Hi Phil & Ben
Had a listen to the talk, thanks for pointing it out! but yeah the misunderstanding was what I thought (non-existing), but wasn't sure.
I have been reminded of conversations on a e-mail group I once belonged to by Ben where a certain argument was used every time.
basically the 1st noble truth was used as proof every time the topic of rebirth was mentioned and denied by moment to moment advocates, but I posted this as part of my reply on another thread in the last couple of days - The Four Noble Truths are noble not because they are metaphysical certainties but because they are reflective, that is Sumedho from his four noble truths book, and I think a perfect way to describe the rebirth models in the canon. for me macro bhava is the same, the reflections on the gods, metta to all beings, etc are reflective, they are part of the Noble path because of this reflective nature, not because all the beings reflected on definitely exist but because these beings can be logically asserted to exist, whether they do or not! although there are other posibilities for these beings to exist i.e., the gods are actually a group who practised the Brahmaviharas to the fullest extent, although I doubt that is actually the case boot as a tool for reflective purposes I have found it useful.
The Buddha is said to of disapeared when he became enlightened, physically I doubt that happened, but to use a phrase Thanissaro uses, his attachment to his 'personal narative' could be said to of disappeared, his previous cycle of becoming in Samsara, because he no longer saw things as constant, as his, so no stress could manifest that wasn't part of preforming day to day activities, in other words he realised the three characteristics, regarding the four noble truths.
i know my thoughts earlier and here are not exactly in keeping with the talk but I don't think they contradict, they could be said to be a different expression & I think if we focus on the micro level to understand becoming as a reality, and the macro level as a reflective tool to realise the cycle as it is, then we may be inkeeping with the Dhamma realised by the Buddha.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.