove it so it's neither here nor there. You'll have to find out for yourself. Wondering about it in this way may become huge hindrance to your practice. There's nothing wrong with entertaining your curiosity though if you keep the seriousness out of it. </p>
 10376: <p>Yes, it is. Without it the central concept of kamma would automatically and directly be baseless and meaningless. I would like to offer a down to earth explanation by means of an example from real life. If I am completely wrong, I will appreciate any downvotes and criticism.</p>

<p>If you go to a party, let's say, for clarity's sake, with a lot of your relatives. Let's say it's a wedding party, so conduct is at least somewhat expected. You might get drunk, let loose, and forgo self criticism. You might put up a show, make stupid jokes, hit on ladies that should not be hit on. If you are lucky, some other folks might do similar things while drunk, but especially if you were the only one to misbehave, then, when you wake up in the morning, and it all starts to come back, then it's that feeling that indicates that you have re-emerged (re-born) at a lower plane as a direct result the uncontrolled stupidity you commited during the night before — everyone saw and knew what you did would cause you suffering, but they didn't tell you because you wouldn't have listened, or they did and you didn't listen, so they waited until this very moment that you wake up alone here and now. I would say that is the phenomenon of telepathy. If now, you exit your bedroom and you still "don't remember", people will give you faces of a certain type which will ensure that you cannot ignore your "rebirth", most likely warm and friendly smiles (if they are good people).</p>

<p>And then you say to yourself: "damnit, karma..." (or, "damnit, kamma...", if you are a devout Pāli purist!). And you better go and apologise, and do something to compensate. As well as clean up the mess of your social suicide, after which you will have time to contemplate on the mess prior to the suicide which led you to it in the first place.</p>

<p>This example is easy to follow simply because it all happens very intensely and during a short period of time, and is made up of events of obvious meaning and ramifications, unlike long term deeds and fruits, the connections of which are harder to detect in everyday life — it's like in particle accelerators such as CERN, where everything that is normally slow (spread out in time and space), is made very intense (brought together in time and space), so as to "un-rare" certain normally rare events. You can generalize from the party and hangover example, just as scientists generalize from very intense high-speed collisions. So if for example a man for a long period in his life ignorantly/irresponsibly/uncompassionately, out of sheer sexual desire, sleeps with young easy to seduce drunk girls at parties, one day he will meet a child of one of such girls, who has had to grow up in a family where such a girl, now a mother, still has wounds or scars or emotional voids from such lifestyle, and the upbringing of that child will have been more difficult or lacking as a result. He/she will look you in the eye and something inside you tells you it was you who contributed to it, "in a previous life". Of course the girl/mother herself is at least as responsible obviously, and she might go through a similar rebirth once her child looks her in the eye after having met with such a man, and possibly having connected the ends at some point later in life.</p>

<p>If a person desn't believe in it — and I'm sure every person has experienced something like this first hand, unless perhaps he is Tarzan or Mowgly — then he obviously doesn't believe in reality, i.e. he is ignorant of it. And the Tathagata always teaches us about the reality.</p>
 295: <h1>Rebirth</h1>

<p>Rebirth and death is momentarily. Each instance the material composition of your body changes, arising and passing away. Physical death is not different. See <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/18100/295">this answer</a>, <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/14954/295">this answer</a> and <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/3424/295">this answer</a>.</p>

<h1>How then can a Buddhist test this theory?</h1>

<p>By doing Samatha meditation some people can develop memory of past lives. This way you can ascertain it. Also buy validating what you remember. Also there are studies like: Many Mansions: The Edgar Cayce Story on Reincarnation</p>

<h1>Can one disregard this element of Buddhism? Is it an essential aspect of the philosophy?</h1>

<p>This is an essential part. Each subatomic particle (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalapas" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kalapas</a>) arise and pass away. Main practice of Buddhism (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassan%C4%81" rel="nofollow noreferrer">vipassana</a>) is to understand this at the experiential level.</p>

