user17389: I have been digging really deep into the philosophy of Buddha. What I have come to know is that Buddha has never talked about remembering past lives in any original text. If he has then please let me know.
Now, what he may have said is the idea of Dependent Origination, that surely many past actions/events were the cause of his birth.
The other thing what I have found is that rebirth in Buddhism is not reincarnation. Keep this in mind. It is the rebirth of consciousness in this life. We go through different perception of the self as long as we cling to desires. Also, sexual desires work vaguely here to change the perception of "I".
However, my question is Buddha has never talked about past life as in life about past bodies before physical birth, if he has then please let me know. (Also, I have found that Jataka tales is fabricated because it is post Canon.) 
All the stories of remembrance of past life is fabricated as well, in my point of view, there is also a story where Buddha remembers past life after enlightenment, but it's wrong. He was just pointing out Dependent Origination. 
Please let me clarify on this topic. Thank you. 

user12753: In the discourses, is always clear when the Buddha is using similes and when he is not. Thus, I don't see any reason to believe that he was refering to rebirth, other realms and the inhabitants these realms as similes.
I can remember a few suttas which elucidate rebirth as a literal death followed by a literal birth.

So Ven. Sāriputta—when there was still more to be done, having
established Dhanañjānin the brahman in the inferior Brahmā world — got
up from his seat and left. Then, not long after Ven. Sāriputta’s
departure,  Dhanañjānin the brahman died and reappeared in the Brahmā
world. MN 97

.

Then Ven. Sāriputta and Ven. Ānanda, having given this instruction to
Anāthapiṇḍika the householder, got up from their seats and left. Then,
not long after they left, Anāthapiṇḍika the householder died and
reappeared in the Tusita heaven. Then Anāthapiṇḍika the deva’s son, in
the far extreme of the night, his extreme radiance lighting up the
entirety of Jeta’s Grove, went to the Blessed One
[...]
Then when the night had past, The Blessed One addressed the monks: “Last night,
monks, a certain deva’s son in the far extreme of the night, his
extreme radiance lighting up the entirety of Jeta’s Grove, came to me
[...]
When this was said, Ven. Ānanda said to the Blessed One, “Lord,
that must have been Anāthapiṇḍika the deva’s son [...]”.  “Very
good, Ānanda. Very good, to the extent that you have deduced what can
be arrived at through logic. That was Anāthapiṇḍika the deva’s son,
and no one else.” MN 143

It's not easy to find a being which has not been a relative of yours

Near Sāvatthī. There the Blessed One said: “From an inconceivable
beginning comes the wandering-on. A beginning point is not
discernible, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by
craving are transmigrating & wandering on. A being who has not been
your mother at one time in the past is not easy to find.… A being who
has not been your father.… your brother.… your sister.… your son.…
your daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find. SN 15:14–19

Buddha revelead one of his past lives as a chariot maker

“[...] Now, monks, the thought may occur to you that the chariot maker
on that occasion was someone else, but it shouldn’t be seen in that
way. I myself was the chariot maker on that occasion.  AN 3:15

And what is wrong view?

And what is wrong 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 contemplatives or brahmans who,
faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next
after having directly known & realized it for themselves.’ This is
wrong view. MN 117


user254: There's MN 36 for example which is translated like this:

When my mind had immersed in samādhi like this—purified, bright, flawless, rid of corruptions, pliable, workable, steady, and imperturbable—I extended it toward recollection of past lives.
So evaṃ samāhite citte parisuddhe pariyodāte anaṅgaṇe vigatūpakkilese mudubhūte kammaniye ṭhite āneñjappatte pubbenivāsānussatiñāṇāya cittaṃ abhininnāmesiṃ.
I recollected my many kinds of past lives, with features and details.
So anekavihitaṃ pubbenivāsaṃ anussarāmi, seyyathidaṃ—ekampi jātiṃ … pe … iti sākāraṃ sauddesaṃ anekavihitaṃ pubbenivāsaṃ anussarāmi.

