Dear Piya,
> I am getting the impression that more and more serious Theravada
practitioners (such as Ajahn Chah's lineage) are accepting both the
immediate rebirth and intermediate state teachings, as they make
better sense.
Sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying. The immediate
rebirth view (nirantaraabhava-vaada) and the intermediate state view
(antaraabhava-vaada) are directly oposed to each other; how can these
"serious Theravada practitioners" accept *both* of them?
> I have for years thought about these doctrines, and am more inclined
to accept both, mainly because the Suttas do not speaks of immediate
rebirth. Only in later post-Buddha works, we find such an idea.
But how can you accept *both*? Are you claiming that they don't in
fact conflict with each other?
Best wishes,
Dhammanando