I've decided to create a second answer for this question, that's completely different to the first one. Please also see [this answer][1]. TL;DR ===== Denying rebirth view while clinging to self view is wrong view, because this is annihilationism. Denying rebirth view after discarding self view is right view. Rebirth view can be used as skillful means ([upaya][2]) to remove misconduct and generate the path to liberation. Rebirth view is the middle way. Long answer =========== Denying rebirth, while clinging to self-view, appears to be wrong view. This is unskillful means because it directs the mind of the unenlightened towards hedonism and nihilism. This is also the view of annihilationism. > 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][3] Holding on to the rebirth view, while clinging to the fetter of self view, is a right view with effluents/ taints. > "And what is the right view **with effluents**, siding with merit, > resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, > what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. > There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There > are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans > who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the > next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This > is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in > acquisitions. > [MN 117][3] Why is this the case? This is because siding with merit, one could use this as skillful means ([upaya][2]), a helpful tool to remove the habit of misconduct and generate the path to liberation. The Buddha is the doctor ([Iti 100][4]) who treats the illness which is suffering (*dukkha*). This is a medicine that he has prescribed. > “And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a > householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of > my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my > relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, > good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech, > and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, **such misconduct > is either completely abandoned or diminished**. It is for the sake of > this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth, > should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my > kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my > resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’ > > “This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the > owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s > origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be > the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings > that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of > their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin, > kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of > whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ **As he often reflects on > this theme, the path is generated.** He pursues this path, develops it, > and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned > and the underlying tendencies are uprooted. > [AN 5.57][5] Once self-view is discarded, rebirth view will also be discarded. This is the noble Right View. > "And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents, > transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of > discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a > factor for awakening, the path factor of right view in one developing > the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents, > who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that > is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path. > [MN 117][3] How do we know that rebirth view will be discarded? This is the higher teaching for those who have understood anatta, as taught in [MN 38][6] and [SN 22.85][7]. > “Yes, friend,” he replied, and he went to the Blessed One, and after > paying homage to him, sat down at one side. The Blessed One then asked > him: “Sāti, is it true that the following pernicious view has arisen > in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is > this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of > rebirths, not another’?” > > “Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the > Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders > through the round of rebirths, not another.” > > “What is that consciousness, Sāti?” > > “Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here > and there the result of good and bad actions.” > > “Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in > that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness > to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no > origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have > misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored > up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a > long time.” > [MN 38][6] > “But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and > actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘As I > understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose > taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of > the body and does not exist after death’?” > > “Formerly, friend Sāriputta, when I was ignorant, I did hold that > pernicious view, but now that I have heard this Dhamma teaching of the > Venerable Sāriputta I have abandoned that pernicious view and have > made the breakthrough to the Dhamma.” > > “If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a > bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to > him with the breakup of the body, after death?’—being asked thus, what > would you answer?” > > “If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends, > form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is > suffering has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception … > Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is > impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed > away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.” > [SN 22.85][7] I think this is excellent because it finally tells us what rebirth really is in Buddhism. It's not falsehood. It's not truth. It's just skillful means ([upaya][2]), a helpful tool. A middle way between falsehood and truth. [1]: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/34206/471 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya [3]: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html [4]: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.4.100-112.than.html#iti-100 [5]: https://suttacentral.net/an5.57/en/bodhi [6]: https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/bodhi [7]: https://suttacentral.net/sn22.85/en/bodhi