There are people who dispute or debate the meaning of pubbenivāsānussati.
Some people say it might refer to times or states within this lifetime when we identified as a self -- and maybe say that a better translation might be past "abodes" not past "lives".
I posted this question here a while back -- Is rebirth a delusional belief?
There are people, including on this site (and even quoting some modern-day monks), who agree with and promote the idea that "past lives" doesn't mean that (and that people who say otherwise are wrong).
More generally that might be one of the tenets of secular buddhism.
I think that's unorthodox though and that a majority of monks would say that, absolutely, the suttas and other texts are full of references to past lives -- and that people who say otherwise are sort of not accepting what the texts say.
I hope that, perhaps, being "agnostic" about the subject (of how to translate or understand that topic) is a way to avoid misunderstanding and misleading people. The whole topic seems to me to be potentially a form of identity view, which we are warned against, part of the "thicket of views" -- also attachment to a specific view etc.
Here was an answer that was willing to "understand figuratively not physically" -- the question was, How do we know that the suttas talk about past lives?
And here another answer that you might find helpful -- the question was, What's the value or harm of a literal belief in rebirth?

user2282: 
However, my question is Buddha has never talked about past life as in life about past bodies before physical birth, if he has then please let me know. (Also, I have found that Jataka tales is fabricated because it is post Canon.)

The Buddha did talk quite explicitly about physical rebirths before and after the physical death of the body. And it's mentioned not only in the Jataka, but in all the Nikayas. So, it'd be a mistake to interpret rebirth as only exclusively the momentary rebirth of consciousness in the same life.

17389: <p>I have been digging really deep into the philosophy of Buddha. What I have come to know is that Buddha has never talked about remembering past lives in any original text. If he has then please let me know.</p>

<p>Now, what he may have said is the idea of Dependent Origination, that surely many past actions/events were the cause of his birth.</p>

<p>The other thing what I have found is that rebirth in Buddhism is not reincarnation. Keep this in mind. It is the rebirth of consciousness in this life. We go through different perception of the self as long as we cling to desires. Also, sexual desires work vaguely here to change the perception of "I".</p>

<p>However, my question is Buddha has never talked about past life as in life about past bodies before physical birth, if he has then please let me know. (Also, I have found that Jataka tales is fabricated because it is post Canon.) </p>

<p>All the stories of remembrance of past life is fabricated as well, in my point of view, there is also a story where Buddha remembers past life after enlightenment, but it's wrong. He was just pointing out Dependent Origination. </p>

<p>Please let me clarify on this topic. Thank you. </p>
 12753: <p>In the discourses, is always clear when the Buddha is using similes and when he is not. Thus, I don't see any reason to believe that he was refering to rebirth, other realms and the inhabitants these realms as similes.</p>
<p>I can remember a few suttas which elucidate rebirth as a literal death followed by a literal birth.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>So Ven. Sāriputta—when there was still more to be done, having
established Dhanañjānin the brahman in the inferior Brahmā world — got
up from his seat and left. Then, not long after Ven. Sāriputta’s
departure,  Dhanañjānin the brahman <strong>died and reappeared</strong> in the Brahmā
world. <a href="https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN97.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 97</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Then Ven. Sāriputta and Ven. Ānanda, having given this instruction to
Anāthapiṇḍika the householder, got up from their seats and left. Then,
not long after they left, Anāthapiṇḍika the householder <strong>died and
reappeared</strong> in the Tusita heaven. Then Anāthapiṇḍika the deva’s son, in
the far extreme of the night, his extreme radiance lighting up the
entirety of Jeta’s Grove, went to the Blessed One</p>
<p>[...]</p>
<p>Then when the night had past, The Blessed One addressed the monks: “Last night,
monks, a certain deva’s son in the far extreme of the night, his
extreme radiance lighting up the entirety of Jeta’s Grove, came to me</p>
<p>[...]</p>
<p>When this was said, Ven. Ānanda said to the Blessed One, “Lord,
that must have been Anāthapiṇḍika the deva’s son [...]”.  “Very
good, Ānanda. Very good, to the extent that you have deduced what can
be arrived at through logic. That was Anāthapiṇḍika the deva’s son,
and no one else.” <a href="https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN143.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 143</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>It's not easy to find a being which has not been a relative of yours</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Near Sāvatthī. There the Blessed One said: “From an inconceivable
beginning comes the wandering-on. A beginning point is not
discernible, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by
craving are transmigrating &amp; wandering on. A being who has not been
your mother at one time in the past is not easy to find.… A being who
has not been your father.… your brother.… your sister.… your son.…
your daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find. <a href="https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN15_14.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 15:14–19</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Buddha revelead one of his past lives as a chariot maker</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“[...] Now, monks, the thought may occur to you that the chariot maker
on that occasion was someone else, but it shouldn’t be seen in that
way. I myself was the chariot maker on that occasion.  <a href="https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN3_15.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 3:15</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>And what is wrong view?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>And what is wrong 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, <strong>no next world</strong>, no mother, no father,
no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who,
faring rightly &amp; practicing rightly, proclaim this world &amp; <strong>the next</strong>
after having directly known &amp; realized it for themselves.’ This is
wrong view. <a href="https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN117.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 117</a></p>
</blockquote>
 254: <p>There's <a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn36/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 36</a> for example which is translated like this:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>When my mind had immersed in samādhi like this—purified, bright, flawless, rid of corruptions, pliable, workable, steady, and imperturbable—I extended it toward recollection of past lives.<br>
  <em>So evaṃ samāhite citte parisuddhe pariyodāte anaṅgaṇe vigatūpakkilese mudubhūte kammaniye ṭhite āneñjappatte pubbenivāsānussatiñāṇāya cittaṃ abhininnāmesiṃ.</em></p>
  