<p>And finally use this knowledge and insight at the moment or physical death to release oneself from the cycle of birth and death.</p>
 -1: <p><em>"<strong>Elements of Buddhism can be rationally accepted such as the suffering that arises through attachment, the benefits of meditation, and even the acceptance of anatta, or non-self. It seems, however, that a belief in rebirth cannot be accepted rationally.</strong>"</em></p>

<p>Indeed, the Buddha described his Dhamma as "The Dhamma visible here &amp; now". However, if that visibility were immediately accessible, we wouldn't have doubts about it, and it would not be necessary a "path" to help us "see it". So, knowledge and skills are necessary to develop understanding, just like knowledge and skills are necessary in sciences to "see" phenomena (e.g. whether the claim of climate change affected by humans is true or not).</p>

<p>In the same way, knowledge and skills are necessary to see past lives according to the Buddha.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"When my concentrated mind was thus purified, bright, unblemished, rid of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, I directed it to knowledge of the recollection of past abodes. I recollected my manifold past abodes, that is, one birth, two births ... 'There I was so named, of such a clan, with such an appearance' ..."</p>
  
  <p>-- <a href="https://suttacentral.net/en/mn36" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 36</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p><em>"<strong>A believer must suspend rationality to accept a theory that describes the migration of some level of consciousness across a lifetime.</em>"</strong></p>

<p>One does not need to accept (believe) or reject a theory that one is unable to verify at the moment. One can simply be aware of the competing theories and strive to see which one, if any of them, is true. </p>

<p>In science something similar happens where researchers point out flaws or remaining questions that need to be answer (i.e. that need more research) before accepting a theory.</p>

<p>I find this similar to the way the Buddha taught as well (e.g. refer to the discourse of <a href="https://suttacentral.net/en/dn1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN 1</a>). Thus, generally speaking, it's better to try out methods to see the truth than to hold or cling to any view prematurely. Or, more than that:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Who is attached still enters into doctrinal debates,
  but one unattached, how could he take sides?
  For him nothing is taken up or put down,
  With all views shaken off, relying on none.</p>
  
  <p>-- <a href="https://suttacentral.net/en/snp4.3" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Snp 4.3</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Finally, the idea of "what transmigrates" is an old and on going debate, as the Buddha explicitly denied that any substance transmigrates, which would make that very substance something that endures -- that is, a Self (see this question: <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/10122/then-where-did-the-concept-of-rebirth-come-from">Then where did the concept of “rebirth” come from?</a>).</p>

<p><em>"<strong>A common analogy used is the light emitting from a candle. Nothing substantial transmigrates, however something passes over from one life to the next. This theory cannot be directly perceived.  Therefore, it cannot be tested, or verified rationally. It is simply a metaphysical inference.</em>"</strong></p>

<p>As explained above, the buddhist doctrine asserts this knowledge can be directly perceived without resorting to fragile or indirect means (like beliefs). So, in the context of buddhism, recalling past lives is as metaphysical and irrational as the idea of remembering what one did a few moments ago.</p>

<p><em>"<strong>Buddhism encourages debate and questioning of its theories, and to not accept everything on face value. How then can a Buddhist test this theory</em>"</strong></p>

<p>I'm not able to recall my past lives, so my knowledge is not rooted in practice, only in reading. The progression of meditative attainments the texts shows seem to indicate that one who has mastered the fourth jhana (samadhi practice) possess enough skills in concentration to direct his/her mind to memories of past lives. I've heard that one practice is to gradually recall childhood, infancy, even memories in the womb, and then, to the past life, and so on.</p>

<p><em>"<strong>Can one disregard this element of Buddhism? Is it an essential aspect of the philosophy?</strong>"</em></p>

<p>This question has been asked here: <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/7098/382">Is rebirth/reincarnation central to Buddhism?</a>. </p>