  <p>I recollected my many kinds of past lives, with features and details.<br>
  <em>So anekavihitaṃ pubbenivāsaṃ anussarāmi, seyyathidaṃ—ekampi jātiṃ … pe … iti sākāraṃ sauddesaṃ anekavihitaṃ pubbenivāsaṃ anussarāmi.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>There are people who dispute or debate the meaning of <a href="https://suttacentral.net/define/pubbeniv%C4%81s%C4%81nussati" rel="nofollow noreferrer">pubbenivāsānussati</a>.</p>

<p>Some people say it might refer to times or states within this lifetime when we identified as a self -- and maybe say that a better translation might be past "abodes" not past "lives".</p>

<p>I posted this question here a while back -- <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/3420/254">Is rebirth a delusional belief?</a></p>

<p>There are people, including on this site (and even quoting some modern-day monks), who agree with and promote the idea that "past lives" doesn't mean that (and that people who say otherwise are wrong).</p>

<p>More generally that might be one of the tenets of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Buddhism" rel="nofollow noreferrer">secular buddhism</a>.</p>

<p>I think that's unorthodox though and that a majority of monks would say that, absolutely, the suttas and other texts are full of references to past lives -- and that people who say otherwise are sort of not accepting what the texts say.</p>

<p>I hope that, perhaps, being "agnostic" about the subject (of how to translate or understand that topic) is a way to avoid misunderstanding and misleading people. The whole topic seems to me to be potentially a form of identity view, which we are warned against, part of the "<a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ditthi/index.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">thicket of views</a>" -- also attachment to a specific view etc.</p>

<p><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/19376/254">Here was an answer</a> that was willing to "understand figuratively not physically" -- the question was, <em>How do we know that the suttas talk about past lives?</em></p>

<p>And <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/58/254">here another answer</a> that you might find helpful -- the question was, <em>What's the value or harm of a literal belief in rebirth?</em></p>
 2282: <blockquote>
  <p>However, my question is Buddha has never talked about past life as in life about past bodies before physical birth, if he has then please let me know. (Also, I have found that Jataka tales is fabricated because it is post Canon.)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Buddha did talk quite explicitly about physical rebirths before and after the physical death of the body. And it's mentioned not only in the Jataka, <a href="https://accesstoinsight.org/search_results.html?cx=006639875531220445029%3A2z3mhfokk-u&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;q=I+had+such+a+name%2C+belonged+to+such+a+clan&amp;sa=Search" rel="noreferrer">but in all the Nikayas</a>. So, it'd be a mistake to interpret rebirth as only exclusively the momentary rebirth of consciousness in the same life.</p>