<p>There is, though, a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Buddhism" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Secular Buddhism</a> movement in the west which seem to, literaly, strip out a lot of things from Buddhism, including rebirth. Also, some buddhists who may not subscribe to this movement may also believe rebirth (as in dying and reappearing in another life) is not true or not part of what the Buddha taught.</p>
 -1: <p><strong>KARMA IS ESSENTIAL TO BUDDHISM.</strong> Buddha said that if one doesn't believe in karma then it's wrong view. There are many proof for karma. You just need to look back into your life and remember all the bad things that you did and the similar bad experiences that you suffer.</p>
 8157: <p>If <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 12.2</a> together with SN 23.2, SN 5.10 &amp; SN 22.81 are studied carefully, it appears what the Buddha actually taught about was "birth" ("jati") rather than "rebirth", which is not physical birth from the womb of a woman but instead the birth of the idea, view or mental concept of "beings" ("satta') or, more simply, "self". </p>

<p>Thus, the goal of Buddhism is to eradicate the birth of the "self" idea, i.e., eradicate attachment,i.e, realise not-self (anatta). The Alagaddupama Sutta states:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>There is the case where a monk's conceit 'I am' is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions
  of development, not destined for future arising.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>There is the case where a monk's wandering-on to birth, leading on to further-becoming, is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a
  palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined
  for future arising.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>It is obvious believing in post-mortem "rebirth" is not essential to Buddhism because many fully enlightened beings came into existence after the Buddha spoke his <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel017.html#s1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">first three sermons</a> and none of those three sermons mentioned "rebirth". Each of those sermons only mentioned the eradication of craving &amp; self-view. </p>

<p>The Pali scriptures explicitly state that the dhamma of the Buddha is <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.047.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">visible here-&amp;-now &amp; is to be verified by each wise person</a> thus "rebirth" cannot fall into the dhamma of the Buddha.</p>

<p>The common analogy about the light emitting from a candle is not logical, which is why the Buddha never taught such an analogy. In Buddhism, only a later-day monk famed for teaching Greeks is known for such an analogy. This is because the light of the candle depends on the wick &amp; wax. The light (flame) of a candle cannot move to a second candle if the first candle is devoid of wick &amp; wax. Further, the first candle cannot even be lit without fuel from other source. This is why the Buddha taught consciousness cannot arise without a physical body &amp; without sense organs &amp; admonished a monk for teaching consciousness is reborn (refer to <em>Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta</em> &amp; <em>Upaya Sutta</em>). </p>

<p>Buddhism originally criticized other religions that believed in unverifiable things  (refer to Canki Sutta, Tevijja Sutta, Tittha Sutta, Bhūmija Sutta, etc) but later-day Buddhism over the years must have started to teach &amp; write scriptures about unverifiable things. </p>

<p>The Pali scriptures themselves explain any belief about any kind of "rebirth" is not a factor of the noble eightfold path but is, instead, a polluted right view that sides with only morality (refer to Maha-cattarisaka Sutta). </p>
 2282: <p>From Ven. Bodhi's excellent short essay <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_06.html" rel="noreferrer">"Dhamma Without Rebirth?"</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The aim of the Buddhist path is liberation from suffering, and the Buddha makes it abundantly clear that the suffering from which liberation is needed is the suffering of bondage to samsara, the round of repeated birth and death. To be sure, the Dhamma does have an aspect which is directly visible and personally verifiable. By direct inspection of our own experience we can see that sorrow, tension, fear and grief always arise from our greed, aversion and ignorance, and thus can be eliminated with the removal of those defilements. The importance of this directly visible side of Dhamma practice cannot be underestimated, as it serves to confirm our confidence in the liberating efficacy of the Buddhist path. However, to downplay the doctrine of rebirth and explain the entire import of the Dhamma as the amelioration of mental suffering through enhanced self-awareness is to deprive the Dhamma of those wider perspectives from which it derives its full breadth and profundity. By doing so one seriously risks reducing it in the end to little more than a sophisticated ancient system of humanistic psychotherapy.</p>
</blockquote>
